A
Ammi
Guest
No, not proof, but potential evidence of commitment.
Last edited:
- Status
M
Mi_Rose
Guest
There are a lot of people who have sex with no commitment. There may even be the idea that it is a commitment on one side and not the other. Many people have been decieved when they thought sex meant commitment and their. partner did not. Lots of books movies and plays have even been written about that.
A
Ammi
Guest
Yes of course. Their relationship can illuminate whether they saw sex devoid of marriage Hope’s for the future.
Hoping for future marriage + intercourse is potentially planning
Hoping for future marriage + intercourse is potentially planning
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
By and far, most people are not that philosophical about sex. They have been raised that sex is a fun pass time, a normal part of life and that as long as both consent all is in good fun.
A
Ammi
Guest
Well her parents will probably have the opportunity to express their part, right?
C
CPConvert
Guest
This is a large reason why I’ve just been observing the direction of the thread
To answer other questions - no, Dad can’t testify. He’s dead now. Both witnesses to the JOP ceremony (not priest, not pastor) can testify because they have passed. So I have my older brother that I’m close to testifying. Timeline is simple, met ex-husband but we both dated other people while he was deployed. He returns one month, next month we are fighting a lot, but find out I’m pregnant, and 2 1/2 weeks later we are married by a JOP ceremony because
To answer other questions - no, Dad can’t testify. He’s dead now. Both witnesses to the JOP ceremony (not priest, not pastor) can testify because they have passed. So I have my older brother that I’m close to testifying. Timeline is simple, met ex-husband but we both dated other people while he was deployed. He returns one month, next month we are fighting a lot, but find out I’m pregnant, and 2 1/2 weeks later we are married by a JOP ceremony because
- Ex said he didn’t want another person raising his kid
- When I mentioned to my Dad that we would raise the baby together, he said “So when are you getting married?” (baby due end of July/early Aug) I said “Maybe May”, he said “I think it should be sooner” I later learned his statement was motivated by health insurance concerns
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
No Church wedding?
Oh, you are converting (or did convert) but were a Baptized Christian?
Are you being guided in the Church right now?
Oh, you are converting (or did convert) but were a Baptized Christian?
Are you being guided in the Church right now?
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
Your original question was about how long things take and whether any testimony is weighted more heavily than other testimony.
The answer to timing is it varies by diocese and the tribunal caseload. You can ask your advocate. Also you might inquire about the “briefer process” also called the “streamlined process” with your advocate.
As to testimony, those with closer and more first hand knowledge of the situation would be more weighty testimony, not necessarily based on being a relative or not, but on the substantive weight of the testimony they can give.
This thread has gone off on some tangent directions, and I would suggest that you work with your advocate. Some of the things on here don’t apply to you, and others might disturb your conscience. If that starts happening, discontinue monitoring this thread. Work with your advocate, and be at peace.
The answer to timing is it varies by diocese and the tribunal caseload. You can ask your advocate. Also you might inquire about the “briefer process” also called the “streamlined process” with your advocate.
As to testimony, those with closer and more first hand knowledge of the situation would be more weighty testimony, not necessarily based on being a relative or not, but on the substantive weight of the testimony they can give.
This thread has gone off on some tangent directions, and I would suggest that you work with your advocate. Some of the things on here don’t apply to you, and others might disturb your conscience. If that starts happening, discontinue monitoring this thread. Work with your advocate, and be at peace.
A
Ammi
Guest
“While it is okay to have a friend or family member be a witness for you, it is always best to have someone who does not favor one side over the other. With family members and friends, the Court may assume that the person is testifying for you simply because they like you and want you to win.”
That is from the government of CA.
Btw, there is that word “assume” used in context of witness strength.
That is from the government of CA.
Btw, there is that word “assume” used in context of witness strength.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Good thing the government of California is not running Church Tribunals 
Witnesses are family and friends who knew you and/or your intended before and at the time of the wedding.
Witnesses are family and friends who knew you and/or your intended before and at the time of the wedding.
A
Ammi
Guest
The OP wasnt asking who witnesses can be, but the strength of their testimony. It is considered by a judge and defender of the bond, potential motivations from a witness.
It’s a normal process of discernment.
I’m not suggesting the OP’s witnesses will be dishonest. Only that courts dont assume they are without other supporting factors. Otherwise witnesses’ claims would always be a slam dunk.
It’s a normal process of discernment.
I’m not suggesting the OP’s witnesses will be dishonest. Only that courts dont assume they are without other supporting factors. Otherwise witnesses’ claims would always be a slam dunk.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
The quote you posted is about government trials/witnesses, as you said, advice from the State of California if you want to represent yourself instead of using an attorney.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/WITNESSES.doc
This has literally nothing to do with the witness testimony to a Church Tribunal.
A
Ammi
Guest
You dont believe Catholic courts recognize potential family bias’?
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
I believe you are trying to compare apples to snowshoes.
Tribunals are not state courts.
Tribunals are not state courts.
- Status