Accepted that the same sex marriage is now a reality in France. Accepted that the Taubira Law has made legal that human with same sex can flock together! Despite this officialdom the opinion on the subject matter is highly divisional. I am not a partisan to this law against nature. My voice indeed is among many that has no value in essence. However I just want to raise a question of common sense. Even this question needs a legal answer.
Let us analyze facts: The High Court of Aix-en-Provence did conclude through its judgment on 1st October 2008 that the refusal to entertain sexual relationship between married couples is an “insult” that the refusing partner causes on the other partner. The refusal constitutes a serious violation of marital duties and obligations, therefore, to be a serious cause that questions the very need to continue in the institution of marriage. Let this be on one side.
On the other even the Civil Code has the provision in its article 237 that says any of the married couple can ask for divorce even if the other partner may oppose to such demand if it is proved that the purpose of marriage stands altered by refusing to observe the duty and obligation to have sex reltionship among the partners.
In between these obligations the jurisprudence is constant in defining the duty of living together to imply the obligation to consume the union in marriage, thus, making it obligatory to each partner to satisfy the sexual need of the other partner.
Here the concept of “consumption of marriage: needs to be made clear. There is said to have taken place “consumption” when the male sex organ has penetrated that of the female partner’s sex organ in the act called coitus. Such action can be medically certified through specific forensic tests on the female partner.
In front of all these prescribed obligations and duties, and the certifying factor of consumption that can be only through female partner, my question to law makers is this: when, a homosexual man married to another man, will seek divorce citing the non-consumption of marriage, how the divorce claimer for non-consumption prove that the other partner refused or did not fulfill his obligation of sexual duty? What stands in a court of law is proven evidence! In this case even if – no taboo – the consumption could have taken place through anal intercourse, how will this be proven given the fact on what permits the techniques of forensic medicine to determine on an eventual coitus are the special hormones on vaginal tract and not on an anal course?
The pro gay marriage enthusiasts may curse me away as a trouble maker! Never mind. Time will ask them this same question. A tamil proverb says stupidity is the mother of confusion. The situation I raise only proves that the proverbs are all other than stupidity.