Why annul instead of divorce? Note 1: This question is supposed to be a lemma here: Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition? I am hoping to claim: Whenever annulments are possible, there are incentives to getting an annulment (a civil/secular annulment) instead of a divorce, even if divorce is cheaper. Question: If you're not in the Philippines or Vatican, why would anyone seek an annulment (as in a secular/civil annulment of course) instead of a divorce? My understanding is that divorce is cheaper, so even your (secular/civil) marriage is invalid, why not just say it's valid and divorce to save money? I guess we can take cases: Case 1. The invalidity of your marriage can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Case 2. You're not sure the invalidity of your marriage can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. So, maybe there's a risk of wasting money or time in applying for an annulment, when you'd just be told to divorce instead. Also, since this is Legal SE, I guess the answer would be in terms of judicial economy, legislative intent, legal consequences (alimony, custody, etc), state interests, etc. Note 2: replace 'reasonable doubt' with 'preponderance of evidence'/'balance of probabilities' or whatever (wow I'm actually so intrigued about all the levels that I'm discovering just now), if need be. Depends on whatever is the burden of proof standard here. Also maybe related: How do Filipino Catholics get a church annulment when their state marriage is valid, considering the Philippines doesn't have divorce? Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce?
There are several reasons people wish to get a marriage annulled. I'll try to list them in order of frequency -- though I'm unaware of any statistics that confirm that my ordering is correct. Money. As per Nij's comment, when people are divorced, their property is subdivided 50-50. If one person can get away with an annulment, and keep the property which he earned, then it will be in his interests to do so. Religious reasons. As per SJuan76's comments, several churches, including Catholic, Mormon, and Russian Baptist, do not allow a person to marry if his previous spouse is still alive. An annulment is a way around that. Fraud marriages. This is rare, but under Trump it happens more often then you might think. People (usually women) come to the US illegally, marry someone (generally significantly older), and after the wedding day they are never again seen by their spouse. They use their marriage certificate to ensure permission to stay in the US -- but, they were never interested in marrying that person in the first place. When found, often such people are living with another illegal alien "as a boyfriend", with kids born before the fraud marriage even took place. It is in such cases, that their new spouse often tries to attain an annulment of the marriage -- to make sure that the illegal alien doesn't get rewarded for cheating them. Personal reasons. For some people, having never been married means it's easier to get a spouse who also has never been married -- and being able to check the "Single -- Never married" box on a form is always a plus in such cases. Now, don't ask me why people prefer to marry someone who's never been married, over someone who's been divorced. :) Incest. Under the US law, if you marry someone who's your close relative, then you are guilty of a felony -- even if you didn't know they're your close relative at the time of marriage. However, if you annul the marriage, then you can avoid prosecution.
I'm just going to talk about the US. The First Amendment to the US Constitution codifies that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... What is clearly prohibited by this Amendment would be Congress (or any inferior legislature via the 14th Amendment) restricting the ability of religions which refuse to marry same-sex couples from marrying opposite-sex couples, or in general outlawing any kind of religious law about who a particular church is willing to marry (e.g. only marrying if both parties are of the religion). However, legislatures are generally allowed to influence action via government inducements (I'll just use inducements to describe subsidies, tax breaks, etc). The current precedent for determining whether a particular legislative action violates the Establishment Clause is the "Lemon Test," from Lemon v. Kurtzman, which has the following test: Government action violates the Establishment Clause unless it: Has a significant secular (i.e., non-religious) purpose, Does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and Does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion. On the first point, I think the law fails - inducing religious establishments to perform same-sex marriage does not have a "significant secular purpose" because ultimately the government doesn't care whether or not you have a marriage ceremony, just that you sign a marriage certificate with an appropriate witness, which can be a government official. The law could survive on the second point if it could be shown to have at least the preponderance of being for social good, if it is argued that the law's purpose is to make church marriage ceremonies more accessible for same-sex couples by inducing more churches to perform them, and not to harm churches that don't perform them. However, this would probably be an uphill battle, since the law has the practical effect of promoting some religions' beliefs over others. The law probably fails on the third point as well, going back to the previous point that it effectively results in the government choosing one religious practice to promote over another. However, the Lemon Test often criticized or entirely disregarded by the current Supreme Court, for example in the case American Legion v American Humanist Association (a case decided by the current Supreme Court): This pattern is a testament to the Lemon test's shortcomings. As Establishment Clause cases involving a great array of laws and practices came to the Court, it became more and more apparent that the Lemon test could not resolve them. It could not "explain the Establishment Clause's tolerance, for example, of the prayers that open legislative meetings, . . . certain references to, and invocations of, the Deity in the public words of public officials; the public references to God on coins, decrees, and buildings; or the attention paid to the religious objectives of certain holidays, including Thanksgiving. Even without the Lemon Test, we can look at Walz v. Tax Commission of New York for an idea of when tax breaks for religious establishments is allowed (emphasis mine): The legislative purpose of the property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion... New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its "moral or mental improvement," should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. It has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such;... The State has an affirmative policy that considers these groups as beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life and finds this classification useful, desirable, and in the public interest. This paragraph seems to provide some argument both ways. First, the bolded section would seem to prohibit using government inducements to promote one religious practice over another, and that the government can only assist religious institutions when the assistance is applied equally. On the other hand, states are allowed to grant tax relief to religious organizations "that foster..."moral or mental improvement,"..." A legislature could argue that the law promotes "moral improvement" by encouraging acceptance of same-sex marriage, rather than a particular religious belief. However, I don't think that such an argument would prevail over the general prohibition on promoting any religious exercise over another. Government assistance for religious organizations is very thinly held to be permissible only when it is equal. In my opinion, the Supreme Court already has to use twisted gymnastics to argue in favor of any government assistance of religious organizations granted because of their religious status, so they are unlikely to allow something this far (especially since it is usually the conservative justices arguing in favor of these policies, and they are less likely to do same-sex marriage any favors). On the other hand, a permissible policy may be to have government grants for any organization that performs same-sex marriage ceremonies, whether or not that organization is religious. Whether or not that is allowed is likely going to depend on what proportion of the receiving organizations are religious in nature, but there may be enough hotels and other non-religious venues that would qualify that such a law might survive.
If a law is struck-down as unconstitutional, but all the precedent used to find it unconstitutional gets reversed; what becomes of the law? In U.S. law, the law has effect again, unless it has been amended or repealed in the meantime. Is it totally dead, needing be passed anew? In the U.S., no. It is not totally dead. It is merely dormant. It stays on the books and legislators may decide not to repeal it as a political statement. It also might be considered for interpretive purposes when construing another part of the same law. For example, the meaning given to a phrase in an unconstitutional part of the law might be applied to a different part of the law that is constitutional. Can the judiciary be asked to reinstated, after which point it can be used again? In the U.S., any court can determine that a law is unconstitutional, but the extent to which that ruling is binding precedent on other courts or other parties than those to the case before it depends upon the court in question and upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel (a.k.a. issue preclusion). For example, the legal fight in the U.S. to hold bans on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional was fought in and resulted in ruling in dozens of courts at the trial court and state appellate court, and federal intermediate appellate court level before a uniform ruling was established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Further, even if the issue arises in another case where there is a controlling precedent, attorney ethics permit an attorney to make a good faith argument for a change in the law to any court, so if there is some good faith argument for doing so, the attorney can push that the issue be reconsidered. Of course, usually the answer from the court will be "no." Or can it just be enforced again without any formal process; so long as nobody sues and gets it killed again by a lower court? Sometimes government officials enforce laws that have been held unconstitutional, either because they aren't aware of the relevant court decisions, or because they think that their facts are distinguishable from those under which the law was held unconstitutional (which sometimes happens on an "as applied" basis rather than on a "facial" basis that applies to all cases), or because they think the judge before them might rule differently despite the precedent. Also, would the answer differ according to country? If so, could you please give me some examples of countries handling this differently. Yes. Many countries with legal systems based upon the legal system of countries of continental Europe like France and Germany and Spain, which are called "civil law" countries have a very different process of handling unconstitutional laws, as does the European Court of Human Rights and the highest court of the European Union. In Germany, for example, questions of the constitutionality of a law may be raised only in the Constitutional Court and not in other courts. This ruling is usually final. And, unlike U.S. courts, the Constitutional Court can rule a law unconstitutional during the legislative process, rather than in connection with an actual case or controversy relating to the law taking effect (in which case the law never gets on the books in the first place). I don't know what happens when the Constitutional Court declares a law unconstitutional. I do know, however, that in the case of the European Court of Human Rights and the highest courts of the E.U. that one of the usual remedies will be an order directed at a member state to amend its statutes to remove the offending law, with sanctions imposed if the member state fails to do so. Obviously, once such a law is repealed in this fashion, it would have to be re-enacted to take effect even if the precedent holding that the law was unconstitutional was undermined.
You will have to litigate this issue anew in the divorce. When there has been a major change in circumstances, issues related to custody can be relitigated, even if there isn't a remarriage. In this case, both the marriage and the fact that nine years have passed since the original order constitute a substantial change in circumstances. At the time the order was entered, there was an 18 month old with parents who didn't live together. The child is now 10 years old and has lived with both parents without regard to any custody order for at least seven years. These are completely different circumstances so custody issues must be revisited. As @mkennedy notes in the comments, it is even likely that the court or someone acting on behalf of the court would consider the opinions of the child at this point, which obviously wasn't possible the first time around. Generally speaking, the way that the "best interests of the child" standard that applies in a case like this one is interpreted is to come as close to maintaining the pre-divorce status quo as possible in light of the separation of the parents. The most relevant section of the Missouri Revised Statutes to this issue is as follows: § 452.410. Custody, decree, modification of, when Except as provided in subsection 2 of this section, the court shall not modify a prior custody decree unless it has jurisdiction under the provisions of section 452.450 and it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or sections 452.375 and 452.400, any custody order entered by any court in this state or any other state prior to August 13, 1984, may, subject to jurisdictional requirements, be modified to allow for joint custody in accordance with section 452.375, without any further showing. If either parent files a motion to modify an award of joint legal custody or joint physical custody, each party shall be entitled to a change of judge as provided by supreme court rule.
I am guessing that you are asking this because you are interested in being an officiant at a marriage ceremony. There are many options, including the Church of Universal Life, for example. The legal question is what ordination is acceptable for the purpose for which you intend to use it. Different states have different laws about who may officiate a wedding ceremony. It is important that you be certain you are permitted to do so with whatever ordination you are seeking. Although I believe there will be more litigation about this in years to come, not all states allow "internet ministers" to perform wedding ceremonies. You may need to contact an attorney in the state to be sure, and this is advisable because marriages have very significant legal and property implications. You do not want a couple to have their marriage deemed void because you were the officiant in a state that does not allow that. This could affect everything from taxes to property ownership to the right to make medical decisions for each other. As a general rule, tourist destinations and states with more secular populations are more likely to allow these marriages. I believe Pennsylvania also allows the couple to self-solemnize the ceremony, growing out of the customs of the Society of Friends. The bottom line is that the answer is state-specific.
Marriages are controlled by state law, immigration is governed by federal law. In no state is a marriage automatically &quot;cancelled&quot; for committing a crime, much less for violating an immigration regulation. So you will remain married until you or he changes that.
There are a lot more differences than this, but if your teacher sums up what he/she means by that sentence. Here, specifically, in Civil Law, the decision of the courts must comply with the laws as enacted, which means there are specific statutes required to make something illegal. Common Law features Stare Decisis which basically means that if Case A is decided in one way, and Case B is a similar Case to Case B, Case B must yield the same decision for all cases in that jurisdiction and lower courts below that court. This means that while statutes (laws) can be made by a legislature, the courts can "make law" by deciding cases. For example, some States in the United States and England and Wales only recently (within the past 30 years) adopted an actual law that made murder illegal? Prior to that murder was illegal under Common Law Murder that had been based on precedence from bazillion cases before that said it's illegal. Nobody bothered to write it down in an actual law. There are several other big differences such as Inquisitorial vs. Adversarial nature of courts, how and when punishments are decided (The famous "Just following Orders" Defense was given in part because of this difference and a lack of understanding over it.), who is the trier of fact vs. who is the trier of law, but as far as what is "Law" this is a good single summation of the difference in a single sentence. But it really shouldn't be condensed to a single sentence.
Do I have to pay child support if we are just dating and not married? We are not planning on having a child, but what if by some odd chance she gets pregnant? Does it depend on where I live? Like Toronto? The Modern Rule In Most Developed Countries It does depend upon where you live. No jurisdiction of which I am aware has ever distinguished between a planned child and an unplanned pregnancy in making a child support award. The vast majority of countries that have a category of obligation called "child support" apply it without regard to whether the parents are married. This would include all jurisdictions in Canada and the United States. But, in those jurisdictions, liability for child support in the case of an unmarried couple requires a mother seeking child support from a father, to establish the father's paternity by any of a variety of means, within the time allowed by law. Given the availability of cheap and highly reliable DNA tests to establish paternity, this step is now almost trivial and often waived by fathers who simply admit paternity instead when paternity seems clear. In contrast, paternity is presumed rather than something that has to be proved in cases involving a married couple. There is an exception to this general rule in most jurisdictions that have child support at all. This is because the husband of a married woman who has a child is presumed to be the father. Therefore, a man who is the biological father of the married woman's child is only obligated to pay child support if the father's paternity is established within the time allowed by law by the husband, the mother of the child, or a third-party on behalf of the child with standing to do so. Also, in most jurisdictions that have a concept of child support payments, a termination of parental rights (generally for abuse or neglect, but also in connection with a legal adoption by someone else) also terminates obligations to pay child support payments that arise after parental rights are terminated, although this rule is not universal. Generally that exception would not apply in the fact pattern that you describe. Historical and Comparative Context Historically, the concept of child support was unknown, illegitimate children and their mothers had no rights with respect to their fathers (and fathers had no rights with respect to their illegitimate children in most circumstances), and only married people were entitled to post-divorce support from an ex-spouse that was known as alimony and alimony served to provide support to both the ex-spouse and their children. The harshness of this historical rule was mitigated somewhat by the concept of common law marriage that had the practical effect of declaring an unmarried man who caused an unmarried woman to become pregnant to be declared husband and wife despite not having actually having gone through a marriage ceremony in many cases. At that time, there was an incentive for the man to re-characterize the nature of the relationship retroactively, because if the woman was not a prostitute, it would often be a crime or tort for the man to have had sex with the unmarried woman, enforceable by the state or by her father or guardian. But, if the couple were deemed to have been common law married, then all of these sanctions could be avoided. At this time, in areas where the state was not powerful enough to enforce these kinds of sanctions for premarital sex giving rise to a pregnancy, social pressure and sometimes even a literal "shotgun" marriage would be used to force the father to marry to mother. Prior to the 19th century in Western predominantly Christian countries, the only way to get a divorce was by special legislation in which the legislature passed a law specifically ending a particular couple's marriage. In the 19th century, bit by bit, Western countries started to allow judicially decreed divorces under a general statute on a proof of fault basis, with alimony awarded to the not at fault spouse under a breach of contract damages styled analysis that did not involve a separate child support component. Bit by bit in various Western jurisdictions during the 20th century, child support began to be recognized as a separate obligation from alimony and property division in a divorce, as partnership theories of family law, and parent-child relationship based theories of family law, began to replace the contract based theories of family law in earlier divorce actions. Non-marital relationship entitlements to child support also arose around the same time. Many U.S. states have both civil and criminal penalties for failing to provide financial support to your child. Japan only recognized child support as a separate type of relief in family law in the late 20th century (multiple decades after World War II), and has never had post-dissolution of marriage alimony after a divorce, although it has had temporary support not clearly distinguished between alimony and child support, during the pendency of divorce proceedings (which tend to be much shorter than in the U.S. and Canada). The primary relief to a spouse upon a divorce in Japan historically was property division and complete allocation of each child to one parent or the other, with no child support or alimony post-decree, until these late 20th century reforms allowing for limited child support payments (which are still rarely actually received even when ordered by a court) were adopted. The analysis in countries where the parents of the child are subject to Islamic rules of family law are beyond my competence, but quite different. Unlike Western jurisdictions, Islam has recognized non-legislative divorce since its inception in the early 600s CE as did prior pagan communities in places where Islam arose. One of the main reasons that child support and alimony were rare or non-existent at the time in almost all countries was that the legal systems and economic systems in existence at the time made intangible monetary obligations to pay child support in regular installments over a long period of time, and to enforce custody arrangements, was effectively impossible for former spouses to enforce in all but a very small fraction of cases.