marrying civilly it is a moot point. Really the whole thing is a bit absurd. Let whoever marry whoever civilly. Let Churches recognize or not any marriages.

wrong? The Sacrament of Divorce seems to have no effect on those who claim their marriages were hand crafted by God Almighty. 'God made it, it was holy, it lasted 18 months' is not very convincing.
If there was a 'sacramental' aspect, don't you think such marriages would last at least more often than the 'regular' sort which everyone on Earth who is not Catholic have? What sort of a 'sacrament' looks and acts exactly like a 'non sacrament'?
Then there is a guy like Rudy Gullianni, married for years then 'annulled' then married again, then he moves his mistress into Gracie mansion before his second divorce, runs around shouting about how Sacramental his various couplings are. Two or three wives, various mistresses. Sacramental goodness!

time I can receive it.

The fact that state laws say I can get married does not have any effect on this.

Clerks who use their religious tenets as an excuse are just wrong. Their job is to enable civil marriage unions, not sacred ones.

I've only been married once, in 1980. What I most noticed about getting the license was that I didn't have to show proof of who I was, let alone my age. No wonder some people succumb to the temptation to lie about their age.

And more to the point, Catholics, or so I thought, take no stand about non Catholics divorcing, since if they weren't married in the Church in the first place, they weren't really married. At least that's the way I understood it growing up. Which is quite nonsensical, of course.

here in South Dakota it definitely asks that, and, to my knowledge, marriage license applications in my former state of Ohio also ask that question and include the information on the license. It's up to each state,though, as to what questions to ask on their applications and it depends on state law.

It was funny when hubby and I got our marriage license application, because he'd previously been married twice and I had never been married. And, on SD applications, the question is very prominent and you actually have to show proof of divorce to the clerks if you've been divorced. But not all states do that, of course.

I totally get where the OP is coming from and I agree that it's quite hypocritical. But, unfortunately, also all too common. Kinda reminds me of the pharmacists who think they have the right to use their own personal beliefs in deciding whether or not to fill your legal prescription.

I wonder if they have any good way to check on previous marriages.

Especially if a prior marriage and divorce took place elsewhere. Or, like me, I got married in one state, divorced years later in another one. I now live in yet another state, which I'm sure has no way of knowing what my marital history has been.

Similarly, I often wonder if there is some national registry of felons. What's to keep someone who serves time in prison, then completes the sentence, from simply registering to vote. Again, especially if that person moves to another state.

Many of us have a lot to be grateful to the divorce courts for.

Anyway, the annulment is a great cash cow for Mother Church since most of the people seeking them are high profile enough to need to stay in the church. Poor folks just get remarried by a judge and call it a day, not bothering to tell the priest about it.

I recall reading that Catholics aren't allowed to remarry if you've already been married and there is no annulment.

Civil marriages are irrelevant.

they should find another job.

that includes pharmacists who won't fill doctor's prescriptions.

If religious folk would stop trying to force their religious beliefs on others, I would have little to say about most of those organizations. But they do - which is why they are, to me, the enemies of democracy.

and one of a court clerk's duties is marrying people WITHOUT discrimination as by law. If they feel their Catholicism trumps that, they shouldn't keep the job.


rocktivity