(no subject)
Sep. 27th, 2002 01:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
semperfionaWhy is this annulment thing preying on my mind? I'm not Catholic, I really don't believe that annulment accomplishes anything whatsoever, and we're already divorced. Is it that I'm worried he's going to make me out to be some kind of evil scheming bitch? (You there, in the peanut gallery, shut up. That's not what I meant and you know it.) That he's going to claim he had perfect consent and commitment when we married but I did not?
Everything I'm reading talks about "at the moment of the vows" as what matters for validity of a marriage. Changes of heart afterward seem irrelevant.
These are from that webpage I linked earlier this morning.
Does this exercise tell me anything? Other than that in some sense I'm offended by the whole idea that we weren't really married? That I'm irritated at potentially being painted the villain of the case?
Everything I'm reading talks about "at the moment of the vows" as what matters for validity of a marriage. Changes of heart afterward seem irrelevant.
These are from that webpage I linked earlier this morning.
| 1. Insufficient Use of Reason [1095,1(] You or your spouse did not know what was happening during the marriage ceremony because of insanity, mental illness, or a lack of consciousness. | Yeah right. |
| 2. Grave Lack of Discretionary Judgment Concerning Essential Marital Rights and Duties [1095,2(] You or your spouse was affected by some serious circumstances or factors that made you unable to judge or evaluate either the decision to marry or the ability to create a true marital relationship. | Hmm. They might use this one, but what does it mean? |
| 3. Psychic-Natured Incapacity to Assume Marital Obligations [1095,3(] You or your spouse, at the time of consent, was unable to fulfill the obligations of marriage because of a serious psychological disorder or other condition. | Ummm, no. |
| 4. Ignorance about the Nature of Marriage [1096 §1] You or your spouse did not know that marriage is a permanent relationship between a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation. | No. But on the other hand, they might use my opinion that marriage could be a lot of other things. I am pretty sure even at the time of the wedding I believed gays could marry. |
| 5. Error of Person [1097 §1] You or your spouse intended to marry a specific individual who was not the individual with whom marriage was celebrated. (Except for mail-order brides, does not occur in the United States.) | I should think not! |
| 6. Error about a Quality of Person [10967 §2] You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality; e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended. | Does not apply either. Unless on the grounds of his impotence...since I believed it was psychological but it turned out to be physical. Or, amusing thought, "I intended to marry someone female!" |
| 7. Fraud [1098] You or your spouse was intentionally deceived about the presence or absence of a quality in the other. The reason for the deception was to obtain marital consent. | Definitely not. |
| 8. Error regarding Marital Unity that Determined the Will [1099] You or your spouse married believing that marriage was not necessarily an exclusive relationship. | This one has potential, though at the time I had not heard of polyamory and did in fact intend permanent sexual exclusivity. (I won't use the word fidelity, it means something else to me.) But I can remember thinking that, if his impotence was in fact permanent and incurable, he couldn't possibly expect me not to look for sexual pleasure elsewhere. |
| 9. Error regarding Marital Indissolubility that Determined the Will [1099] You or your spouse married believing that the State had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce. | This sounds rather like weasel words on the part of the church. If all else fails, use this. ::rolls eyes:: Still, it's a possibility. Not being a Catholic and all, I was not as indoctrinated into the indissolubility thing. |
| 10. Error regarding Marital Sacramental Dignity that Determined the Will [1099] You and your spouse married believing that marriage is not a religious or sacred relationship but merely a civil contract or arrangement. | Another weasel reason, I think, and pretty much a restatement of the previous one. |
| 11. Total Willful Exclusion of Marriage [1101 §2] You or your spouse did not intend to contract marriage as marriage is understood by the law of the Church. Rather, the ceremony was observed solely as a means of obtaining something other than marriage itself; e.g., to obtain legal status in the country or to legitimize a child. | Nope, though they might try. We did get married in rather a hurry due to my job in England. But that wasn't the whole reason for the wedding. |
| 12. Willful Exclusion of Children [1101 §2] You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, to deny the other's right to sexual acts open to procreation. | Grrrr. The whole "sex is purely for procreation" pisses me off. But it is a fact that he did tell the priest at our premarital meeting that we did not want to have kids, and the priest said in that case he couldn't marry us. We went back Ray's mom's house, he told her, she had a crying fit. And we called him back and said we'd misspoken, that we were open to children as and when God sent them. But proceeded to use birth control continuously for the first six years of our marriage. Of course, the existence of a child now rather negates this one, in my opinion. |
| 13. Willful Exclusion of Marital Fidelity [1101 §2] You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to remain faithful. | Nope, unless he did, and given his extremity on the matter later, it seems unlikely. Though our ideas of sexual exclusivity differed quite a lot, as it turned out. He felt that kissing constituted cheating, I did not. |
| 14. Willful Exclusion of Marital Permanence [1101 §2] You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to create a permanent relationship, retaining an option to divorce. | No. |
| 15. Future Condition [1102 §1] You or your spouse attached a future condition to your decision to marry; e.g., you will complete your education, your income will be at a certainly level, you will remain in this area. | Again, no. Whether this means "and the condition was not fulfilled" or simply that it was attached at all. |
| 16. Past Condition [1102 §2] You or your spouse attached a past condition to your decision to marry and that condition did not exist; e.g., I will marry you provided you have never been married before, I will marry you provided you have graduated from college. | Nope. |
| 17. Present Condition [1102 §2] You or your spouse attached a present condition to your decision to marry and that condition did not exist; e.g., I will marry you provided you don't have any debt. | Yet again no. The whole concept of conditional marriage seems extremely wrong to me. I suppose there's some validity to it if fraud was involved (a spouse lied), but to me the grounds is the lie, not the lack of some condition. |
| 18. Force [1103] You or your spouse married because of an external physical or moral force which you could not resist. | Certainly not. If anything, we were discouraged from marrying because it was so soon after we'd met. |
| 19. Fear [1103] You or your spouse chose to marry because of fear that was grave and inescapable and was caused by an outside force. | No. |
| 20. Lacking of New Consent during Co validation [1157 & 1160] After your civil marriage, you or your participated in a Catholic ceremony and you or your spouse believed that (1) you were already married, (2) that the Catholic ceremony was merely a blessing, and (3) that the consent given during the Catholic ceremony had no real effect. | Does not apply. |
Does this exercise tell me anything? Other than that in some sense I'm offended by the whole idea that we weren't really married? That I'm irritated at potentially being painted the villain of the case?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-09-27 11:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-27 11:46 am (UTC)Annulment
Date: 2002-09-27 01:35 pm (UTC)XTR747
angerisagift.blogspot.com
no subject
Date: 2002-09-27 02:12 pm (UTC)As I have gotten to know you a bit better recently I can tell that your sweet and kind and loving.
This annulment thing is HIS hang up. He's the one who wants it let him do the work. And what do you care what a bunch of stuffy old holy men think? We all love you, your family loves you, your daughter loves you, and I gotta assume this Jen to whom you always refer must think your pretty spiffy. So screw the priests, though not literally, 'cause your not an alter boy.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-27 02:19 pm (UTC)I have to say, one of the really good things about this ACN was getting to know you better. Even if it did involve Burger King food. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2002-09-27 02:34 pm (UTC)spiffy
Date: 2002-09-27 08:36 pm (UTC)Re: spiffy
Date: 2002-09-27 08:42 pm (UTC)Re: spiffy
Date: 2002-09-27 08:47 pm (UTC)