With no consummation requirement, wouldn't SS"M" potentially include friends who have a non-sexual relationship?

[marymary1975]

No, I know that. My point was that if a couple is infertile (or uses contraception permanently), the government has no way of tracking their consummation status. So this isn’t a new issue.

Of course not, plus it would be a violation of the right to privacy. That is why the burden is on the wife to have her marriage declared nule and void.

However, in the immigration law area it is an issue…and now a new one… because they would be granting benefits to some under a standard that they are using againsts another group to deny them benefits. Very unfair. But immigration does not affect the typicalAmerican citizen so that is why nobody pays attention to this particular issue.

 

[SMGS127]

Of course not, plus it would be a violation of the right to privacy. That is why the burden is on the wife to have her marriage declared nule and void.

However, in the immigration law area it is an issue…and now a new one… because they would be granting benefits to some under a standard that they are using againsts another group to deny them benefits. Very unfair. But immigration does not affect the typicalAmerican citizen so that is why nobody pays attention to this particular issue.

But that doesn’t make sense. They can’t prove, except in limited cases, that heterosexual couples are definitively not having sex. How is this a new issue? They can’t prove that gay people OR heterosexual people aren’t having sex.

 

[marymary1975]

But that doesn’t make sense. They can’t prove, except in limited cases, that heterosexual couples are definitively not having sex. How is this a new issue? They can’t prove tat gay people OR heaosexual people arg sexriOTE]

They don’t have to prove anything A reasonable suspicion that the heterosexual marriage has not been consummated is good enough. Also remember this is one sided. So even if they have to prove anything the USCIS has to prove to their own selves. How hard is to prove to yourself that what you are saying is right. And as I said before they look to an entire set of collateral circumstances to make a determination: do they sleep on the same bed, do they have children, photos, testimonies, etc it is a huge list of things they look and search that can give them a reasonable suspicion that a heterosexual couple has never consummated a marriage. If for any reason they suspect that a heterosexual couple has not consummated that can cause them a lot of trouble.

 

[SMGS127]

They don’t have to prove anything A reasonable suspicion that the heterosexual marriage has not been consummated is good enough. Also remember this is one sided. So even if they have to prove anything the USCIS has to prove to their own selves. How hard is to prove to yourself that what you are saying is right. And as I said before they look to an entire set of collateral circumstances to make a determination: do they sleep on the same bed, do they have children, photos, testimonies, etc it is a huge list of things they look and search that can give them a reasonable suspicion that a heterosexual couple has never consummated a marriage. If for any reason they suspect that a heterosexual couple has not consummated that can cause them a lot of trouble.

Then I’d imagine the same immigration requirements apply to same-sex couples. If I’m not mistaken, homosexual couples were completely ineligible for sponsorship until this last summer anyway.

 

[Rin]

This is exactly why I support “civil unions” and believe that I am not contradicting Catholic teaching by doing so, because I would like to see such unions defined in a way that had no necessary sexual implications at all. People who are deeply involved in each other’s lives should be able to get legal recognition of this with implications for hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc.

Indeed. Marriage is a religious institution, and a secular state should not govern it. It should be removed from the law, and replaced with civil union/partnership, which does not even necessarily imply a sexual relationship. In the case of chaste siblings living together, often for their entire lives, this would be legally very beneficial. It could also prove advantageous to clergy in some cases - the (non-sexual) older custom of adelphopoiesis served the same purpose. In addition, gay couples would get the legal rights they desire (and which I see no reason to deny them in a secular society), without any redefinition of marriage involved.

Catholics (or people belonging to other religions) could then decide on their own whether they want to enter a civil union when they marry. Other religions could decide how they define marriage, and the state would not be part of that process. And everyone would have access to the same legal benefits.

I’m afraid this line of thinking will be disliked by many on both sides, however. Some gay activists want to redefine marriage, and hence won’t accept the removal of marriage from the law. And on the other side, some people are against giving gay couples any kind of legal protection at all, and probably also against further secularization of the law.

 

[HelenRose]

Indeed. Marriage is a religious institution, and a secular state should not govern it. It should be removed from the law, and replaced with civil union/partnership, which does not even necessarily imply a sexual relationship. In the case of chaste siblings living together, often for their entire lives, this would be legally very beneficial. It could also prove advantageous to clergy in some cases - the (non-sexual) older custom of adelphopoiesis served the same purpose. In addition, gay couples would get the legal rights they desire (and which I see no reason to deny them in a secular society), without any redefinition of marriage involved.

Catholics (or people belonging to other religions) could then decide on their own whether they want to enter a civil union when they marry. Other religions could decide how they define marriage, and the state would not be part of that process. And everyone would have access to the same legal benefits.

I’m afraid this line of thinking will be disliked by many on both sides, however. Some gay activists want to redefine marriage, and hence won’t accept the removal of marriage from the law. And on the other side, some people are against giving gay couples any kind of legal protection at all, and probably also against further secularization of the law.

Within the last few weeks I have been thinking along these lines. I am not jumping on board just yet, but your argument is a strong one. I am sure there are many problems with such drastic change. However, nothing can be more drastic than what has taken place these last few years. I can also see some real advantage for religions. In my love for the Catholic Church, I can envision a turn to the “Sacred Sacrament of Holy Matrimony”.

It may also make couples more aware of the contract that they are signing. I don’t know of any couple who has actually read the complicated contract that they sign when they get married. I certainly didn’t. We have been married 48 years and I still have no idea what I have gotten myself into

Interesting concept.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Within the last few weeks I have been thinking along these lines. I am not jumping on board just yet, but your argument is a strong one. I am sure there are many problems with such drastic change. However, nothing can be more drastic than what has taken place these last few years. I can also see some real advantage for religions. In my love for the Catholic Church, I can envision a turn to the “Sacred Sacrament of Holy Matrimony”.

It may also make couples more aware of the contract that they are signing. I don’t know of any couple who has actually read the complicated contract that they sign when they get married. I certainly didn’t. We have been married 48 years and I still have no idea what I have gotten myself into

Interesting concept.

Amen. I think the civil partnership as a domestic equivalent of a business partnership is exactly how the government should administer this. It would protect the churches from accusations of discrimination since they would not be the agents of the government.

With the changes in healthcare that are taking place, some employers are already refusing healthcare benefits to spouses who have coverage available elsewhere (I’m thinking of the white-collar UPS employees - the union contract still prevents that coverage loss for the hourly folks). Those that still cover spousal healthcare have made it much more expensive (although in the case of my employer, the children’s coverage is now much cheaper than previously). So even if the LGBT folks win the universal right to “marriage” there may not as much benefit to it as they hoped.

 

[DrTaffy]

Indeed. Marriage is a religious institution, and a secular state should not govern it.

“Marriage” is also a civil, legal institution, and not only does that predate christianity but the words we use (marriage, nuptial, connubial, matrimony) all come from the latin, mainly civil institution.

So if you don’t want to share names for the civil institution and for your sacramental one, who should change the word they use?

 

[Rin]

“Marriage” is also a civil, legal institution, and not only does that predate christianity but the words we use (marriage, nuptial, connubial, matrimony) all come from the latin, mainly civil institution.

So if you don’t want to share names for the civil institution and for your sacramental one, who should change the word they use?

I see your point. But still, even in ancient Rome, marriage was a religious institution, witnessed by priests. The pre-Christian Roman Empire was far from a secular state; its marriage laws echoed its religious practice.

That said, I’m aware my solution isn’t good enough for many atheists, just as it’s not good enough for many Catholics. It is a compromise, because I believe we have to compromise. It serves everyone’s needs for legal recognition, while making sure the state doesn’t try to govern religion.

In addition, there’s nothing in my solution to prevent other denominations from defining their version of marriage differently from ours. There’s also nothing in it to prevent a humanist organization from celebrating civil marriage ceremonies. It leaves every belief system free to define things as they wish, while removing a battleground from politics, where it doesn’t belong. I think it’s the best solution in a multicultural society since it doesn’t side with anyone, which is also why I think so many people on all sides would oppose it if politicians started considering it. They all want to be right, but the reality is that a secular state has no business deciding who’s right and who’s not.

 

[Hopey]

My understanding of the necessity of consummation was questioned/brought up when one was seeking to nullify the marriage.

If there was non consummation, then it is nullified, the marriage never happened.

This is different than divorce of course as the first makes it not exist, the marriage, at all.

With no consummation requirement, it would be interesting to see how this is carried out or how some of these ss"m" could even prove it, non consummation

It does make other things very confusing as if a single woman with a child moved in to room with another woman, and the child had a relationship with the woman (considered her like another mother), would that be grounds for visitation, etc of the child.

I know it sounds very strange but the states that have approved the redefining of marriage have been siding with a (ex) s/s spouse over the biological parent of the child. IOW, they have had to rewrite family law, etc and mostly excludes the biological parent (usually male).

So, could it potentially confuse those who were just rooming together especially if a child is involved? Quite possibly because they are removing/ redefining the requirement of what a marriage is.

 

[Hopey]

Where is could possibly come up, in law that is, is common law marriage. It could occur if say, two males were room mates and one dies and the other seeks to prove they were “married” to seek benefits. It could be possible esp in states that have not redefined marriage but now with AG seeking to redefine marriage - benefits.

That is one scenario.

 

[Lokadottir]

Since consummation isn’t possible in a same-sex relationship, the state must eliminate the requirement for it if they want to make so-called same-sex “marriage” the law. If someone wants to argue that SS"M" can’t possibly include people who are close friends but who have a non-sexual relationship please provide the legal text of a SS"M" law currently in place to show how this kind of an arrangement isn’t possible with SS"M" laws.

As far as I know the government can’t require the couple to do the do.
Also why is two men or two women getting civilly married but not doing it. Different then a man and woman marrying and not doing it?

 

[marymary1975]

Then I’d imagine the same immigration requirements apply to same-sex couples. If I’m not mistaken, homosexual couples were completely ineligible for sponsorship until this last summer anyway.

You are right as to that homosexual couples were ineligible until last summer and that is why this is new, there is nothing definite on it. But homosexual couples cannot be treated the “same”. Of course they are going to have to live together, have a joint bank accounts and have a romantic relationship, but the heterosexual couples are going to be held to a stricter standard because they cannot use the consummation standard against same sex couples.

 

[SMGS127]

You are right as to that homosexual couples were ineligible until last summer and that is why this is new, there is nothing definite on it. But homosexual couples cannot be treated the “same”. Of course they are going to have to live together, have a joint bank accounts and have a romantic relationship, but the heterosexual couples are going to be held to a stricter standard because they cannot use the consummation standard against same sex couples.

Why couldn’t they? Gay people have sex with each other in the contexts of their “marriages” . Yes, it’s not the Catholic definition of consummation, but it should fit the legal definition. None of this is to say that same-sex marriages SHOULD exist, but I see no reason how arguing about the legal consummation requirement helps our cause when gay people can legally consummate (albeit sinful and not a Catholic reality), just as straight people can legally dissolve marriages (albeit sinful and not a Catholic reality).

 

[Hopey]

Why couldn’t they? Gay people have sex with each other in the contexts of their “marriages” . Yes, it’s not the Catholic definition of consummation, but it should fit the legal definition. None of this is to say that same-sex marriages SHOULD exist, but I see no reason how arguing about the legal consummation requirement helps our cause when gay people can legally consummate (albeit sinful and not a Catholic reality), just as straight people can legally dissolve marriages (albeit sinful and not a Catholic reality).

Consummation of a marriage has a legal definition and is in civil law also. In civil law, you can apply for annulment, which is different than divorce as it makes the marriage never to have existed, if there is non-consummation. Annulments in the Catholic Church are granted on those grounds but they also do not have to include non consummation.

So, under the definitions as it reads in civil law, those states who have redefined marriage, those ss"m" would not be able to apply for annulment in civil law as consummation means "complete penetration of the vagina by the penis (although ejaculation is not necessary) ".

Instead of redefining consummation, it seems that some countries are doing away with it. So now, if you are in a marriage where a spouse refuses/is unable to perform, you can not seek an annulment.
This is civil law.
Same is going for adultery and grounds for divorce.

 

[Hopey]

So, under the law, they do not legally consummate their “marriage”.

The law either has to be thrown out or redefined. It seems like it was easier to throw out as definitions of what one person considers “having sex” varies. I could see why they would want to just leave it alone but in the end, it would hurt other couples.

Thus, you arrive at the OP question and now things get very confusing when/if challenged on who is “married” and who isn’t. OR I should say, the possibility of things being very confused.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but…

I don’t see it as a problem. If a husband and wife can share benefits, why not let a mother and son? A brother and sister? Two best friends?

For benefits some corporations allow this. You specify the other person with which your benefits are shared. Airtran is one such company.

 

[marymary1975]

Consummation of a marriage has a legal definition and is in civil law also. In civil law, you can apply for annulment, which is different than divorce as it makes the marriage never to have existed, if there is non-consummation. Annulments in the Catholic Church are granted on those grounds but they also do not have to include non consummation.

So, under the definitions as it reads in civil law, those states who have redefined marriage, those ss"m" would not be able to apply for annulment in civil law as consummation means "complete penetration of the vagina by the penis (although ejaculation is not necessary) ".

Instead of redefining consummation, it seems that some countries are doing away with it. So now, if you are in a marriage where a spouse refuses/is unable to perform, you can not seek an annulment.
This is civil law.
Same is going for adultery and grounds for divorce.

SMGS127 ^^^^ he is right. Under civil law the current definition is heterosexual intercourse. Gay marriage was first introduced in MA, where I know the laws, and this is MA never changed when SSM was introduced. I don’t have knowledge of other jurisdiction changing this concept after adopting SSM. In MA to give you an example a wife can get her marriage annuled (which is different than divorced) on the grounds that heterosexual intercouse never happened as the result of inability to happen. As for SSM they never addressed it so basically it has been left there as a contradiction. What happens here is that someone has to bring this up and with regard to SSM no one is going to do it.

Yes it is very confusing but remember at least in the US this wouldn’t be the first issue that isconfussing and has contradictory laws. The system can live with that.

Though Hooey I don’t understand what you mean by same is going for adultery as adultery is grounds for divorce at least in the US.

 

[TCEL]

Though Hooey I don’t understand what you mean by same is going for adultery as adultery is grounds for divorce at least in the US.

I don’t know if this affects grounds for divorce or not. This is my homestate.

Bill Repealing Adultery Officially Signed into Law

 

[marymary1975]

I don’t know if this affects grounds for divorce or not. This is my homestate.

Bill Repealing Adultery Officially Signed into Law

Oh OK I see, they want to pass a bill repealing adultery as grounds of divorce in Colorado. Though keep in mind this is a bill, it is not an actual statute yet so we have to see if it makes it. Though I can see why they want to do it as adultery is very difficult to prove and in practice now a days everybody uses non fault grounds because is easier.

In MA adultery, ironically, is not only grounds for divorce but it is a crime punishable by prison time lol but no one prosecutes it. As for most jurisdictions the multistate rule in that is fault grounds but again I don’t think too many lawyers use it as it is difficult to prove.