Being married to TWO women at the same time IS a problem.
I'll say.
A religious annulment is a process in the Catholic church. It only affects whether the Church recognizes your marriage - not whether it is legally binding.
Now if you are talking about a secular annulment (which I can't imagine would be the case since the original marriage was obviously consummated because they have children), then yes Kerry would be a bigamist. Is that what you are suggesting?
Marriage is a legal, binding contract, recognized and registered with the state.
Marriage is also a sacred union, recognized by the Catholic Church.
The legal wheels can turn fairly quickly, enabling the contract to be declared void. Upon the issuance of the divorce decree, the state declares the marriage to be at an end, and both parties are free to pursue their lives, even to entering into another marriage contrat, recognized by the state.
The Catholic Church would view things a little differently.
Divorce is a sin, under canon law. But the Church does recognize the process of annulment (fundamentally declaring that the marriage never existed in the first place).
Technically a Catholic would have to receive an annulment from the Church (a religious nicety that the state doesn't recognize), as well as a divorce from the state (a legal action that the Church doesn't recognize). Technically, the Church recognizes the couple as still married, until the annullment is granted, even if they are divorced.
Re-marrying, before receiving the annulment is a sin, but not a crime.
But nothing being married to two rich women at the same time cannot solve.....
Even if it's just a "technicality", it would still lodge in the minds of many voters. Go for it. The Dims would.
You have no idea!