Let me use another example to illustrate my point. If a priest does not use the specific words "Take this all of you and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you" - if he does not use THOSE words, then transubstantiation does not occur. If a priest spent his entire career saying mass and using a different phrase - no matter how the rest of the liturgy and ceremony and sacramental trappings may indicate that transubstantiation had occurred - I've got news for you - in not one instance did transubstantiation actually take place.
In the same way - regardless of children, longevity, public appearances, quality of life or relationship - if the basic requirements of making a free choice to marry with the intent of having children is not met - then an actual marriage never took place.
I would hazard to say you're falling into the same trap that all of the same sex marriage advocates are setting - if it looks like a marriage, and sounds like a marriage, and feels like a marriage - WELL THEN, IT MUST BE A MARRIAGE.
The end of such a marriage requires a divorce not an annulment. Be honest.
You can't have a marriage annuled without breaking the civil union, as well. As I mentioned above, if the marriage isn't valid when the vows are exchanged, it doesn't suddenly become valid later on.
The number of annulments granted (declarations of nullity to be accurate) in the U.S. is nothing more than scandalous. We make up 6% of the world’s Catholics, yet about 80% of the world’s annulments.
When a petitioner seeks an annulment, and the petition is accepted (which is the case the VAST majority of the time), the marriage is declared null over 90% of the time. The U.S. tribunals, by and large, are nothing more than annulment mills. Well, here’s a bit of a different take on those seeking annulments.
“The vast majority of marriages are valid, the vast majority of people know it, and they know we know it too.”
—The Nullity of Marriage for Reason of Insanity or Lack of due Discretion of Judgement.
Edward Cardinal Egan
Edward Cardinal Egan, then Monsignor Egan, served as a judge on the Roman Rota, which would be similar to Catholic Church as the U.S. Supreme Court is to our country. He also helped in formulating the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983. I’d say his view of annulments has much more credibility than the average tribunalist.
Also, others have mentioned attorney’s provided to each of the parties. More accurately, an Advocate MAY BE provided by the tribunal, especially if one is the petitioner (one seeking annulment). If one is the respondent (similar to defendant in civil proceedings), there is no guarantee of being provided an Advocate, or at least one knowledgeable enough to help you. An Advocate is often not a canon lawyer. Unless one hires their own canon lawyer (civil attorneys are not involved in marriage tribunals), the Advocate that one may or may not be provided with, frequently has no more training than perhaps attending a few workshops or other minimal training. Quite a difference from what canon law says of the qualifications to be an Advocate:
Can. 1483 The procurator and advocate must have attained the age of majority and be of good reputation; moreover, the advocate must be a Catholic unless the diocesan bishop permits otherwise, a doctor in canon law or otherwise truly expert, and approved by the same bishop.
A DOCTOR IN CANON LAW or otherwise truly expert. I am very confident that this is rarely the case with regards to Advocates in the U.S.