Canada: Dangerous case study in the perils of same-sex marriage

[giblets]

The state has no-fault divorce so you can dump your "hubby" whenever you want. Sorry if you're upset that other people aren't forced to follow the rules set by your religious leaders. So I don't see the relevance of "consummation", as your church defines it, to the gay marriage debate.

[Ben Kenobi]

So I don't see the relevance of "consummation", as your church defines it, to the gay marriage debate.

Besides cohabitation, what are the requirements for marriage?

[Flubber]

LOL

I am just thinking of all those hetero couples who have never truly consumat5ed their marriage according to Ben because of a thin layer of latex LOL

I dont think this has been ever litigated but since gay marriage is a fact in Canada, if a party wanted to allege lack of consumation it would be interesting (if that old principle would still be applied-- open question-- how would two lesbians consummate a marriage anyway).

Lack of consummation at common law could permit marriages to be annulled IIRC. UNless the courts want every lesbian marriage to be voidable that old concept would have to be discarded or severely modified ( Gay men obviously could achieve a form of penetrating consummation). I have never checked to see if it were discarded

Hey Ben-- why not bring a reference case to void all gay marriages on the grounds of lack of consummation . . .

Otherwise Ben your church views are boring and irrelevant. Married gay people are just as frequently sexual partners with a view to being life partners as married heterosexual people and I doubt any fewer knock boots (in whatever manner their pairing allows) on their wedding night.

[giblets]

Besides cohabitation, what are the requirements for marriage?

Consent by both parties is teh requirement for marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey Ben-- why not bring a reference case to void all gay marriages on the grounds of lack of consummation . . .

It would be an interesting case. I expect it will come up. I'm a very big believer that if a law is on the books, it should be enforced. If it's ignored then it shouldn't be law.

I'm also waiting for two roommates, one files for civil partnership. That will be interesting too. Could you be forced into a gay marriage by the current laws?

[C0ckney]

forced into a gay marriage

[giblets]

In the beniverse, maybe.

[Flubber]

I'm also waiting for two roommates, one files for civil partnership. That will be interesting too. Could you be forced into a gay marriage by the current laws?

THat is ridiculous.

It would be an interesting case. I expect it will come up. I'm a very big believer that if a law is on the books, it should be enforced. If it's ignored then it shouldn't be law.

Ben -- sarcasm is completely lost on you. THe Parliament by express stautory change and with public debate intentionally permitted gay marriage through statutory reform. To think that an antiquated principle or tradition at common law could ever be used to completely frustrate this is ridiculous

OH plus

The applicant must have reasonable expectation of sex at the time of marriage. This means that if the applicant knows at the time of marriage that the relationship will be platonic or that the respondent could not have sex, the ground of non-consummation will not apply. Lack of opportunity to consummate the relationship is not grounds for annulment.

THis comes from a family law firms webiste in Ontario

I believe this would always have been the principle. Since sex is often considered part of marriage this is one of the anullment possibilities. Gay spouses cannot say they reasonably expected penis in vagina sex from their partner so that ends that argument.

[Asher]

In the beniverse, maybe.

In his wet dreams, definitely.

[notyoueither]

Is anybody other than Ben arguing another side in this thread?

[MrFun]

It would be an interesting case. I expect it will come up. I'm a very big believer that if a law is on the books, it should be enforced. If it's ignored then it shouldn't be law.

I'm also waiting for two roommates, one files for civil partnership. That will be interesting too. Could you be forced into a gay marriage by the current laws?

IF WE ALLOW TEH INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES, THEN TEH WHITES WILL BE FORCED INTO INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES AGAINST THEIR WILL!!

[MrFun]

Besides cohabitation, what are the requirements for marriage?

romantic love

[Riesstiu IV]

Is Ben still in Texas illegally?

[Ben Kenobi]

THat is ridiculous.

Well let's see. Common law states that cohabitation after two years is the equivalent of marriage. What's to stop somoene from that living arrangement claiming that they are in fact married?

Ben -- sarcasm is completely lost on you. THe Parliament by express stautory change and with public debate intentionally permitted gay marriage through statutory reform. To think that an antiquated principle or tradition at common law could ever be used to completely frustrate this is ridiculous

Who said my intent was to frustrate it? I believe changing this is an inevitable consequence of gay marriage.

The applicant must have reasonable expectation of sex at the time of marriage. This means that if the applicant knows at the time of marriage that the relationship will be platonic or that the respondent could not have sex, the ground of non-consummation will not apply.

Actually, just making that claim and then choosing to get married doesn't change anything at all. It's like saying that you are contractually obligated to do X, when it is illegal to draw up such a contract. The marraige would stand and the person on the other end could easily get out of it. I'd love to see a case where the divorce was denied.

I believe this would always have been the principle. Since sex is often considered part of marriage this is one of the anullment possibilities. Gay spouses cannot say they reasonably expected penis in vagina sex from their partner so that ends that argument.

Lemme ask you something, do you really think that if a court had to debate the issue that this is the conclusion they will draw? No. They'll strike out the requirement altogether.

[giblets]

Common law marriages don't occur without consent by both parties to be married, idiot.