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

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
marymary1975 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They did sign it into law.
 
TCEL said:
They did sign it into law.
Click to expand...
Oh OK I see, it was just signed by Gov and effective in May. Again I can totally see why they are doing it…though I don’t want to derail the trail into adultery.
 
pnewton said:
People are** not** wanting homosexual marriage so they can marry without consummation. The premise is no in line with reality.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you on this. But, I don’t think this question is any more stupid than asking how contraception and abortion are related. They’re not the same thing, but there are connections. One laid the legal groundwork for another, in popular opinion.
 
We’re all ignoring the biggest question here:
How the HECK do you know if they consummated it or not?!?!?!?!
I don’t want a government official in my bedroom on my wedding night! Do you?
 
TCEL said:
I do agree with you on this. But, I don’t think this question is any more stupid than asking how contraception and abortion are related. They’re not the same thing, but there are connections. One laid the legal groundwork for another, in popular opinion.
Click to expand...
An example of a truly bad policy.
 
Lokadottir said:
We’re all ignoring the biggest question here:
How the HECK do you know if they consummated it or not?!?!?!?!
I don’t want a government official in my bedroom on my wedding night! Do you?
Click to expand...
Nobody is going to check on you on your wedding night. Questions of nullity based on non-consumation come into play only** later** when one party seeks to have the marriage “erased”. You see this once in a while when two people go to Vegas, get drunk and get married by “Elvis”. Then they want out and state that they never had sex (usually because they were too drunk).

You used to see this with young couples that ran away to get married. If dad caught up to them between the JOTP and the Motel 6, he could try to force them to get the marriage annulled.

With SS"M", the question is not really about whether any specific couple consummates their “marriage” but whether the law is going to be either changed or ignored when it comes to homosexual couples. If the law remains the same, homosexual couples will either A) always be considered to have consummated the marriage and unable to seek an annulment on those grounds or B) never be considered to have consummated the marriage and have a perpetual “out” . That would be unequal protection under the law.

It’s worth noting, perhaps, that lack of consummation is not grounds for annulment in all states so this discussion is only relevant in those states (and countries?) where it is.
 
This should really be a no-brainer. If you redefine marriage to include homosexual unions, you redefine consummation to include gay sex. It’s common sense, whether one agrees with the redefinition of marriage or not.
 
Rin said:
This should really be a no-brainer. If you redefine marriage to include homosexual unions, you redefine consummation to include gay sex. It’s common sense, whether one agrees with the redefinition of marriage or not.
Click to expand...
Except that some SS"M" advocates have been arguing against even having a requirement for consummation probably because of the obvious problems of biology they would have in trying to redefine it. Even if they choose to ignore basic biology they would still have to try to redefine it in a totally different way for lesbians than for homosexual men. Then there’s the question of why would it have to be only two in the SS"M" relationship and not more. Unlike how it takes one man and one woman to make a baby, there is no biological basis for limiting a homosexual relationship to two.
 
Hopey said:
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.
Click to expand...
The confusion that the redefinition of marriage is causing reminds me of this quote.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.” - Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)
 
Dr. Jennifer R. Morse with the Ruth Institute didn’t ask this particular question, but it was touched upon in regards to removing definitions.
I do believe her example was two people living together and if there was no more clear definition of what constituted a sexual relationship, it could lead to other problems.
 
livingwordunity said:
Except that some SS"M" advocates have been arguing against even having a requirement for consummation probably because of the obvious problems of biology they would have in trying to redefine it. Even if they choose to ignore basic biology they would still have to try to redefine it in a totally different way for lesbians than for homosexual men. Then there’s the question of why would it have to be only two in the SS"M" relationship and not more. Unlike how it takes one man and one woman to make a baby, there is no biological basis for limiting a homosexual relationship to two.
Click to expand...
And the question then becomes, if consummation is redefined to include certain common homosexual sex acts, wouldn’t those same acts now constitute consummation for a heterosexual couple?
 
Corki said:
And the question then becomes, if consummation is redefined to include certain common homosexual sex acts, wouldn’t those same acts now constitute consummation for a heterosexual couple?
Click to expand...
I wonder if for lesbians they would try to redefine consummation to include kissing.
 
This is a ridiculous question partly because consummation already isn’t a requirement to keep a civil marriage license (regardless of whether civil same-sex marriage is legal), and because sexless marriages between friends, which is popular among widows and widowers, is already legal.

Fun fact: The Catholic Church teaches that Mary never consummated her marriage with Joseph.
 
livingwordunity said:
I wonder if for lesbians they would try to redefine consummation to include kissing.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to get into what lesbian sex is with you, especially not on a Catholic forum, but I most assure you that “kissing” would not qualify.
 
BOProof said:
This is a ridiculous question partly because consummation already isn’t a requirement to keep a civil marriage license (regardless of whether civil same-sex marriage is legal), and because sexless marriages between friends, which is popular among widows and widowers, is already legal.

Fun fact: The Catholic Church teaches that Mary never consummated her marriage with Joseph.
Click to expand...
In civil law, a person can petition for annulment (which means a marriage never existed) if sexual intercourse never occurred (sexual intercourse being defined legally as the penis penetrating the vagina. As far as keeping their license, you are right that it would only take effect if one petitioned for it.

Further Catholic Fun Fact: Mary and Joseph’s marriage is called a Josephite Marriage. There have been those who have entered these types of marriages but it is only with the consent of a priest, permission. Permission is needed because of the debt owed when one enters marriage is something a person can just NOT do - you agree to make yourself reasonably available sexually to your spouse.
 
Judge Vaughn Walker’s definition of marriage (judge who overturned Prop 8)

“Marriage is the State recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and to join in an economic partnership and to support one another and any dependents.”

Removing sex and babies from the definition, you have the state now interested in friendships.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top