# My mom, divorced 3 times, thinks gay marriage will "ruin" marriage. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2011, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381 "2011-06-30T13:59:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/61 "2011-07-01T12:37:21Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Regardless of what BS people spout when obtaining a decree of nullity, essentially nobody but those with an immense capacity for self deception actually believes that nullities are anything more than a polite lie believed in order to permit the Catholic Church to allow divorce while not allowing it. > > The inconsistency therefore is the OP’s mother permitting herself to take advantage of techical legalistic polite lies in order to wiggle out of marriages (which could hardly do more to destroy what Catholics claim to be the sacrosanct nature of marriage) while suggesting that gay marriage will destroy the concept. I disagree completely. In your experience, what are the most commonly claimed grounds for annulment, and why do you contend they are polite fictions? Be specific, please. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/62 "2011-07-01T12:40:35Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Well, okay, and if she were making the claim that the Catholic Church shouldn’t allow gay marriage because it would destroy the Catholic understanding of marriage as a concept, your analysis would be plausible. But if she is making the claim that the state allowance of gay marriage will destroy marriage as a concept, then we shouldn’t have to be limited to analyzing her stance under a purely Catholic point of view. I don’t really know which way she is analyzing this, and I’d be surprised if she’s given it much thought, but it’s perfectly reasonable to assume she is talking about state recognition, since the big change that just happened was state recognition. Agreed. But **MsWhatsit** contrasted her mom’s view with her mom’s actions with respect to marriage and divorce under Catholic law, so it’s _also_ reasonable to assume the discussion was intended to focus on Catholic understanding of marriage as a concept. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/63 "2011-07-01T13:00:37Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > If the annulment of marriage 2 didn’t occur until after marriage 3, then marriage 3 can’t have been performed by the RCC, and as such, no annulment of marriage 3 is required since the marriage was not valid in the eyes of the RCC. > > At any rate, this does take the wind of **Bricker** ’s sails, your mother’s own third marriage was not pursuant to “God’s law,” as her church understands “God’s law,” the annulment of the previous two marriages notwithstanding. Slightly incorrect. A decree of nullity is a finding, a recognition, that no valid marriage ever existed in the first place – that the seemingly valid marriage was void _ab initio_. So it’s true that if marriage 3 was undertaken (outside the church) prior to the finding of annullment with respect to marriage 2, this would be a diriment impediment to marriage 3. But the subsequent annullment would show that the impediment never really existed – marriage 2 never happened. Marriage 3 (assuming Husband 3 was baptized) is then valid, although suffering from a defect of form, because it was celebrated outside the Church, and thus not licit. (If Husband 3 was not baptized at all, then another set of rules applies – detaisl on request.) A convalidation, a ceremony in which the valid but illict marriage is recognized, can cure the defect. Interestingly enough, the existance of a convalidated marriage removes many possible grounds for later annulment. In fact, I have never heard of a convalidated marriage being later successfully anulled. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/64 "2011-07-01T13:15:51Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > …nobody but those with an immense capacity for self deception actually believes that nullities are anything more than a polite lie believed in order to permit the Catholic Church to allow divorce while not allowing it. > [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree completely. Really? You think **MsW** ’sM’s marriages have all just _happened_ to come up defective under Church doctrine, and this had nothing to do with the convenience and preferences of **MsW** ’sM herself? That the nullities were _not_ decreed because the people involved _wanted a divorce?_ :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/65 "2011-07-01T14:16:59Z")
I’m not sure exactly what grounds Mom is trying to base Annulment 3 on, but I know she had my aunt write a statement to the effect that my stepdad lied about wanting to convert to Catholicism (he was Baptist but converted during their marriage) which IMO is BS. He was always totally on board with conversion, went to all the classes dutifully, went to church regularly most of the time they were married, etc. I think they’re really grasping at straws. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/66 "2011-07-01T14:25:09Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I’m not sure exactly what grounds Mom is trying to base Annulment 3 on, but I know she had my aunt write a statement to the effect that my stepdad lied about wanting to convert to Catholicism (he was Baptist but converted during their marriage) which IMO is BS. He was always totally on board with conversion, went to all the classes dutifully, went to church regularly most of the time they were married, etc. I think they’re really grasping at straws. So your aunt is lying in an affidavit to the CHURCH in order for your mother to have her marriage annulled and GAY PEOPLE will ruin civil marriage? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/67 "2011-07-01T14:25:39Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Really? You think **MsW** ’sM’s marriages have all just _happened_ to come up defective under Church doctrine, and this had nothing to do with the convenience and preferences of **MsW** ’sM herself? That the nullities were _not_ decreed because the people involved _wanted a divorce?_ > > :dubious: Obviously, nullity is only decreed if one of the spouse seeks it, and they only seek it - typically - if they want a divorce. In that sense, it was only decreed because they wanted a divorce. (In fact, they have to actually _get_ a divorce before an annulment can be granted.) But that only means that wanting a divorces is a necessary condition for a decree of nullity, not that it’s a sufficient condition. You do, in fact, have to establish grounds for annulment, and “I want a divorce” is not enough on its own. In another thread, somebody quotes the figure of 78% of applications being granted, which suggests that 18% of Catholics who have divorced, or intend to, and apply for an annulment don’t get it. And presumably there is another cohort who want an annulment but are advised that they have no grounds, and so spare themselves the trouble and expense of an application. I’ve no idea how big that cohort might be. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/68 "2011-07-01T14:29:47Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > So your aunt is lying in an affidavit to the CHURCH in order for your mother to have her marriage annulled and GAY PEOPLE will ruin civil marriage? Your assessment of the situation matches my own. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/69 "2011-07-01T14:33:31Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I wonder if **MsWhatsit** ’s mother ever confessed and was absolved of her many, many sins of fornication outside legitimate marriage. > > Or does that come standard with the annulments? There was no sin of fornication. Every time they did the nasty, presumably they thought they were in a valid marriage. Doing it after they became aware of the impediment(s) would be a sin but they probably weren’t in the mood. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/70 "2011-07-01T14:33:56Z")
Damn! Missed the edit. Let me clarify . . . > [@UDS](#): > > . . . In another thread, somebody quotes the figure of 78% of applications being granted, which suggests that 18% of Catholics who have divorced, or intend to, and apply for an annulment don’t get it. I mean “18%” in the sense of 22%, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/71 "2011-07-01T14:38:18Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Really? You think **MsW** ’sM’s marriages have all just _happened_ to come up defective under Church doctrine, and this had nothing to do with the convenience and preferences of **MsW** ’sM herself? That the nullities were _not_ decreed because the people involved _wanted a divorce?_ > > :dubious: That’s not remotely what I said, nor is it a required conclusion if one disagrees completely with **Princhester** ’s statement. Someone whose marriage was not valid, but has no interest in ending it, never seeks to challenge the marriage’s validity. So the two cases are not mutually exclusive: the mere fact that getting a decree of nullity meets your “convenience and preferences” is not evidence that the decree itself or the grounds thereof are a fiction, polite or otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/72 "2011-07-01T14:44:50Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I’m not sure exactly what grounds Mom is trying to base Annulment 3 on, but I know she had my aunt write a statement to the effect that my stepdad lied about wanting to convert to Catholicism (he was Baptist but converted during their marriage) which IMO is BS. He was always totally on board with conversion, went to all the classes dutifully, went to church regularly most of the time they were married, etc. I think they’re really grasping at straws. Once he convert, did they convalidate the union? I will say, with no disrespect intended to your mom, that if she’s literally and knowingly seeking out someone who will lie for her in order to get a decree of nullity, the problem is not with the Church, but her. A sacramental marriage exists, or not, under God’s law. Of course the Church can be fooled by false testimony into issuing a decree of nullity for a marriage that was in fact sacramentally valid. An innocent victim of this mistake commits no sin by believing s/he has a decree of nullity and remarrying. A person who procures the decree by fraud in order to remarry has no such excuse. S/he KNOWS there was no annullment. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/73 "2011-07-01T14:49:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I will say, with no disrespect intended to your mom, that if she’s literally and knowingly seeking out someone who will lie for her in order to get a decree of nullity, the problem is not with the Church, but her. . . Which is where we came in. In the very first post in this thread **MsWhatsit** accuses her mother, not the Catholic church or Catholics in general, of hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/74 "2011-07-01T15:00:42Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > There was no sin of fornication. Every time they did the nasty, presumably they thought they were in a valid marriage. I was joking a bit there, and maybe you are too, but in seriousness, does Catholic doctrine really hold that _thinking_ you’re in a marriage means no taint of sin can attach? Does similar logic work on other points? Is homosexuality no sin–requiring no confession, no penance, so on–if one is not aware _at the time_ that Lola is a man? > [@UDS](#): > > Obviously, nullity is only decreed if one of the spouse seeks it, and they only seek it - typically - if they want a divorce. In that sense, it was only decreed because they wanted a divorce. (In fact, they have to actually _get_ a divorce before an annulment can be granted.) > > But that only means that wanting a divorces is a necessary condition for a decree of nullity, not that it’s a sufficient condition… Yes, yes. But the point there is whether the functional, not doctrinal, _purpose_ of nullities is “to permit the Catholic Church to allow [some] divorce while not allowing it.” Given that, as you say, the people involved have to seek it out–the Church isn’t running marriage qualification inspectors to make sure _any_ old marriage doesn’t have these same problem conditions– **Princhester** ’s conclusion seems so obvious and unavoidable that it’s almost unnecessary to say it. Or so I would have thought. > [@Bricker](#): > > …the mere fact that getting a decree of nullity meets your “convenience and preferences” is not evidence that the decree itself or the grounds thereof are a fiction, polite or otherwise. But if the nullities, and the bases for same, were important _in themselves_, and not exclusively for the function of allowing (some) divorces of convenience, then why _aren’t_ marriages ever examined for these faults except when the couple requests it? ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/75 "2011-07-01T15:04:03Z")
Yes, let me clarify my position here. While I am in fact an ex-Catholic, I am not the type of ex-Catholic that is bitter and angry and thinks the Church is evil. I do think the church rules on annulments are stupid, and I think their official position on gay marriage (is it even an official position?) sucks, but apart from that, hey, you want to be Catholic, go for it. My problem specifically is with my mom, who professes loudly and at length that she is so devoted to her religion and considers it the most important thing in her life, but then does sneaky end runs around the rules whenever it suits her purposes, and yet is using the Church as her defense for being homophobic. The one thing I will say about my mom is that she is very, very good at convincing herself of things. I’m quite sure that she’s bent things in her own mind so that my stepdad _really didn’t_ want to convert to Catholicism or whatever. And if it turned out that those grounds for annulment weren’t going to work, I’m sure she could convince herself that he really didn’t want to have kids - or really didn’t [insert valid reason for annulment here]. It’s just as well I’m not a practicing Catholic anymore, because that saves me from having to tell her no when she wants ME to write up some of these falsified statements for the Church. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/76 "2011-07-01T15:17:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the whole point of a decree of nullity is a judicial finding that the sacramental marriage never happened When did the RCC gain \*judicial \*powers? :dubious: They can make whatever rules they like for their own ceremonies, but why should anyone else give a rip? > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I tend to agree with their friends. From the point of view of the State the main purpose of marriage is to provide a nurturing environment for the production of future citizens and taxpayers. Remarkably enough, that view of the “main purpose” of marriage simply never emerged in any historical record until extending it to gays came into serious discussion. Unfortunately, the fact that marriage is not and has never been limited only to opposite-sex couples in their fertile years sort of undermines even that claim, no matter that it’s the only rationalization the anti’s have come up with that has even superficial plausibility. > [@](#): > > As to that whole love, honor and cherish thing, you don’t actually need the government permission to do that. True. But for the whole inheritance, child support, medical proxy decision making thing, yes, you do. ISTM when the history of this latest chapter of the advance of civil rights is written, one of the key events that tipped the minds of the American public will be declared to have been that Britney Spears drunken Vegas hookup. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/77 "2011-07-01T15:21:46Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Which is where we came in. In the very first post in this thread **MsWhatsit** accuses her mother, not the Catholic church or Catholics in general, of hypocrisy. True dat. Of course, the tidbit about her mom actively suborning false testimony in support of her quest for a decree of nullity was not mentioned in the OP, and knowing it considerably changes my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/78 "2011-07-01T15:32:42Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I was joking a bit there, and maybe you are too, but in seriousness, does Catholic doctrine really hold that _thinking_ you’re in a marriage means no taint of sin can attach? Does similar logic work on other points? Is homosexuality no sin–requiring no confession, no penance, so on–if one is not aware _at the time_ that Lola is a man? As a general proposition, yes – sin requires advertance of the will and a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act. Your specific example is tough to work into this framework, though, unless your name is Bernard Boursicot. > [@](#): > > Yes, yes. But the point there is whether the functional, not doctrinal, _purpose_ of nullities is “to permit the Catholic Church to allow [some] divorce while not allowing it.” Given that, as you say, the people involved have to seek it out–the Church isn’t running marriage qualification inspectors to make sure _any_ old marriage doesn’t have these same problem conditions– **Princhester** ’s conclusion seems so obvious and unavoidable that it’s almost unnecessary to say it. Or so I would have thought. No. It may be that the RESULT is to allow quasi-divorce, but that’s not it’s purpose. The purpose is to implement the conditions for marriage as described scripturally. > [@](#): > > But if the nullities, and the bases for same, were important _in themselves_, and not exclusively for the function of allowing (some) divorces of convenience, then why _aren’t_ marriages ever examined for these faults except when the couple requests it? Because it’s impractical and intrusive, and because a couple may ratify a defect by continuing the marriage after the defect becomes known. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/79 "2011-07-01T15:42:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. It may be that the RESULT is to allow quasi-divorce, but that’s not it’s purpose. The purpose is to implement the conditions for marriage as described scripturally. Anecdotal evidence for the proposition that it’s not merely to “allow divorce:” > [@General Questions (and Answers) About Catholic Marriage and Annulment](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/general-questions-and-answers-about-catholic-marriage-and-annulment/587458/25): > > My first husband applied to annul our marriage and was denied. We had been together 17 years and married for 10 of those years, and then he met his “soulmate”. We divorced, and he wanted to marry his soulmate in the Church. He did not have valid grounds for the annulment, so he just said “for whatever grounds the Church may determine”. It was a very stressful and painful process for me to go through, and the Church denied his request because there were no grounds. He did appeal the denial, so I had to go through it all over again. And his appeal was also denied. In the copy of the letter the Church sent to him, it said the appeal decision was final, unless he could come up with additional evidence not already shown to support a claim for annulment. So, according to the Church, we are still married fifteen years later. > > PS: His soulmate dumped him a year after our divorce 😃 ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381/80 "2011-07-01T17:00:56Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > **JoelUpchurch** , should heterosexual couples past their child-rearing years be allowed to _remain_ married? There’s no more state interest if the kids are all grown and moved away, is there? That is an interesting question. From a point of view of the immediate incentives you are correct. If allowing people to continue to receive marital privileges when they no longer have dependent children would be a useful incentive isn’t obvious to me. It is kind of like salary versus pension incentives. Some European actually go the direct subsidy route to encourage families with baby bounties and free child care. OTOH, I think if there are no longer any minor children, there should a simplified procedure for dissolving a marriage. I was reading that in Japan that if two people want a divorce and there is no issue with child support or property, that all you you have to do is fill out a form and file it at the prefecture office. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-mom-divorced-3-times-thinks-gay-marriage-will-ruin-marriage/587381.md?page=5)