Since when does the patent office deal with marriage law?

3 minutes in he says that Alabama no longer issues marriage licenses. Apparently Alabama doesn't know that:
https://dph1.adph.state.al.us/marriage/

What a joke.

Thank you, I already knew that. My befuddlement is how that verse applies to marriage.
The Catholic Church does not recognize anyone, including the Pope, as having authority to dissolve a valid, consummated marriage.
A finding of nullity (popularly called an annulment) is an opinion that, even though a ceremony was performed, there was something that prevented it from being a marriage.

.
It doesn't apply to marriage. Not even the pope has the power to dissolve a Catholic marriage, any more than a pope has the power to say Mass using a croissant.
.
Basically what the Novus Ordo church did with matrimony is to make up a bunch of vague, open-ended criteria that they believe nullifies marriage, so that nearly anyone can go in and claim to meet one of those vague criteria and claim that their marriage was never valid in the first place.
.
The Novus Ordo heretics didn't want to be so bold as to claim to dissolve matrimony itself, so they just engineered a system that did exactly that but used different words to describe the process, knowing that most people wanted divorce so badly and cared so little about their souls that they would pay little attention to what it was called or how it was justified. So the Novus Ordo heretics said anyone can come in and say they were too immature, or didn't know what marriage was, or whatever, none of which the Church has ever traditionally taught to be invalidating circuмstances of marriage, and then they could go off and marry someone else.
.
People who believe in the traditional teachings of the Church reject these new, fake "invalidating" causes of marriage that were invented by modernists after Vatican 2, which are purely subjective anyway and that anyone can claim to fall under. It is only by keeping the unfailing traditions of the Church that we can ever hope to save our souls, especially when it comes to something involving grave matter such as marriage.

Are you saying that no annulments were granted prior to VII?

.
Basically yes. In the entire world before Vatican 2 only about 50 annulments were granted in the entire world. That almost rounds down to zero.
.

Being "too immature" or "didn't know what marriage was" are not acceptable reasons for annulment.

.
According to this website, yes, they are. This is listed as one of the grounds for annulment, as an explanation of someone who doesn't know what marriage is:

Ignorance about the nature of marriage (Canon 1096, sec. 1)
You or your spouse did not know that marriage is a permanent relationship between
a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some
sɛҳuąƖ cooperation

.
As far as immaturity being grounds for annulment in the Novus Ordo church, there is an article about that here.

What you are referring to is this:
Canon 1118  (1983 CIC 1141)
A ratified and consummated valid marriage can be dissolved by no human power and for no cause, outside of death.

The key word here is "valid".

Impediments to marriage, under the 1917 code are as follows:

Canon 1067 (1983 CIC 1072, 1083)
§ 1. A man before completing the sixteenth year of age, and a woman before completing the fourteenth year of age, cannot enter into valid marriage.
§ 2. Although marriage can be validly contracted above these ages, nevertheless, let pastors take care to discourage youths from entering marriage before that age that, according to the accepted manner of the region, they are wont to enter marriage.

Canon 1068 (1983 CIC 1084)

§ 1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence, either on the part of the man or on the part of the woman, whether known or not, whether absolute or relative, impedes marriage by natural law itself. § 2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether this be a doubt of law or doubt of fact,
marriage should not be impeded.
§ 3. Sterility neither impedes nor [renders illicit] marriage.

Canon 1069 (1983 CIC 1085)
§ 1. They invalidly attempt marriage who are bound by a prior bond, even if it is not consummated, with due regard for the privilege of the faith.
§ 2. Although a prior marriage is null or is dissolved for any cause, it is not therefore permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the first is legitimately and certainly established.


1070 (1983 CIC 1086)
§ 1. That marriage is null that is contracted between a non-baptized person and a person baptized in the Catholic Church or converted to her from heresy or schism.
§ 2. If a party at the time of contracting marriage was commonly considered baptized, or there is doubt about the baptism, the validity of the marriage is to be upheld according to the norm of Canon 1014 until it is certainly proved that the one party was baptized and the other was not baptized.

Canon 1071 (1983 CIC 1129)
Those things that are prescribed for mixed marriages in Canons 1060–64 must also be applied to those marriages that are barred due to the impediment of disparity of cult.

 Canon 1072 (1983 CIC 1087)

Clerics constituted in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.

Canon 1073 (1983 CIC 1088)
Likewise religious who are professed by solemn vows invalidly attempt marriage, [as do those] who are in simple vows to which, by special prescription of the Apostolic See, there is added [a clause] invalidating weddings.

Canon 1074 (1983 CIC 1089)
§ 1. Between a kidnapping man and a woman kidnapped with designs of marriage, as long as she remains in the power of the kidnapper, there can exist no marriage.
§ 2. But if she who was kidnapped is set in a safe and free place, separate from the kidnapper, and she consents to have this man, the impediment ceases.
§ 3. As to what applies to the nullity of marriage, the violent retention of a woman is considered the same as kidnapping, namely, when a man violently retains a woman with the intention of entering marriage, while she is in the place where she lives or to which she freely comes.

Canon 1075 (1983 CIC 1090)
They cannot validly contract marriage:
1.° Who, during the same legitimate marriage, consummate adultery with each other with the promise of giving each other to marriage or, even only by a civil act, attempt marriage;
2.° Who, also during the same legitimate marriage, commit adultery with each other
and one or the other of them perpetrates spousicide;
3.° Who, by mutual physical or moral efforts, even without adultery, bring about the death of a spouse.


1076 (1983 CIC 1091)
§ 1. In the direct line, consanguinity renders marriage invalid between all ascendants and descendants, whether legitimate or natural.
§ 2. In the collateral line, [marriage] is invalid up to the third degree inclusive, and the impediment [against] marriage is multiplied as often as the common ancestor is multiplied.
§ 3. Marriage is never permitted if there exists a doubt as to whether the parties are related in any degree of the direct line of consanguinity or in the first grade of the collateral line.

 Canon 1077 (1983 CIC 1092) 
§ 1. Affinity in the direct line is a diriment [impediment] for marriage in any grade; in the collateral line, [it is] up to the second degree inclusive. § 2. The impediment of affinity is multiplied:
1.° As often as the impediment of consanguinity from which it comes is multiplied; 2.° By a second marriage with a blood-relative of the deceased spouse.

Canon 1078 (1983 CIC 1040, 1076)
The impediment of public honesty arises from an invalid marriage, whether consummated or not, and from public or notorious concubinage; it prevents marriage in the first or second degree of the direct line between a man and the blood-relatives of the woman, and vice versa.

1079 (n/a)
Only the spiritual relationship discussed in Canon 768 invalidates marriage.

 Canon 1080 (1983 CIC 1094)

Those who are considered incapable of entering a wedding between themselves under civil law because of a legal relationship arising due to adoption cannot validly contract marriage between themselves under canon law either.

1076 (1983 CIC 1091)
§ 1. In the direct line, consanguinity renders marriage invalid between all ascendants and descendants, whether legitimate or natural.
§ 2. In the collateral line, [marriage] is invalid up to the third degree inclusive, and the impediment [against] marriage is multiplied as often as the common ancestor is multiplied.
§ 3. Marriage is never permitted if there exists a doubt as to whether the parties are related in any degree of the direct line of consanguinity or in the first grade of the collateral line.

I heard that residents of Alabama have a special dispensation from this canon.

.
Basically yes. In the entire world before Vatican 2 only about 50 annulments were granted in the entire world. That almost rounds down to zero.
..

I don't know where you got your data from, but according to the Vital Statistics of the United States, there were:
11,161 annulments in 1960
11,520 in 1961
12,692 in 1962
12,701 in 1963
13,940 in 1964

That's just in the USA.

Sorry, forgot to attach....

.
Try this instead. I should have tinyureled it.

"Basically yes" is a "no".  There were annulments prior to VII.  So, VII did not invent annulments, is my point.

As for your second paragraph, see photo below.

Immaturity is hardly grounds, what with VII requiring marriage classes prior to getting married. 

The LA diocese lists the forms for annulment options.  I assume each diocese has these:
https://lacatholics.org/tribunal-petition-forms/

As for your quite from the 1983 canon law, which is surprising coming from a sede, but it correlates to 1917 Canon 1082 which states:
"§ 1. In order that matrimonial consent be considered [valid], it is necessary that the contractants at least not be ignorant that marriage is a permanent society between a man and woman for the procreation of children.
§ 2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty."

.
Well, this is the difficulty that I alluded to above, that the modernists use the same word "annulment" that was used before Vatican 2 but have substantially changed the meaning so that it now means in effect a simple divorce.
.
So, to your objection, no, the types of annulments that comprise the vast majority of those given out by the Novus Ordo church did not exist before Vatican 2.
.
I quoted the 1983 code of canon law to show you the new, modernist rules on marriage, which are different from the traditional Catholic rules.
.
As far as your statistics, first of all that happened when the modernist revolution had already gotten started under the false pope John 23, so that doesn't prove a huge amount, but in any case it's not clear what's being counted there. Are those lack of form annulments? On what grounds were those thousands of annulments given?
.
The problem here is that now a person can go into a Novus Ordo church and say "I didn't intend to get married when I went through the ceremony," or "We are too incompatible in our temper", or "My husband is an alcoholic", or any one of the other things listed in that page from the church in Waco, and they will be told that their marriage was never valid. That is something that did not happen before Vatican 2. So, since the Church before Vatican 2 taught the truth, and what the Vatican 2 church teaches now is false, it follows that in any contradiction between those two things we must conclude that the traditional teaching is correct.