Same sex marriage consummation question

[Maskless]

My friend and I were discussing lesbian marriage and she asked me what legally constitutes non-consummation for the purposes of annulment, and I realised that I don't know.

I think with hetero marriage it was PIV, because a friend got an annulment by swearing on oath that he was unable to do PIV owing to complete erectile dysfunction. Of course that would not "work" for a marriage of two women.

So I wondered if anyone on MN knew what the legal definition is of consummation between two women.

The relevance of consummation in a civil marriage varies by jurisdiction. For example, under section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a refusal or inability to consummate a marriage is a ground of annulment in England and Wales, but this only applies to heterosexual marriage because Paragraph 4 of schedule 4 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 specifically excludes non-consummation as a ground for the annulment of a same-sex marriage.

Thank you very much. So I suppose that means that legally there is no requirement to actually have sex with someone to make a same sex marriage legal. Interesting.

www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage

Yes -- non-consummation is not a ground to annul a same-sex marriage.

I fully support same sex marriage - but spent some time examining the argument against from a religious perspective- and it turned out that the 'union' of a man and a woman was sacred because it actually meant PIV sex - so that without PIV sex there was no union, hence no marriage. When my father was dying, he wanted to leave something to his grandchild and his unborn grandchild (I wasn't married at the time) His lawyer wrote 'to the child of the union of (my and partner's name). In monotheistic religions, if you dig a little deeper, you discover that PIV sex amd marriage are one and the same thing. Effectively, PIV sex IS marriage - and same sex marriage means something other than PIV sex. Obviously, politicians amd lawyers weren't going to invent some kind of 'alternative' definition of consumation equivalent to PIV sex, so they just removed the requirement. Which means that same sex marriage doesn't require any act of consumption.
I don't know if that helps explain - but I hope it shows why a sexual act is not necessary for same sex marriage to be valid.

*consumption = consumation (autocorrect!)

That's quite interesting. I'm in NZ and annulment for non-consummation appears to have been abolished for all marriages and civil unions. At least s 20 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 doesn't mention it in the grounds for applying for a declaration that a marriage or civil union was void ab initio.

Quite as it should be. Why should the court need to hear evidence about someone's erectile dysfunction or vaginismus when one of the parties wants out?

@Seadad

I fully support same sex marriage - but spent some time examining the argument against from a religious perspective- and it turned out that the 'union' of a man and a woman was sacred because it actually meant PIV sex - so that without PIV sex there was no union, hence no marriage. When my father was dying, he wanted to leave something to his grandchild and his unborn grandchild (I wasn't married at the time) His lawyer wrote 'to the child of the union of (my and partner's name). In monotheistic religions, if you dig a little deeper, you discover that PIV sex amd marriage are one and the same thing. Effectively, PIV sex IS marriage - and same sex marriage means something other than PIV sex. Obviously, politicians amd lawyers weren't going to invent some kind of 'alternative' definition of consumation equivalent to PIV sex, so they just removed the requirement. Which means that same sex marriage doesn't require any act of consumption. I don't know if that helps explain - but I hope it shows why a sexual act is not necessary for same sex marriage to be valid.

Not quite- practises vary, but in Christianity at least there must be a) public declaration of comment b) blessing by the church and c) consummation (in private, afterwards). A shag without a) or b) wouldn't be a marriage. I expect 'union' was euphemistic.

On the other hand there was a obscure sect in Victorian London who practised free love and built their own chapel. The members died out, but a few years ago there was in interesting court case regarding who owned said chapel and land, which in the meantime had become prime real estate. Mammon 1 true love 0 I suppose.