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?
Moved MPSIMS --> GD.
Nor can tax benefits (and penalties - the tax thing and marriage is a double edged sword) or immigration rights. Also, no contract would have allowed my husband and I to adopt our son - for which marriage was required.
To get all the rights of marriage, my husband had to pay $45 for a license and have someone with authority in the State of Minnesota sign it (ours was signed by a judge - who we paid - but we could have had a friend who is a minister sign it - she’d have signed it for nothing).
To contractually get SOME of the rights of marriage, we’d have to have an attorney fill out several contracts - power of attorney, living wills, wills. We’d have to contractually enter into an agreement about what would happen should we split up (optionally, we can do that with a pre-nup with marriage - but if you want to have any rights merely cohabitating in the event you stop, you’d better spell them out). Given the complexities of our lives - thats a few thousand dollars in legal fees to get what $45 at the court house bought us.
Leave out the rants about the RCC. If you want to do that, take it to the pit.
[Mod hat off]
Besides, some people who are affected by the doctrine of a particular denomination or faith do care. They want another option besides voting with their feet, which means bringing about change in the organization. Granted, in this case that’s difficult to do, but it has been known to happen.
I think this is the way they do it in France. Or, we could just shift the whole thing to certificate + signatures + notary + registration with the state. That way, you don’t need anyone to officiate at your wedding, and you don’t even need to have a ceremony (in front of either a justice or a priest) if you don’t want to.
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 would be thrilled if my mom were one of those people, and up until today I sort of thought that she was.
Also, Princhester has hit the nail on the head, as far as how I feel about the hypocrisy involved.
Edit: I think this is the first GD thread I’ve ever started.
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.
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.
Tag team on Bricker!
Marriage 3 definitely occurred before Marriage 2 was annulled; however, Marriage 3 must have achieved legitimacy somehow, otherwise I think the team of priests handling her current annulment request would have told her up front, “Oh, you don’t need to do this, your whole marriage doesn’t exist in the first place.” Instead she’s having to do reams of paperwork and see counselors and have interviews and get written documentation from family members, etc. The whole rigamarole.
Wow. I really did not remember those. 
I’m tempted to now claim this is the first time I’ve been caught in an inaccuracy in GD, but I don’t want to overstress the hamsters. Besides which it’s probably not true anyway. (Or maybe that’s what’s not true. :dubious: )
We had those other threads annulled.
So you found out her beliefs had defeat of gay?
If marriage 3 was not a Roman Catholic marriage (and it strains credulity to think that a Roman Catholic priest would celebrate a subsequent marriage without RCC marriage 2 being annulled), then the form of the marriage was invalid and so there is nothing to annul.
But it may be that the priest whom she seeks to perform marriage 4 may require some demonstration that the marriage is being entered into thoughtfully and in conformity with Roman Catholic values and expectations.
Actually, it’s not quite so straightforward.
Once marriage 2 was annulled, then it was clear that, at the time that MsWhatsit’s mother entered into marriage 3, she was free to do so and had a right to do so because, despite the appearances created by marriage ceremony no. 2, she wasn’t married at the time (or indeed ever) to husband no. 2.
Of course, she married husband no. 3 in a non-Catholic ceremony, which is irregular, but not fatal. There is a fairly straightforward convalidation procedure which you can have done by the church to ratify a non-canonical marriage celebrated in these or similar circumstances.
MsWhatsit doesn’t say that her mother went through this procedure, but my guess is that she did, because (a) she is “a devout Catholic”, and (b) what would be the point of going to the trouble and expense of getting an annulment if you weren’t going to follow through?
So, if she did have marriage no. 3 convalidated then, yes, she will need to have it annulled if she wishes to contract a fourth marriage and have it recognised by the church.
Not necessarily. I’ve known a lot of people who haven’t bothered with an annulment and then remarried in the RCC. Priests are known to look the other way.
I bothered with an annulment in the RCC, then remarried an atheist in from of a judge.
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?
I think that goes with that bumper sticker “Catholics aren’t perfect, just forgiven*”
*except the gays