Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Lucia Consummation of Marriage

New Zealand law no longer recognises consummation of marriage to be necessary for a marriage to be considered valid. At some point since the 1955 Marriage Act was put into law, the consummation aspect has been removed. I can't tell when, because the original 1955 act does not seem to be available. My guess is during 1995, when a whole lot of stuff was repealed by the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act. But if anyone knows for sure, please make a comment.

Meanwhile, in Britain in preparation for changing marriage to include two people of the same-sex, the requirement to consummate the marriage needs to be removed. Two people of the same-sex just don't have the complementary anatomy in order for the physical aspect of marriage to be able to take place, therefore all marriages must be redefined.

The problem with this is that sexual consummation is the real marriage vow. A man and his wife say "I do" with their bodies when they freely engage in uncontracepted sex. Removing consummation as necessary just further separates in law what is required in reality.

It's disturbing to realise that at some point in the recent past in New Zealand that preparations for marriage being totally redefined were being made by removing consummation. We certainly were ahead of Britain on that score.

Related link: UK government to remove sexual consummation from marriage law to allow unnatural marriage

4 comment(s):

Psycho Milt said...

The problem with this is that sexual consummation is the real marriage vow. A man and his wife say "I do" with their bodies when they freely engage in uncontracepted sex.

In which case, my marriage went unconsummated for a good ten years or so.

ZenTiger said...

Yep PM. Just another way to putting off your diamond wedding anniversary :)

libertyscott said...

Which of course raises the other issue of rape within marriage - which can occur, but if you imply there is an obligation to engage in coitus then it blurs that.

I suspect there are some people, perhaps older once widowed, who get married who don't have any intention of consummating the marriage, nor should any third party expect they should or in fact have a rather prurient interest in their private affairs (let alone the state being interested).

ZenTiger said...

I don't see how any such obligation can be confused with rape. Entrirely different things.

What blurs things is having a strict defintion of a word, and then deciding anything will fit that definition, just because it suits. How about have different words for different meanings?

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.