Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

asexual1976

Annulment of marrige due to non-consummation

Recommended Posts

asexual1976

Pursuant to another thread I did a search around the internet and it turns out that a surprising number of states, provinces and countries allow or provide for an annulment of any marriage that is not consummatied, i.e. in which either one or both parties are unable or unwilling to engage in sexual intercourse.

What this essentially means is, that while two asexuals may get married, the marriage can later be annulled at any time upon request of either party. The marriage is then considered never to have taken place and most of the legal safeguards of a divorce are not provided for. In essence this means that these states do not consider marriages by asexuals to be of any legal force - which I find quite disturbing.

Does anyone know of a complete list of states where non-consummation is a legal grounds for annulment ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
In essence this means that these states do not consider marriages by asexuals to be of any legal force - which I find quite disturbing.

It doesn't really mean that. If the asexuals who are married to each other do not apply for an annulment, then the marriage continues legally. If one of them applies for an annulment, then the court decides whether to end the marriage.

But most states in the US now grant divorces if one person simply applies for it, on the basis that if one party doesn't want to be married, the marriage should end. It's a "no fault" divorce, and the reason usually is "irreconcilable differences." The other person cannot prevent the divorce. So whatever the person applies for, the marriage will end.

In Washington State, sexual ability or lack of it isn't mentioned in the requirements for an annulment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asexual1976
It doesn't really mean that. If the asexuals who are married to each other do not apply for an annulment, then the marriage continues legally. If one of them applies for an annulment, then the court decides whether to end the marriage.

That is correct. But my problem with this isn't so much that people divorce, it is that in retrospect the marriage would then be considered void from the start. The legal rammifications of an annulment are substantially different from that of a divorce.

If I (an asexual) get married and for some reason a couple of years later me or my partner decided that we wanted to seperate, either of us could file for an anulment, giving the other party only limited rights to things such as alimony, tax deductions, divorce setllement and other legal rights that come with divorce.

This essentially means that non-sexual marriages are considered second class - they are not afforded the same level of protection that sexual marriages are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColBrandon

Suddenly, we have a political issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

That would only happen if: 1) your state/country allows annulments simply for asexuality; 2) if it does, there is no protection for the partners re financial matters. And it wouldn't mean that asexuality per se denotes a second-class marriage in the view of the state, because there are a number of other reasons for being granted an annulment in my state, and probably your state/country. None of those other reasons have anything to do with asexuality. Thus asexuality is not being singled out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asexual1976
1) your state/country allows annulments simply for asexuality;

Indeed - and quite a number do (although they call it non-consummation and not asexuality - that word hasn't been around long enough to have made it into legal texts)

And it wouldn't mean that asexuality per se denotes a second-class marriage in the view of the state, because there are a number of other reasons for being granted an annulment in my state, and probably your state/country. None of those other reasons have anything to do with asexuality. Thus asexuality is not being singled out.

I have to disagree. Just because there are other grounds for annulments does not mean that that all anulments are necessarily right. Following your arguement that it's only wrong if someone is being "singled out", a dismisal from a job based on a persons ethnic background would be perfectly okay because other people elsewhere get fired for legitmate reasons.

The legal situation in New Jersey : (http://www.divorcesource.com/NJ/ARTICLES/sliwinski24.html)

The third major ground for an annulment is that one spouse refuses or has an inability to consummate the marriage. Basically, this means that one spouse refuses to have sex with the other spouse.

In New Jersey, an annulment may result in the harsh result of extinguishing a person's rights to property acquired during the marriage. The logic is that if the marriage is void, then there is no equitable distribution of the assets. Therefore, an annulment may be appropriate in some cases when a person wants to pay their soon to be ex-spouse absolutely "nada." If the marriage is declared void, then the marital assets are not equitably distributed. An annulment treats a marriage as it never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.