From the San Diego CityBeat:
If gay rights activists really want to stop all these ‘defense of marriage’ bills, I say just find some way to tack a rider on them stating that divorce is illegal. Then all of these ‘defenders of the sanctity’ bullshiters would shut up quickly.
Divorce is OK, it’s remarriage that’s a problem. When he tries to marry a trophy wife in the Catholic Church, that will be trouble.
No, divorce is not okay. The Catholic church doesn’t recognize divorce. Marriage is for life.
Re-marriage is a problem because it’s bigamous, in the eyes of the church.
Sure. Unless you get an annulment so that everything is better, and there’s no hypocrisy whatsoever. :rolleyes:
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just make hypocrisy illegal. It sure would resolve a lot of issues.
Anullments aren’t nearly as easy to get as civil divorces, though. Or would you prefer that, say, someone with an abusive spouse be forced to stay with taht person forever?
Right, a civil divorce means nothing in the eyes of the Church. The divorce in itself is not an issue, it’s remarrying as if the first marriage no longer exists.
No, I’d prefer everyone have the opportunity to marry the person they love. The problem is that if marriage is so sanctilicious leaving marriage should be the worst thing ever, so to say that gays can’t marry because it goes against the sanctity of marriage then divorce and annulment also do the same and we allow those with or without the blessing of the church.
And don’t even get me started on what annulment means for the children.
That’s why in Ireland (Catholic) divorced people often refer to themselves as “living apart.” they have permission to stop trying to live peacefully in the same home, and to proceed with “legal” seperation of their lives. It’s not the same as we Americans/Protestants think of it.
But yes, annulments do exist , and are used in situations like you describe. It’s also true that the Church no longer pushes people to marry when they are not ready. When I got pregnant with the Celtling I heard not a peep regarding marriage; only heard about the preparations for raising a child well. Props to the Church for making progress on that one!
I’m trying to get married in the Catholic church and so far we have a date for an 8 hour couple’s class, we’ve done a compatibility test (the priest said we scored “suspiciously high”), and we have met with the priest about five times so far. And we still have eight months left until the wedding.
While I think the Church’s stance on homosexuality is bullshit (raised Catholic and currently atheist, FWIW, and that was one of my major issues with them), I don’t think that allowing annulment while disallowing divorce is hypocritical. With an annulment, you’re saying that this was not a valid marriage. If you don’t have a strong enough reason to break things up to get an annulment, then, sorry, you made the promise, you have to stick with it. It’s not a position I agree with, but it’s internally consistent.
That doesn’t mean that the “sanctity of marriage” argument applies to same-sex marriages within the Church, though. (And it certainly doesn’t apply to marriage in the legal sense.)
ETA: That also doesn’t mean that this particular guy isn’t a hypocritical scumbag, either. (IMO, he is.)
When I was going to be married in a Catholic church (my wife’s a Catholic, I’m not), and my wife asked the priest if we’d need any pre-marriage training, he said, “We’ve had this little chat, isn’t that enough?” (and he must have been right, since we’ve stayed married for more than 30 years).
What I find most outrageous in the San Diego CityBeat’s story is not the divorce after 43 years of marriage, but Mr Manchester’s strenuous efforts to take money for his wife so that she won’t have enough money to support herself. That reflects a particular meanness on the part of a very rich man.
And this is what was going through my mind when I started the thread. There’s no mention of an anullment (or abusive treatment FTM) by anybody, just two very wealthy people squabbling over money and resorting to petty tactics to screw one another. BUT it was a man and a woman - so somehow they’re marriage is somehow more acceptable than two men or two women living together? And this man has the audacity to give money to a campaign to TAKE AWAY marital rights from same-sex because it offends HIS moral standards? Ugh.
If you’re going to say it declares children illegitimate, I don’t believe that’s true.
I’d prefer that they not have gotten married in the first place. If marriage is so sacred, then maybe they should know the person they are marrying before it actually happens. My personal beliefs aren’t that nobody should remarry or anything like that, I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy, which I absolutely do believe is plentiful. Annulment is just a pretty word for “hindsight is 20/20 and I’d like another shot at it”.
Civil divorce is OK. You’re correct that it does not erase a validly created marriage, but there is no prohibition in the Church against divorce and separation when the circumstances warrant it. You are simply not free to marry, because you are still married. But the Church certainly recognizes the need, in some circumstances, for civil divorce and separation.
And throw every single one of us in jail. :smack:
That’s not true.
Well, let me qualify that statement a bit. Humans being humans, undoubtedly it ends up being true at times. But it’s not what an annulment means.
By the same token, you might say, “The laws against murder are just a pretty way of saying poor people can’t kill, but rich people can,” and then point out, say, O.J. Simpson’s acquittal as evidence.
An annulment is a legal finding that the marriage, at its inception, suffered from some defect that made it invalid. To take a classic to-the-extreme example, suppose that I went through a literal shotgun wedding: my bride at my side, and behind me her father with a loaded shotgun at my back, promising to pull the triggers if I failed to say, “I do.” I don’t think too many people would take the view that this should be considered a valid marriage.
When a marriage is annulled, it’s because there was, literally, a trial, with a canon lawyer arguing that the marriage was invalid and another one (the “Defender of the Bond”) arguing that it should be considered valid.
Now, as I hinted above, people being people, I don’t doubt that there have been cases of, “So, Your Excellency, the cathedral needs a new wing, you say? No problem; I’d be delighted to fund that for you. Now, about my annulment…” But such cases, like celebrities who can bring multi-million-dollar defense “Dream Teams” into the courtroom, don’t represent the correct and intended working of the process – they represent its corruption.
I understand what you’re saying. Honestly, my experiences with Catholicism (Catholic immediate family and my wedding ceremony was Catholic) have left me very cynical about their goings-on, so I can’t really debate this without having a significant amount of bitter bias. If it is as you say, then it is unfortunate that the few bad apples ruin it for the ones going through the process for legitimate cause. This, of course, can be said for most things.
I don’t really see the issue with making a distinction between a divorce and and annulment. Think of marriage like a contract: a divorce says that you can just break it off any time, regardless of what you agreed to; an annulment says that you are bound by the terms of the contract unless you can establish that it was never a legal contract to begin with.