In a US court case I have recently read about, the
court ruled that 'traditionally, a sexual relationship is implicit in
marriage vows and that an UNSTATED intent, held at the time of the
marriage ceremony, to utterly refuse to engage in a sexual relationship
with the other party is a fraud that alters the very essence of the
marriage'.
Does this mean that a marriage cannot be annulled if the refusal to engage in a sexual relationship is actually STATED by both parties, perhaps in legal declarations to the court (through a lawyer) before the marriage?
Or does it mean that despite joint property, bank statements, and bills, in other words the intention to establish a life together, that the newly-wed wife, against her consent, and he, also against his will, MUST undergo sexual relations in order to satisfy the whims of 'legality'.
This is a real case involving two people I know who have lived together for longer than I have known them; there are no immigration/visa issues involved, they are not gay, and neither of them have been abused; they are both healthy, happy individuals content with the lifestyle choices they have made.
Does this mean that a marriage cannot be annulled if the refusal to engage in a sexual relationship is actually STATED by both parties, perhaps in legal declarations to the court (through a lawyer) before the marriage?
Or does it mean that despite joint property, bank statements, and bills, in other words the intention to establish a life together, that the newly-wed wife, against her consent, and he, also against his will, MUST undergo sexual relations in order to satisfy the whims of 'legality'.
This is a real case involving two people I know who have lived together for longer than I have known them; there are no immigration/visa issues involved, they are not gay, and neither of them have been abused; they are both healthy, happy individuals content with the lifestyle choices they have made.
- 3 minutes ago
- - 4 days left to answer.
