This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Annulment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The following were listed as *not* being grounds for annulment:
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 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)
Yes, something needs to be done about that list, because (6) is glaringly silly to list as "not a ground for annullment", don't you think?
Canon 1142 says that a non-consummated marriage can be dissolved, not that it is invalid. 24.191.87.42 ( talk) 03:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Could the article provide a link to the New York statute if available? -- Daniel C. Boyer 15:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
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)
From the article (hereinafter statement X):
I don't understand this statement. A quick google reveals a distinction between "voidable" and "void ab initio" [2]:
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)
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)
I need to know if you found out that the husband is abusive after the marraige can it be annuled? I found out from his ex wife that he was also abusive w/ her and two other spouses.
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)
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)
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)
This article appears to be heavily lopsided. It talks at great length about annulment in the context of the Catholic church, which seems inappropriate for an article about law, especially considering a separate article already exists for annulment in the Catholic church, and is linked to in this article. I think that section needs to be trimmed considerably, and more info should be added about what the law says. This should include US states other than New York if their laws are notable, as well as other countries. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 11:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the article on Henry VIII's 6 wives, 4 wives were annulled, not 3. -- Cowplopmorris Talk Contribs 16:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Annulment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The following were listed as *not* being grounds for annulment:
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 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)
Yes, something needs to be done about that list, because (6) is glaringly silly to list as "not a ground for annullment", don't you think?
Canon 1142 says that a non-consummated marriage can be dissolved, not that it is invalid. 24.191.87.42 ( talk) 03:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Could the article provide a link to the New York statute if available? -- Daniel C. Boyer 15:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
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)
From the article (hereinafter statement X):
I don't understand this statement. A quick google reveals a distinction between "voidable" and "void ab initio" [2]:
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)
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)
I need to know if you found out that the husband is abusive after the marraige can it be annuled? I found out from his ex wife that he was also abusive w/ her and two other spouses.
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)
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)
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)
This article appears to be heavily lopsided. It talks at great length about annulment in the context of the Catholic church, which seems inappropriate for an article about law, especially considering a separate article already exists for annulment in the Catholic church, and is linked to in this article. I think that section needs to be trimmed considerably, and more info should be added about what the law says. This should include US states other than New York if their laws are notable, as well as other countries. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 11:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the article on Henry VIII's 6 wives, 4 wives were annulled, not 3. -- Cowplopmorris Talk Contribs 16:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)