Like I said, grounds for valid annulment are
- lack of ability to contract a marriage or lack of consent
- petition of nullity form one or both spouses.
One marrying with the intent to divorce and remarry if opportunity presents itself, or one marrying but intending to avoid parenthood, or one marrying while already married in the eye of God is not consenting to marriage. He is consenting to temporary cohabitation. No matter how he fools the Church, or the pastor, or the state to do the ceremony, the marriage is not properly conceived and is nullifiable. Where do you disagree?
how about an anullment several years after and a few kids later? If the marriage didn't exist where do the time and kids go?
One or both??? So if one spouse wants an annulment, that's valid grounds for it?
This is a more liberal reading than even I thought.
Another one of the flexible inflexibles.
Are we to conclude from this argument that Kennedy is fortunate he is not a Protestant or his divorce would have been much more difficult?