From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 07:23:33 BST
> > >RICK
> > >No. In American jurisprudence the failure to disclose an ability to
> > >reproduce prior to marriage constituted a fraud that served as grounds
>for
> > >annulment (and in several states even if the infertile party didn't
>know).
>
>JOHNNY
> > Hmm, I can see why that could be an issue. But finding out afterwards,
>or
> > just reaching that conculsion after a few years, isn't grounds, right?
>
>RICK
>Usually no, but it varies from state to state. In some states it's still
>grounds if the infertile party "should have" known (ie. has previously
>had medical tests which would have indicated fertility).
Huh. I think everyone should legally be considered equally fertile. Even
if a doctor makes a diagnosis, there should still be considered a legal
probaibility of fertility. Is lying to your finance about your assets
illegal too? Is that grounds for annulment? (Was that 'Millionaire'
marriage annulled?) I think it is related to just general
misrepresentation. How about saying your job is going well and you'll be
rich someday, or that you LOVE ballet? Or how about not disclosing a family
history of belching? Or more seriously, something like a heart defect that
will kill you in five years, or that you carry the Huntington's gene?
You don't get out of fatherhood responsibilities if a woman lied about her
cycle or "should have known" about her cycle. We should always assume a
possibility of pregnancy when two people have sex, because there is one.
And we shouldn't have to prove our fertility before marrying someone. The
less we know about it, the better.
>RICK
>Yup. The grounds for annulment (with the exception one policy-based
>category) all must have existed prior to the marriage. In effect, it's as
>if the law is saying that because of X-defect... one party never
>effectively
>consented to the marriage (ie. fraud, duress) or couldn't consent (ie.
>underage, mentally ill). These marriages become "voidable", which means
>they can be annulled if the one of the parties so desire (the innocent
>one).
>This is not to be confused with things that make a marriage "void", (ie. a
>previously existing marriage that has never been annulled or dissolved).
>That marriage is treated as if it literally never happened... the parties
>don't even have a choice... they aren't married and never were (even if
>they
>never get an annulment).
>
>JOHNNY
> > Thanks, I see. I never hear of annulments outside the Catholic church
> > context. You said you law clerked in this, huh? How common were civil
> > annulments? The judge had to decide which was appropriate, right?
>
>RICK
>Yes, I spent a summer clerking for a NY State Supreme Court Family Law
>Judge
>(don't get too impressed, in NY "supreme court" is the lowest level of
>courts for some stupid reason that nobody seems to know). It was a
>heartwrenching job (you try getting up in the morning and ripping families
>apart, telling a mother or father they can't see children anymore, deciding
>that some child has to go into the state foster-care system... it wears on
>you). Anyway, Civil annulments aren't as common as divorce because they
>can
>only be granted if one of about 4 conditions existed prior to the marriage
>(ie. fraud, duress, impotence, lack of mental capacity---- each with
>numerous subcategories). Moreover, voidable marriages can be 'ratified' if
>the 'innocent' party learns of the fraud or duress (or whatever) and
>continues to cohabit with the 'guilty' spouse. Judges do have discretion
>in
>whether or not to grant an annulment (and appellate courts will respect a
>judge's exercise of that discretion so long as it doesn't rise to the level
>of abuse). That being said, annulments are usually granted fairly
>mechanically. Discretion tends to only be exercised in unusual
>circumstances (ie. underage-girl marries adult-male and her parents sue to
>annul the marriage; The judge meets the couple and decides that despite
>the
>fact she is technically underage, she seems to be mature and responsible
>enough to be a wife; He may refuse to grant the annulment).
Interesting. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
>JOHNNY (on covenant marriages)
> > I don't know much about them. I know they are designed to trap couples
>into
> > "what do you mean you don't want the convenant marriage? Dont you love
>me?"
> > And maybe if that makes some couples think about what they are
>commiting
> > to, and maybe helps break up couples that aren't on the same wavelength,
> > that's a good thing.
>
>RICK
>Maybe it works like that. But I think it would cut both ways (ie. What do
>you mean we have to get the covenant marriage? Don't you trust me?).
>Moreover, in reality, I fear that young couples are often "trapped" into
>covenant marriages by overzealous parents and clergymen who don't have as
>much at stake and may have interests of their own which conflict with those
>of the married couple (but I'm a bit of a cynic sometimes, so who knows).
Yeah, don't you trust me is just as treacherous as don't you love me, isn't
it. I'd say, based on experience, NO I DON'T TRUST YOU. I'm glad
Massachusetts doesn't have two marriages to argue about. I think there
should just be one marriage for everyone.
>RICK
>I'm not sure I argued that "divorce is needed for the abuse problem," but
>even if I did...You're mixing apples and oranges J. Liberal divorce laws
>obviously won't help one who *chooses to stay* in an abusive relationship.
>However, why you think those people should be the ones we look at when
>deciding what remedies should be available to one who *chooses to leave* is
>beyond me.
All staying married to an abuser means is that you can't get married to your
next abuser (ie, you can't have intercourse legally - you might have to do
it in private! <astonishing! Is that even possible?>). You can still
leave, I don't think we allow wives to drag husbands back home by their ear
anymore, do we?.
Take care
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 07:23:58 BST