L
livingwordunity
Guest
Thanks for that quote. It shows that this thread is very relevant.
With no consummation requirement, wouldn't SS"M" potentially include friends who have a non-sexual relationship?
- Status
C
Corki
Guest
It’s not a requirement to “keep” a marriage license. However, non-consumation IS one of the reasons a couple (or one party) can ask that their civil marriage be annulled. This is not the case in all states, but in many.
In other words, it is only an issue if the marriage is contested. It’s similar to contract law where consideration must be given. It’s not like the feds show up and demand to see your accounts to prove consideration but if one party contests the contract, not giving some form of consideration can be grounds to find the contract unenforceable.
This is not a “fun fact”. It’s a article of our faith.
It is irrelevant to this discussion because Joseph and Mary were married under Jewish law which did not require consummation.
V
VanSensei
Guest
LivingWord, it’s a ridiculous question because the question itself cheapens and denigrates marriage. Friends do not just marry each other without love or for tax benefits. That is the most narcissistic thing I’ve heard in a long time.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
The OP question shows one of the many problematic directions this can go when the state tries to redefine civil marriage. You and others keep saying that my question is “ridiculous” while ignoring the points that have been made in this thread. An example is what Hopey quoted in post 78. It’s not even an attempt at a rebuttal to simply say “that’s ridiculous”. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Unintended extra post. I meant to edit my previous post.
B
BOProof
Guest
In other words, you agree with me that consummation isn’t a requirement for civil marriage, regardless of whether or not same-sex couples are barred from civil marriage.
In other words, you agree with me that consummation isn’t a requirement for civil marriage, regardless of whether or not same-sex couples are barred from civil marriage.
You seem to agree that sex and babies aren’t a requirement for civil marriage (regardless of whether or not same-sex couples are barred from civil marriage), and you can make sex a requirement for marriage while simultaneously permitting same-sex couples to get a marriage license.
B
BOProof
Guest
So you agree with me that consummation isn’t a requirement for civil marriage, even if same-sex couples are barred from civil marriage. After all, a couple can announce their decision to never have sex, get a civil marriage license, and then keep that license as long as they both want.
But such a marriage would be perfectly legal, which means that there is no consummation requirement in order to get or maintain a civil marriage license regardless of whether or not the government bars same-sex couples from civil marriage.
H
Hopey
Guest
We would not be in complete agreement. It would be similar to a person who applies for a drivers license, gets it, then never drives. They have a license but that is it.
It isn’t so much as barring same-sex couples as having to redefine everything to include them. There is no reason to redefine marriage.
C
Corki
Guest
As long as neither party is contesting the marriage, that’s right. Of course, in some cases, the government could also contest whether it’s a true marriage. This happens sometimes with immigration or when there is some reason to believe that a fraud is being perpetrated. Consummation, or rather non-consummation. would be considered in those investigations.
H
Hopey
Guest
BOProof,
Further, it wasn’t the state rejecting, barring, them first. They, same-sex couples, rejected first the requirement, man/woman, of marriage.
It would be similar if I wanted to drive in reverse down the road and demanded the state change their rules to include what I want to do - drive in reverse.
And, you don’t just redefine marriage without it affecting all areas of marriage and children. Now you have to redefine what parenthood is as is seen by Judge Walkers decision. It becomes so wide to encompass almost anything that anything could pass as a “marriage” now - with his definition.
Further, it wasn’t the state rejecting, barring, them first. They, same-sex couples, rejected first the requirement, man/woman, of marriage.
It would be similar if I wanted to drive in reverse down the road and demanded the state change their rules to include what I want to do - drive in reverse.
And, you don’t just redefine marriage without it affecting all areas of marriage and children. Now you have to redefine what parenthood is as is seen by Judge Walkers decision. It becomes so wide to encompass almost anything that anything could pass as a “marriage” now - with his definition.
T
TCEL
Guest
So here’s what I’ve come to understand, unless I haven’t. And yes, I did need to work through this question for my sake!
The answer to the question, legally, is “yes.”
That being said, practically speaking, popular opinion still views romantic relationship as integral to marriage, as a defining characteristic. (Only it’s not. We have romance outside marriage all the time. But this is rhetorical, and I don’t intend to debate this so as not to derail.)
The answer to the question, legally, is “yes.”
That being said, practically speaking, popular opinion still views romantic relationship as integral to marriage, as a defining characteristic. (Only it’s not. We have romance outside marriage all the time. But this is rhetorical, and I don’t intend to debate this so as not to derail.)
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Wouldn’t it be tragic for the state to bring back a medieval institution?
And historically most marriages weren’t because of love.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
What institution is that?
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
In the middle ages in France there was a type of civil relationship called “affrèrement” where two men would jointly share assets and more or less be legally tied to each other until death. Due to the strong parallels with marriage some who are pro-gay marriage and fail to understand the milieu of the time often think it was a sort of gay marriage (which it wasn’t).
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
The irony is that this new understanding of marriage is also part of the understanding that “traditional” marriage advocates have. I don’t know that many “traditional” marriage folks would actually be willing to return to a system of arranged marriages, dowries, and all of the socio-cultural changes and challenges (particularly with regard to a woman’s role/place in society) that a true return to tradition would necessarily entail. The level of large-scale cultural undoing that such a shift to tradition would require is impossible at this point.
What’s needed is a clear-eyed recognition of where marriage is right now, followed by the articulation of a compelling vision of the future of marriage that restores to it some of it’s prior social significance and dignity–not a return to an imagined, impossible, or unworkable past, not a movement towards disenfranchisement of one sort or another, but a real vision for moving forward. I do not see anyone on either side of the marriage debate who is actually willing to engage in this work–both sides are too focused on carving out ideological fiefdoms to actually be useful.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
This is such an important–and often-disregarded–point. The folks who lament that marriage is being redefined have failed to notice that the same-sex marriage debate is about the consequences of a change that already happened a couple centuries ago. The idea that marriage is about committing yourself to the person you romantically love is pretty new (again, only a couple centuries old), but is now deeply entrenched in the culture.
The irony is that this new understanding of marriage is also part of the understanding that “traditional” marriage advocates have. I don’t know that many “traditional” marriage folks would actually be willing to return to a system of arranged marriages, dowries, and all of the socio-cultural changes and challenges (particularly with regard to a woman’s role/place in society) that a true return to tradition would necessarily entail. The level of large-scale cultural undoing that such a shift to tradition would require is impossible at this point.
What’s needed is a clear-eyed recognition of where marriage is right now, followed by the articulation of a compelling vision of the future of marriage that restores to it some of it’s prior social significance and dignity–not a return to an imagined, impossible, or unworkable past, not a movement towards disenfranchisement of one sort or another, but a real vision for moving forward. I do not see anyone on either side of the marriage debate who is actually willing to engage in this work–both sides are too focused on carving out ideological fiefdoms to actually be useful.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
L
livingwordunity
Guest
“Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” - Jesus
V
VanSensei
Guest
But we’re talking about civil marriage here.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
The subject is still about marriage. And the point is that the state has no right to redefine something it did not invent. It is the Tu Quoque fallacy whenever someone says, “but people have tried to redefine it in other ways before.” One man and one woman is how marriage has been from the beginning, and the design of our bodies still corresponds to this. It is basic biology.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Indeed, not only that, but intentions matter hugely in Catholicism.
I largely agree with that paragraph, but I must mention that the dowry in Catholic circles wasn’t anti-women at all, it was what a woman brought to a marriage for both of them, there was also the dower which the Catholic Church tried to push everywhere She expanded which was property given to the wife (it belonged to her as opposed to them).
I try, but of course I am in a microscopic minority.
You’re entirely missing the point.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I believe what Jesus said about marriage - that it’s between one man and one woman, as it has been from the beginning. So, if I’m missing the point about marriage then Jesus is too. But that’s not possible for Jesus to miss the point since Jesus is God and knows everything, including basic biology.
- Status