Talk:Annulment

message: Annulment does not exclusively apply to marriage.  A Court can annul a Bankruptcy Order in the UK (see s282 Insolvency Act 1986), Republic of Ireland, Australia, and perhaps other jurisdictions where bankruptcy law was originally based on UK law.  Maybe there should be a general article on annulment, with a more specialist article on annulment of a marriage.  I am not sure that the annulment of bankruptcy would justify an article by itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.163.198 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other types of annulment

message: The following were listed as *not* being grounds for annulment:
# Failure to consummate the marriage
# Failure to live together
# Marriage less than 1 year
# Mutual consent
# Mistake
# Already married
In the Roman Catholic Church, (1) above is a ground for nullity (canon 1142) and (6) is clearly an impediment (canon 1085). (5) is sometimes invalidating; error about the person makes marriage invalid, but other errors do not. (2), (3) and (4) are not grounds for nullity.
Incidentally, there is a very long list of "diriment impediments" in the Code of Canon Law, for example canon 1090 section 1: " A person who for the purpose of entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person's spouse or one's own spouse, invalidly attempted such a marriage". (If the Code says that "marriage is forbidden" (eg canon 1124) then presumably this does not invalidate marriage but makes the marriage sinful.)
: The diriment impediment listed above is the one known as "crimen", which I've noted elsewhere in wikipedia, so feel free to adjust or improve it there -- see the wiki article titled "crimen". -- ll
The position in England regarding those impediments listed above is similar. However, the list is (I think) much shorter.
Please flesh out (and check!) these ramblings before incorporating them.
213.48.231.25 19:47, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged non-grounds for annulment

message: Could the article provide a link to the New York statute if available?  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New York statute

message: The grounds for annulment do not include any of the following:
...
    *
This looks pretty stupid--wouldn't it be better to remove the whole list than have such a glaringly ridiculous assertion on it?
I found an a website that might be useful for improving this article
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1002.asp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  list for invalid grounds is currently ridiculous 

message: From the article (hereinafter statement X):
:A bigamous marriage (one party was still married at the time of the second marriage) cannot be annulled—it is void ab initio (not legal from its inception). 
I don't understand this statement.  A quick google reveals a distinction between "voidable" and "void ab initio" :
:Void ab initio marriages are thought to be contrary to public policy and the state has an interest in ending the marital relationship. Support and property rights are generally waived if an annulment is granted on void ab initio grounds, not so with an annulment granted on voidable grounds. 
Statement X suggests anulment is the process of making "voidable" marriages void, and since "void ab inito" marriages are void to begin with, the process cannot be applied.  However,
(1) legally declaring that a marriage was "void ab initio" 
has  the same practical outcome as
(2.1)legally finding that a marriage is voidable
plus
(2.2)legally making the marriage void
So if "annulment" is strictly only to be applied to process 2.2, what name is given to the sum total of process 2, or to the similar process 1?  The aforementioned source (admittedly for Virginia, not New York) suggest annulment applies equally to process 1 or 2; in which case statement X is incorrect. Joestynes 06:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigamy in New York

message: The extended quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the section "annulment in the Catholic Church" may be copyrighted material; even if it is fair use in the United States, it may violate copyright if viewed elsewhere, unless permission was granted.  Was permission granted for the quote?  (By the way, inclusion of the quote actually causes the article to read favorably to the Catholic Church; although you or I may agree with the teaching, Wikipedia is supposed to be "neutral.")  69.140.164.142 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "This catechism is given to them [pastors and the lay apostolate] that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine [...]. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Jn 8:32). [...] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes." John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution "Fidei depositum". To me that's a copyright permission, at least for non-commercial information as Wikipedia is. --77.4.46.189 (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Ask your canon lawyer. Him having three ex-wives, chances are that the annulment is very easy on formal grounds (sometimes even by administrative decree without a trial), if he was bound by a valid marriage. - If these were not canonical marriages, the principle is that whatever a husband does after marriage cannot possibly annul it. It can, however, serve as circumstantial evidence. If it can be proven in court that he intended to be abusive in a way that either is contrary to the essence of marriage itself or of which it can be proven that it would have prevented the woman from marrying him, then an annulment seems within the range of possible things. I have a slight feeling, though, that "abusive" can mean various things. (I am no canon lawyer.)--93.133.114.13 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright 

message: Just as a side note, Pauline privilege (as the Catholic Church understands it) extends to all Christians, not merely Catholics.  I have, therefore, changed the article.  I also added the existence of Petrine privilege.
DaveTroy (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauline Priv. 

message: This concerns POV tag cleanup.  Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it.  This permits discussion and consensus among editors.  From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.  Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.  This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags.  No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPOV tag 

message: Where deos it comment in the Bible on Divorce or Annulment, and why is there no reference on the main page?
I cannot accept any man made or cultural understandings on such matters without scripture for back up. I am also not clear on the subject of marriage (in spiritual terms), as Adam and Eve were married without a clergyman or witnesses other than God. Does this mean that two people can be married as long as they pronounce it in front of God and each other, does God hold people to this kind of spiritual agreement/contract, or would this be fornication?
Some people could see the initial marriage ritual as the first sexual relations that an individual has with another(of course in mutual love and between man and woman), this physical/spiritual bond lasting until death. The rest of the journey being love, respect and duty to each other and children. Not a peice of paper that which ever State you live in recognises, ordained by a clergyman that might not of been appointed by God but by man in a Church that is physical only,(according to scripture two or more people discussing the matters of God will have Him present and that makes a Church).
Is this witness enough?
The reason why I am asking this is because there is an increasing amount of people who are getting married for legal reasons rather than genuine ones, there are also legal complications which are unecessarily complicated, especially to do with Divorce or Annulment. The Laws seem to be unfair and can be taken advantage of by selfish and cruel hearted people. 
Pre-nups should be the other way round as to ensure a person is not getting married to you for your wealth. To make someone sign a pre-nup as it stands only proves that you don't trust them. 
Can we bypass the Law of the land and still respect Gods Law? 195.171.94.254 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce, Annulment and Marriage 

message: According to the article on Henry VIII's 6 wives, 4 wives were annulled, not 3. -- CowplopmorrisTalkContribs 16:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry VIII 

message: I don't think the term retroactive should be applied here, as an annulment does not change the past "marriage" but rather states what had been true before. Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.87.42 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Retroactive

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Annulment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715203124/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/_P43.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P43.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715203124/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/_P43.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P43.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As a practicing lawyer and having obtained many legal annulments over the years, I know about the subject.  Surely annulment as a part of Canon law is a parallel or tangential track that exists at the same time.  One is secular; one is religious.  The lead paragraph should reflect this fork/dichotomy.  In fact, the whole article should be reorganized so that it does not admix the two.  They have separate and distinct grounds and effects. "Render unto Caesar..."  Two kingdoms doctrine.  Not fungible goods.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that annulments exist both through secular and canon law -- see, e.g., Declaration of nullity, Get (divorce document). The article mentions Henry VIII whose inability to obtain an annulment from the Catholic Church led to England's split from the Church, and already includes extensive material on religious annulment. Arllaw (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would caution that my comments were framed in the culture and context in which I work.  This may have a 'western' bias and not present 'a world view.'  It is possible that in some countries civil and canon laws merge.  E.g., Sharia law and within the Vatican City/Vatican, so that there would only be one standard for an annulment there.  I don't know.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside and interestingly, I found that amongst all the world's countries, only Vatican City and the Philippines have no law allowing for divorce.  See Divorce has No Place in Vatican City By Jung Inman - July 31, 2016.  The article does say that annulments are permitted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Annulment]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Annulment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P43.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929105853/http://lasvegasannulment.us/qualifications.php to http://www.lasvegasannulment.us/qualifications.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912131919/http://www.sal.org.sg/digitallibrary/Lists/SAL%20Journal/Attachments/100/1993-5%282%29-SAcLJ-290-Leong.pdf to http://www.sal.org.sg/digitallibrary/Lists/SAL%20Journal/Attachments/100/1993-5%282%29-SAcLJ-290-Leong.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326192542/http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nycodes/c29/a19.html to http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nycodes/c29/a19.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified