Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / March 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

When are you "single" again?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Saulgoode - 25 Mar 2008 05:13 GMT
I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003.
She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a
live-in girlfriend. We've completely dissolved that marital bond between us,
but I'm still "divorced?" I still reference my status by how I relate to my
ex-wife, who may be married soon.

When do I become "single?" Ever? Is it like losing an eye, you don't get it
back?

I hear you're a virgin again after six months, so I was even a virgin
several times these past few years. Another few months, I'll be a virgin
again, but will I be a single virgin? If she gets married, will she be
downgraded from ex-wife to chick-I-used-to-know, then I'm a single virgin
who drops his kid off at the house of this chick he used to know. What
happens if I get married? Am I re-married, or just freaking "married?" Wife,
or second wife (slap)?

When does it reboot? Not sure I like being divorced, with an ex-wife married
to a second husband, such ugly terms.

Not sure I like being a virgin, either.

Funny. To change my status to what I want, I have to both be f.cked, and be
un-f.cked, huh. What a hum-drum conundrum.

- Saul. Single Saul, shaken, not stirred
news - 25 Mar 2008 06:16 GMT
> I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003.
> She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> it
> back?

You'll never be single again. Since your divorce was several years ago, you
could call yourself unmarried.
khalid.shaikh26@gmail.com - 25 Mar 2008 06:53 GMT
hi i am khalid from pakistan i m single i want do marraige plz help me
i wait ur reply

khalid

> > I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003.
> > She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> You'll never be single again. Since your divorce was several years ago, you
> could call yourself unmarried.
saulgoode - 25 Mar 2008 19:45 GMT
On Mar 25, 12:53 am, khalid.shaik...@gmail.com wrote:
> hi i am khalid from pakistan i m single i want do marraige plz help me
> i wait ur reply
>
> khalid

Hey Khalid, I appreciate the response. Sometimes I think you're the
only one on here who ~gets~ me, you know, realize that was a satire
and not a serious post. I really don't care what I'm called, I was
just up late last night and felt the worms digging. As I stand accused
by the Doc herself, I simply had a Tom Waits moment.

Maybe I should include more smileys, huh.

- Saul
Vickie - 25 Mar 2008 23:39 GMT
> On Mar 25, 12:53 am, khalid.shaik...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>  - Saul

ROFL!!

And by the way, once you have visited the sacred South Pole, you are
not a virgin anymore (ie you are f.cked).

Vickie
Bo - 26 Mar 2008 15:49 GMT
And by the way, once you have visited the sacred South Pole, you are
not a virgin anymore (ie you are f.cked).

Vickie

Sacred South Pole??? That's a hoot! You crack me up sometimes!

On a different note, could you explain the ins/outs of annulments as far as
Catholics go? I've wondered how that works and how it differs from legal
annulments... I would think annulments would only be logical if the marriage
was never consumated--but if not mistaken, have heard tell of folks being
married for years--and even have kids--and still getting an annulment. Is
this accurate? and if so, what the...?

Bo
Vickie - 26 Mar 2008 17:41 GMT
> And by the way, once you have visited the sacred South Pole, you are
> not a virgin anymore (ie you are f.cked).
>
> Vickie
>
> Sacred South Pole??? That's a hoot! You crack me up sometimes!

Heehee.

> On a different note, could you explain the ins/outs of annulments as far as
> Catholics go? I've wondered how that works and how it differs from legal
> annulments... I would think annulments would only be logical if the marriage
> was never consumated--but if not mistaken, have heard tell of folks being
> married for years--and even have kids--and still getting an annulment. Is
> this accurate? and if so, what the...?

Okay, I will tell you what I know.

Though the doctrine is universal, it still can differ from diocese to
diocese.

Annulments are a way for the church to keep the importance of the
sacrament of marriage alive.

Usually the priest will ask many questions about the dating period and
early parts of the marriage.  He is trying to see where bad judgement
comes into play.  Or if there is a specific factor that deems the
marriage not a holy union in the first place.

Because we are human we are bound to not see where it was wrong to
begin with. Or why it didn't/couldn't work out.

There is a lot of reflection on the marriage and choices that were
made, which I think is a good thing.

And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very much
legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce.

Sorry Bo, I don't know about annulments of any other kind.

Vickie
Bo - 26 Mar 2008 19:04 GMT
On Mar 26, 6:49 am, "Bo" <b...@cephus.com> wrote:
> "Vickie" <lilliputianbizz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Sacred South Pole??? That's a hoot! You crack me up sometimes!

Heehee.

> On a different note, could you explain the ins/outs of annulments as far
> as
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> married for years--and even have kids--and still getting an annulment. Is
> this accurate? and if so, what the...?

Okay, I will tell you what I know.

Though the doctrine is universal, it still can differ from diocese to
diocese.

Annulments are a way for the church to keep the importance of the
sacrament of marriage alive.

Usually the priest will ask many questions about the dating period and
early parts of the marriage.  He is trying to see where bad judgement
comes into play.  Or if there is a specific factor that deems the
marriage not a holy union in the first place.

Because we are human we are bound to not see where it was wrong to
begin with. Or why it didn't/couldn't work out.

There is a lot of reflection on the marriage and choices that were
made, which I think is a good thing.

And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very much
legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce.

Sorry Bo, I don't know about annulments of any other kind.

Vickie

Thanks Vickie. There are a lot of mysteries to me about Catholic practices
and I'm glad you are willing to answer...

Bo
Vickie - 26 Mar 2008 19:11 GMT
> Thanks Vickie. There are a lot of mysteries to me about Catholic practices
> and I'm glad you are willing to answer...

Sure thing.
And I probably have just as many questions about Catholic practices
myself!

Vickie
Stephanie - 26 Mar 2008 19:49 GMT
>> Thanks Vickie. There are a lot of mysteries to me about Catholic
>> practices and I'm glad you are willing to answer...
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Vickie

Go to Catholic elementary, secondary and college. THAT is a frightening eye
opener!
Stephanie - 26 Mar 2008 19:49 GMT
> On Mar 26, 6:49 am, "Bo" <b...@cephus.com> wrote:
>> "Vickie" <lilliputianbizz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Though the doctrine is universal, it still can differ from diocese to
> diocese.

Officially it is not supposed to. All annulments go through Rome. All of
them.

> Annulments are a way for the church to keep the importance of the
> sacrament of marriage alive.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> There is a lot of reflection on the marriage and choices that were
> made, which I think is a good thing.

These are nice sentiments, but have nothing at ALL to do with annulment.
"Not working out despite our best efforts" is not supposed to be a a grounds
for annulment. People with money and connection can get them on any grounds,
however.

The sacramanet of marriage is a three party sacrament. It can be considered
to have never taken place when one of the parties is deemed to have not been
able to be present/able to make a sacrament through previous marriage or
mental illness for example. If there are others, I cant think of them. The
sacramant also requires consumation aka intercourse, though only one
instance. If the marriage was never consumated, it never existed and can be
annuled.

> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.

That is incorrect, or at least it used to be. Children of annuled marriages
were illegitemate where it mattered, like in cases of royal lineage.

> They are very much
> legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Bo
Vickie - 26 Mar 2008 21:33 GMT
> > On Mar 26, 6:49 am, "Bo" <b...@cephus.com> wrote:
> >> "Vickie" <lilliputianbizz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
> That is incorrect, or at least it used to be. Children of annuled marriages
> were illegitemate where it mattered, like in cases of royal lineage.

I don't really feel like getting into a big discussion about this
again.

What you have stated seems like the base standards for annulment in
the Catholic church.
I can tell you, if you speak to a specific priest on the subject you
will get quite a few variants on this.

In life, guidelines are set, but there is always different
circumstances and different outcomes.

Everything I wrote is NOT incorrect and has everything to do with
annulment in the Catholic church.

Vickie
deannie - 27 Mar 2008 19:51 GMT
> > > On Mar 26, 6:49 am, "Bo" <b...@cephus.com> wrote:
> > >> "Vickie" <lilliputianbizz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
>
> Vickie

At the end of the day EVERYONE is single.
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 03:34 GMT
> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very much
> legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
> obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce.

I don't get this....  How can the marriage have never existed, and yet the
children be legitimate?

Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 04:36 GMT
>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very much
>> legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Zorra

Isn't that what Madonna did?
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 04:40 GMT
>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very
>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Isn't that what Madonna did?

Who?  *The* Madonna?  The mother of our Lord?

Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 04:47 GMT
>>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very
>>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Zorra

No.   Madonna the show-biz ditz, who bore a child out of wedlock.   And was
even proud of that - a true role model for our kids.
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 04:55 GMT
>>>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very
>>>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> No.   Madonna the show-biz ditz, who bore a child out of wedlock.  And was
> even proud of that - a true role model for our kids.

I never heard that she had a marriage annulled.  Perhaps I don't keep up with
the details of celebrity lives like you do?

Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 05:38 GMT
>>>>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very
>>>>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Zorra

LOL.
As far as I know, she never was married - she just went off and had a child
with hunky.

I mean, why even go to the bother/committment of getting married today?
Especially if you're a "celebrity", and so spoiled that all that counts is
whatever you feel like?
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 06:48 GMT
>>>>>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are
>>>>>>> very much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> As far as I know, she never was married - she just went off and had a
> child with hunky.

Dunno...she's married now, I know that.  But if she did have a child out of
wedlock, then that has nothing to do with the annullment issue we were talking
about.

Zorra

> I mean, why even go to the bother/committment of getting married
> today? Especially if you're a "celebrity", and so spoiled that all
> that counts is whatever you feel like?
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 07:19 GMT
>>>>>>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are
>>>>>>>> very much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Zorra

It has everything to do with the morality issue.    See the big picture.

>> I mean, why even go to the bother/committment of getting married
>> today? Especially if you're a "celebrity", and so spoiled that all
>> that counts is whatever you feel like?
Lauri - 27 Mar 2008 04:47 GMT
>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very much
>> legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
>> obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce.
>
>I don't get this....  How can the marriage have never existed, and yet the
>children be legitimate?

That's my question, too!  It can't be both ways.
Signature

Lauri in WA

Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 05:40 GMT
>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very much
>>> legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> --
> Lauri in WA

It doesn't matter anymore.    YOU clearly are fallin a bit behind the times,
dear.     You old fogiess.
Stephanie - 27 Mar 2008 13:23 GMT
>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very
>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> That's my question, too!  It can't be both ways.

It cant.
Vickie - 27 Mar 2008 07:32 GMT
> > And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very much
> > legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
> > obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce.
>
> I don't get this....  How can the marriage have never existed, and yet the
> children be legitimate?

This part gets a little complex.

My understanding is that during the marriage rites, at least one if
not both of the spouses were willing to exchange consent (Catholic
consent that is).  Kind of like entering the marriage in good faith.
Because of that, if children are born from a valid or purported/
acknowledged marriage (which is pretty much ALL marriages), the
children are considered legitimate.

Vickie
Stephanie - 27 Mar 2008 13:24 GMT
>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very
>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> This part gets a little complex.

Where did you get your doctinal understanding? Unless things have changed
since I studied in college, it is simply not the case. Children born of
annuled marriages are considered illegitimate.

> My understanding is that during the marriage rites, at least one if
> not both of the spouses were willing to exchange consent (Catholic
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Vickie
shinypenny - 27 Mar 2008 14:08 GMT
> Where did you get your doctinal understanding? Unless things have changed
> since I studied in college, it is simply not the case. Children born of
> annuled marriages are considered illegitimate.

Your knowledge is out of date. This was definetly stressed to us that
annulment did not mean that our children were illegitimate. It was in
the book they send you, when the process starts.

jen
Stephanie - 27 Mar 2008 14:11 GMT
>> Where did you get your doctinal understanding? Unless things have
>> changed since I studied in college, it is simply not the case.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> jen

Good to know. Thanks.

Stephanie
Doug Anderson - 27 Mar 2008 16:28 GMT
> >>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very
> >>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> since I studied in college, it is simply not the case. Children born of
> annuled marriages are considered illegitimate.

I think we may be confusing the religious and civil definitions here.
I don't think the Catholic Church bothers to classify children into
"legitimate" vs. "illegtimate."

It might be different under civil annulment (and in any case is likely
to vary state to state in the US).
Vickie - 27 Mar 2008 17:29 GMT
On Mar 27, 8:28 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very
> > >>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> I don't think the Catholic Church bothers to classify children into
> "legitimate" vs. "illegtimate."

You are right here.

Marital status does not affect the status of children; sacramental
marriage is different from marriage by law.
So the issue of legitimate or not is not even on the game board, so to
speak.

Vickie
Tai - 27 Mar 2008 15:13 GMT
>>> And children are never thought to be illegitimate. They are very
>>> much legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> acknowledged marriage (which is pretty much ALL marriages), the
> children are considered legitimate.

But to the RC Church and presumably the God worshipped by its followers the
children born outside any kind of recognisable marriage commitment are
illegitimate and so lesser beings? Lovely... not!

I'm very glad the concept of illegitimacy is now gone from secular law here.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 27 Mar 2008 15:54 GMT
> But to the RC Church and presumably the God worshipped by its
> followers the children born outside any kind of recognisable marriage
> commitment are illegitimate and so lesser beings? Lovely... not!

It's not about "lesser beings", it's about "who can inherit", and in
particular "who can inherit the throne".  Great rivers of blood have
been shed in fighting over the question "Who gets to be King next?",
and "Who is a legitimate heir?"

Hereditary monarchy is an insane system of government, and it's often
easy to look at it from our perspective and think badly of all the
horrid stuff "those people" did (and lots of it *was* horrid).  But if
you were stuck in their situation, you might have a hard time coming up
with a better solution.  To quote St Jerome, "When the stomach is full,
it is easy to talk of fasting."

Limiting legitimate heirs to those born in recognised marriages gave us
some spillover in language that's not very nice.  But at least it's a
way of settling part of the question without having a war over it.

Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"    I once asked my history teacher how we were expected to learn
anything from his subject, when it seemed to me, to be nothing but a
monotonous and sordid succession of robber baron scumbags devoid of
any admirable human qualities.
    I failed history." -- Sting
Doug Anderson - 27 Mar 2008 16:25 GMT
> > And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very much
> > legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
> > obligations towards them, whether after annulment or divorce.
>
> I don't get this....  How can the marriage have never existed, and yet the
> children be legitimate?

I'm not sure if this is the right question.  Marriage is a sacrament
of the Catholic Church, so it is a church matter.  I don't think the
legitimacy of children is considered a church matter (for the child).

So this annulment business is a religious matter (although to confuse
the issue, some states in the US also issue civil annulments) whereas
legitimacy of children is at most a legal issue.

As far as "getting this" I think you really have to be willing to
suspend disbelief at this point to buy the increased frequency of
annulments in the Catholic Church as anything other than the Church's
way of trying to avoid losing families of second marriages.   The
marriage can be annulled if it is found that either partner was unable
or unwilling to enter into the marriage contract as the Catholic
Church defines the marriage contract.  

Given the number of annulments around these days,  that seems not so
hard to show if both parties are committed to showing it.
Vickie - 27 Mar 2008 17:37 GMT
On Mar 27, 8:25 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > And children are never thought to be illegitimate.  They are very much
> > > legal and a good Father will let the parents know of their moral
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Given the number of annulments around these days,  that seems not so
> hard to show if both parties are committed to showing it.

It is another Vatican II issue, and Pope John Paul's presistance in
acknowledging dignity of the human person and of women in particular.

It is this whole "consent" equation that gets thrown in the mix.  And
how certain words are defined in RC church.

I would say most people here are focusing on early canon code and not
more recent.

Vickie
S.D. - 27 Mar 2008 13:57 GMT
> On a different note, could you explain the ins/outs of annulments as far as
> Catholics go? I've wondered how that works and how it differs from legal
> annulments...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church)  Short
version:)

>I would think annulments would only be logical if the marriage
> was never consumated--but if not mistaken, have heard tell of folks being
> married for years--and even have kids--and still getting an annulment. Is
> this accurate? and if so, what the...?

It's still quite difficult to be granted an annulment in the Catholic
church.   Some cases reach the Vatican; others never leave the Bishops
desks, taking years.

Yes, I know of one 12yr marriage/divorce with children that was later
annulled then acknowledging the 2nd marriage.  Typically this happens
after someone dies, but not without extensive research and interviews
over many years.
Signature

SD:)
"Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)"
  My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.)

shinypenny - 27 Mar 2008 14:06 GMT
> It's still quite difficult to be granted an annulment in the Catholic
> church.   Some cases reach the Vatican; others never leave the Bishops
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> after someone dies, but not without extensive research and interviews
> over many years.

Ours took less than 9 months. My ex filled out a long form with essay
questions, I checked off one box on a short form, he mailed it all in,
met once with his parish priest, and a few months later, it was a done
deal.

The cases that take years and years are the ones in which one party
contests. Then it becomes a more long and involved process.

jen
S.D. - 27 Mar 2008 14:25 GMT
> The cases that take years and years are the ones in which one party
> contests. Then it becomes a more long and involved process.

I grew up with 3 priests in the family... as much as your case happened,
it's not common.  Some people have been known to throw money at the
local church which can facilitate the process if in need.

The cases that take years are complex, but you'd have to see and read
the docs to know that.  My mother-in-law works in a bishops office.  
Right now, I am aware of three (3) cases, two of which have been going
on for 2yrs+, the other 4yrs because of the time that has passed.
Signature

SD:)
"Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)"
  My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.)

shinypenny - 27 Mar 2008 15:02 GMT
> > The cases that take years and years are the ones in which one party
> > contests. Then it becomes a more long and involved process.
>
> I grew up with 3 priests in the family... as much as your case happened,
> it's not common.  Some people have been known to throw money at the
> local church which can facilitate the process if in need.

It is quite possible he threw money at the situation and also pulled
strings with the priests in his family.

jen
Doug Laidlaw - 25 Mar 2008 10:11 GMT
>> I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since
>> 2003. She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> You'll never be single again. Since your divorce was several years ago,
> you could call yourself unmarried.

For the purpose of marrying the new lady, you are either single or married.
You are now single if you want to call yourself that.  When it comes to
filling in forms, try to guess whether they need to differentiate.  For
example, I would put "divorced" in a Census form, because the Government
needs to know.  Almost anywhere else, either single or married is enough.

The only thing that one can't be twice is a bride, and that doesn't concern
you.

Doug L.
drlith - 25 Mar 2008 12:28 GMT
> I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003.
> She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>  - Saul. Single Saul, shaken, not stirred

When you're pushing 40, it's no badge of honor to be single. Better to
have loved and lost...
tbd - 25 Mar 2008 13:54 GMT
> I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003.
> She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>  - Saul. Single Saul, shaken, not stirred

No offense, but there are better things to worry about than what to
call yourself.  Just pick one you like.  You got divorced, now you are
single.  Plus, I don't think the fact that you haven't been laid in a
few months makes you a virgin again.  It makes you unlucky.
shinypenny - 25 Mar 2008 21:18 GMT
> I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house since 2003.
> She's been living with another guy for a year, and I just broke up with a
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>  - Saul. Single Saul, shaken, not stirred

I think you can call yourself single but only if you add the word
"again" after it.

Once you remarry, you don't refer to yourself as divorced; that would
be confusing. You can say you are married without the "re." Unless
you're standing next to your ex at the time, or you're talking to
someone such as your child's teacher, and you want to get it across
that you are less of a loser than your ex, because at least you found
love again and have healed enough to RE-marry... while she's still
"shacking up." (the 'Ho is silent but will register esp with
kindergarten teachers).

If you do introduce yourself as divorced, remember to do it with a
great big glowing grin!!! One that says, "I'm free! Free at last!!"

jen
Mary_Gordon@tvo.org - 25 Mar 2008 22:19 GMT
It never reboots. You can call yourself single or unmarried, but
unless the marriage is annulled (i.e. declared to never have been
legally or morally binding in the first place) you can't ever be a
batchelor again. You are a divorced person until you elect to remarry.
She'll always be your ex-wife.

M
shinypenny - 25 Mar 2008 23:35 GMT
On Mar 25, 5:19 pm, Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote:
> It never reboots. You can call yourself single or unmarried, but
> unless the marriage is annulled (i.e. declared to never have been
> legally or morally binding in the first place)

Ha! So I was single before I remarried. A single unwed mother, but
single nonetheless.

jen
Tai - 26 Mar 2008 05:13 GMT
> On Mar 25, 5:19 pm, Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote:
>> It never reboots. You can call yourself single or unmarried, but
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Ha! So I was single before I remarried. A single unwed mother, but
> single nonetheless.

lol

Did your ex get a Church annulment, Jen?  (I have such a hard time with the
whole concept of those, particularly when there are children from the ersatz
marriage!)
Lauri - 26 Mar 2008 05:49 GMT
>> On Mar 25, 5:19 pm, Mary_Gor...@tvo.org wrote:
>>> It never reboots. You can call yourself single or unmarried, but
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>whole concept of those, particularly when there are children from the ersatz
>marriage!)

Yeah, I have never gotten the whole annullment thing.  I mean, just
because the church says it isn't valid, all the sudden it never
happend?  That doesn't make sense to me (but I'm not Catholic, so
maybe that's why).
Signature

Lauri in WA

shinypenny - 26 Mar 2008 12:39 GMT
> Yeah, I have never gotten the whole annullment thing.  I mean, just
> because the church says it isn't valid, all the sudden it never
> happend?  That doesn't make sense to me (but I'm not Catholic, so
> maybe that's why).

Eh... while I do think the whole thing is silly, I can see that for
someone who is Catholic it can be a healing process. There's a whole
process - including copious paperwork to fill out and interviews with
priests  -  that forces the person to examine why the marriage failed.
The process may be more important than the ultimate outcome (i.e.,
anyone who commits to going through it probably winds up with an
annulment eventually).

With that said, it unfortunately encourages the person to do some
"magical thinking" about the *reasons* for that failure...

For example, annulments all boil down to the idea that something was
wrong and so God never graced the marriage ceremony with his presence.
So it may have been legal but it was unofficial in the eyes of God,
because he forgot to show up.

Which restores a person's faith... because afterall, if God joined two
people together, how could God allow those two people to fail so
miserably???

Ugh...

The wierd thing is, I very much do think God was there at my wedding.
I was going through a period of time when I felt very spiritual and in
touch with God. So this is why I checked off the "no contest" box on
the annulment form: if I had admitted that to the Church, my ex
would've never had his annulment.

Unless he made the case that I was simply manic and crazy when we got
married... which means that anytime I do feel God is present in my
life, I must be out of my mind...

Which makes me lose my own faith. :-(

(it's early in the morning for me so I don't know if any of that made
any sense... not enough coffee yet!!)

jen
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 26 Mar 2008 15:48 GMT
> Yeah, I have never gotten the whole annullment thing.  I mean, just
> because the church says it isn't valid, all the sudden it never
> happend?  That doesn't make sense to me (but I'm not Catholic, so
> maybe that's why).

You are underestimating the size of the "it" in "it never happened".

To hilariously oversimplify, the Roman Catholic position is that when
a man and woman are officially married, their standing with the cosmos
is permanently altered.  (You might compare various Eastern rituals,
designed to bring you back into balance with the cosmos if you are out
of alignment, or to earn merit for you, thus reshaping the cosmos by
"pulling" on it to improve your situation in it.)

ANYWAY, there is no "marriage Geiger counter" (or e-meter) which you can
use to tell if a marriage "took".  The idea is that if two people who
(a) can be married, and (b) properly intend to be married, do go on to
actually (c) get married, then it always "takes".

Annulment is based on the idea that at the time of the marriage, they
may not (a) be able to be properly married, or (b) may not properly intend
to be married.  If that is the case, then their standing with the cosmos
did NOT change, and so "it never happened".  (Again, this isn't unique
to Roman Catholics; many rituals have complex requirements in order for
them to "work", and sometimes they are completely re-done if an element
of form is incorrect.)

For example, Roman Catholics would say that Oedipus was never validly
married to his mother, since you cannot properly marry your mother.  No
other element matters -- whether he or anyone ever *found out* that the
marriage was invalid, whether the ceremony was somehow improper, no
matter how truly they intended to form a family and have children --
none of that matters.  The couple were not a couple that can validly
marry, so (in the RC view) no marriage happened.  Period.

Similarly, suppose you were making a movie about the process of getting
married, and you had your actor and actress go down to the courthouse
and fill out the forms to show what that's like, and then stage a full
ceremony, and then had the preacher sign the form and mail it in, and
then only belated realized that he wasn't supposed to actually MAIL it,
they'd be considered legally married.  But if the actor and actress never
intended to actually GET married, they aren't in the eyes of the Vatican.
They did not have an intent to get married, and (per the RCC) it can't
happen without intent.  (I note that a judge would probably issue an
annulment too, if the mixup was explained.)

As with anything that has some sensible justification, there is no
limit to the ways that people can abuse the idea of annulment for their
own ends.  But it is certainly possible to imagine a situation where
a marriage was not actually marriage -- and such situations do present
themselves, but I won't discuss specifics because my point here is not
to gossip.  If someone married for money and then got a quickie divorce
out in Vegas, for example, and never wanted to be married but just was
after a big payout, that wouldn't be a marriage.  It has actually
happened that people got married without discussing children (!), and
got an annulment because the spouse who intended never to have children
did not have a proper intent to get married in the first place, at least
per the RCC.

*

I'm not Roman Catholic, and so may have been somewhat unfair in part of
my description here, but I tried to get it straight.

My own view is that divorce is bad, but it's not impossible, but I do
see the distinction the Vatican is trying to draw.

Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"That's the thing about Easter: you don't always find things in the
place you left them." -- Edmund Zelley, hunting for a piece of paper
shinypenny - 26 Mar 2008 12:29 GMT
> lol
>
> Did your ex get a Church annulment, Jen?  (I have such a hard time with the
> whole concept of those, particularly when there are children from the ersatz
> marriage!)

Yep, he did ... on grounds I was possibly mentally unstable when we
married. It was very important to him, so I didn't contest it even
though my mom got livid because it was going to be on my "permanent
record" somewhere. I figured he did it so he could be remarried in the
Catholic Church, but nope.... he married a non-catholic.

So I have no idea why he did it, really. Except that perhaps it was
his way to "win" at the divorce/custody game. I do think the annulment
process was a good one for him though; it gave him some sort of
closure.

I'm not sure the kids are even aware about the annulment. I've never
mentioned it and they've never asked. DD15 right now is going through
a big rejection of the Catholic Church phase right now. She is trying
on different religions for size - which reminds me, I promised to take
her to a Unitarian church service!

jen
Doug Anderson - 26 Mar 2008 16:37 GMT
> > lol
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> record" somewhere. I figured he did it so he could be remarried in the
> Catholic Church, but nope.... he married a non-catholic.

I think the Catholic Church recognizes (some) marriages that take
place outside of the church.   They certainly wouldn't recognize it
without the annulment though.

I'm impressed that you were willing to do that.  It does sound like
the right thing to do, but like your mother, I'd find it infuriating.

> So I have no idea why he did it, really. Except that perhaps it was
> his way to "win" at the divorce/custody game. I do think the annulment
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> on different religions for size - which reminds me, I promised to take
> her to a Unitarian church service!

Have you had her take this online quiz that sweeps through ASM every
couple years?
shinypenny - 26 Mar 2008 19:34 GMT
On Mar 26, 11:37 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm impressed that you were willing to do that.  It does sound like
> the right thing to do, but like your mother, I'd find it infuriating.

Thanks Doug. Maybe I did it out of guilt, for breaking up the
marriage. I recognize that his religion is very important to him. He
even has priests in his family. We were the first divorce EVER. (And
to this date, the last). In a family like that, it was embarrassing
for him to end up divorced. So if consenting to the annulment made
things just a little better for him, well, it was the least I could
do.

I drew the line about participating though. And would not release my
psychiatric records to the Church. I said that he was free to share
the papers resulting from the divorce and custody battle if he wanted,
he was free to tell them *his* version of the story, but otherwise,
he'd have to make his case without me.

> > So I have no idea why he did it, really. Except that perhaps it was
> > his way to "win" at the divorce/custody game. I do think the annulment
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Have you had her take this online quiz that sweeps through ASM every
> couple years?

YES! She took the Belief-O-Matic this past week. She scored *exactly*
as I did: 100% match with Quaker, second closest was Reform Judaism,
and third was Unitarian. She was a little depressed she wasn't a
Bhuddist because she thinks that's the coolest religion of all. Then
just this morning I was explaining to her that Quaker is not the same
as Amish, and that she has Quaker relatives in her family tree.

I'm afraid I've corrupted my kids... I did agree to raise them
Catholic, and did take them dutifully to church and sunday school and
all that up until confirmation... but meanwhile if they ask me a
question about my own beliefs, have told them the truth. I don't put
down the Catholic church, I'm very careful about how I word things,
but apparently... well... apparently they can think for themselves!

As they've gotten older there are just too many inconsistencies for
them. The most recent one we discussed is the anti-abortion AND anti-
birth control issue. DD is against abortion but she is pro-BC,
especially since there are way too many people in this world. And she
is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion
that counts.

(okay Vicki, don't get mad at me .... I am a baptized & confirmed
Catholic myself and practiced for many years.... even though the
reality is that my beliefs apparently don't match up).

jen
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 04:32 GMT
> And she
> is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion
> that counts.

Speaking of which...remember my Muslim friend?  The one I quoted before?  He
tells me that Islam is the only major religion that allows for the possibility
that others are going to heaven.  He says it's in the Quran that there are
righteous people even among the Christians and Jews.  He says the only rules are
that you must worship only one God, umm....oops, I forget, LOL.  Anyway,
basically it's that if you worship a single God and follow the rules of your
religion then you can get into heaven too.  It doesn't include everyone, but
it's more inclusive than other religions seem to be.

Of course, I'm taking what he says on faith, and I make no guarantees for it's
accuracy, but I found it interesting if true.

Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 04:40 GMT
>> And she
>> is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Zorra

1)   I don't think it's true.
2)   Where are "all" these "righteous" people?
zorra - 27 Mar 2008 04:56 GMT
>>> And she
>>> is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> 1)   I don't think it's true.

Based on what?

> 2)   Where are "all" these "righteous" people?

You don't see *anyone* around you worthy of getting into heaven?

Zorra
Bill in Co - 27 Mar 2008 05:38 GMT
>>>> And she
>>>> is also against the Church's stance that they are the ONLY religion
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Zorra

I think I already said.    Gandhi, Fred Rogers, and Mother Teresa, have
already made the Trip.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 26 Mar 2008 23:56 GMT
> I think the Catholic Church recognizes (some) marriages that take
> place outside of the church.

Per the Official Rules (best as I understand them), it is the *couple*
who actually "perform" the marriage.  The preacher (if any) is just
sort of an emcee.

Thus, Buddhist weddings, Jewish weddings, Protestant weddings, atheist
weddings, and so on, are are "real" weddings, and the people are validly
married (provided they *can be* validly married and so on).

Between Roman Catholics, officiated by a priest, there is a "Sacramental
Marriage", which is the kind they want RCs to have.  An RC can be
validly married to a non-RC, but it's not a Sacramental marriage unless
it's done by a priest.

IIUC (and I may have some of this wrong), it's a Sacramental Marriage
that is "permanent".  If you get divorced afterwards, you can't get
remarried in the Church.  But there have been cases where RCs got
married to non-RCs in non-Church weddings, and then got divorced (not
annulled), and *were* allowed to marry in the Church because while the
first marriage was valid, it wasn't Sacramental.

Or something like that. 8-)

Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"In marriage, being the right person is as important as finding the
right person." -- Wilbert Donald Gough
S.D. - 27 Mar 2008 14:03 GMT
> When do I become "single?" Ever?

Yes; but not until you've cleansed your marital baggage department of
emotional garbage and improved your disposition.  Until then, every
person that comes in contact with you will face your unhealthy
predisposition.
Signature

SD:)
"Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)"
  My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.)

AllYou! - 27 Mar 2008 15:31 GMT
> I've been divorced now for three years or so, out of the house
> since 2003. She's been living with another guy for a year, and I
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Funny. To change my status to what I want, I have to both be
> f.cked, and be un-f.cked, huh. What a hum-drum conundrum.

I can be defined by others as being lots of things based upon events
that have occurred in my life.  The real question for me is how I
honestly define myself based upon those events.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.