|
Same-sex marriages are AUTOMATICALLY null and void! We have recently seen the passing into law of so-called same-sex marriage acts in Canada and Spain to join the one already in place in the Netherlands. Typically, as in this example from Canada, the Civil Marriage Act has been amended in the following way, "... the right to equality without discrimination requires that couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex have equal access to marriage for civil purposes; For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex. " [end quote] The only problem with this is that all marriages by people of the same sex are automatically voidable for other reasons. A voidable marriage is considered, in law, to have never happened. The rules that determine the validity of a marriage are governed by the laws of Nullity of Marriage, not by the Marriage Act itself. The laws on nullity have been handed down though the Common Law and have been refined through case law to deal with all eventualities. It is vitally important that readers understand that what I am saying is not my opinion but the official position so I will quote directly from the the Law Reform Commission Report on Nullity Of Marriage. I have edited only for brevity and clarity but the relevant sections are exact and intact. "Decrees of nullity of marriage given by the ecclesiastical tribunals of the Catholic Church under canon law have no effect under the law of the State. Only decrees of annulment given by the courts of the State are legally effective. The Report sets out the existing grounds for annulment of marriage under State law as follows: (1) Prior subsisting marriage. A prior subsisting marriage renders a marriage void. (2) Formal defect. Failure to comply with certain (not all) statutory formalities of marriage [like the 3 month notice rule] renders a marriage void. (3) Lack of age or consent of the guardians (normally the parents) by a person under the age of twenty-one. (4) Prohibited degrees of relationship. There are legal prohibitions on marriages between persons closely related by blood (consanguinity) or through marriage (affinity). Marriages celebrated in breach of these prohibitions are void. The prohibited degrees under both headings are wide-ranging. (5) Impotence. Incapacity on the part of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with the other spouse, invalidates a marriage. Wilful refusal (as distinct from inability) to consummate the marriage is not a ground for annulment. (6) Want of mental capacity - if one of the parties at the time of the marriage does not have sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the marriage contract and the obligations normally attaching to marriage. (7) Homosexual orientation. (8) Duress. Under the existing law, if duress, exercised by the other party to the marriage or some third person, vitiates the consent of a party to a marriage, the marriage is invalid. (9) Fraud, mistake and non-disclosure. Under present law fraud or mistake will render a marriage void only in very narrow circumstances essentially where either party is misled or mistaken as to the nature of the ceremony or the identity of the other party."[End quote] As can be seen the most obvious reason for a marriage to be considered null and void would appear to be Section (7) Homosexual orientation. On examination this is a fallacy as there is no legal definition of a "homosexual". Such a provable entity does not exist any more than a "heterosexual" entity exists. There are simply people who engage in homosexual or heterosexual acts. That does not define THEM as a homosexual or heterosexual any more than you fixing a leaking tap makes you into a plumber. The 'orientation' tag is legal nonsense. It is a subjective test at best and so can not be used to void a marriage. The killer blow for supporters of same-sex marriage though is Section (5) Impotence. It is plainly impossible for two men or two women to perform the COMPLETE sexual act. The emphasis here is on the "complete" as this is vital. This is the basis for the traditional claim that a marriage is null and void if it was not "consummated". This requires the couple to make at least one genuine attempt at procreation. Barren couples, because of one or both's infertility, can not claim their marriage is void on this basis. The problem therefore that promoters of these same-sex marriage bills face is that marriage is plainly about licensing procreation. Anyone who doubts that should look again at Section (4) Prohibited degrees of relationship. These are in place to prevent incest by close relations having 'lawful' sexual intercourse with the potential to produce offspring. There are 28 prohibited degrees for men and 29 for women for heterosexual pairings. The so-called legal argument that same-sex marriages must be allowed, otherwise they are being discriminated against, is seen by the prohibited degrees provision to be inane. At the moment a woman can not marry her son, her father, her brother, her uncle etc etc for the simple reason that it would be improper and contrary to the common good for society to legitimise the procreation of a child from such unions through marriage. The penalty for the adults committing incest in this way is still life imprisonment! At a time when the tariff for murder is only 14 years, it shows how seriously society views such transgressions. The prohibited degrees clearly act in a discriminatory way but this is done in the public interest. Discrimination therefore is not only permitted but required for the Common Good. Marriages can not be granted to these people because it would offend the raison d'etre of marriage - i.e. to give society's blessing to certain acts of procreation that would create the next generation in an orderly and healthy fashion and so contribute to the common good. Marriages by people of the same sex fall under the same category as prohibited unions. They can not be considered lawful marriages. They can not be consummated, can never achieve procreation and therefore can never result in a benefit to the common good. Following this rationale, as all same-sex marriages are AUTOMATICALLY NULL AND VOID, the legislation that introduced them must be immediately repealed before homosexuals start claiming massive compensation from the public purse for being hoodwinked by the state. A more sinister consequence would be if legislators or courts refused to acknowledge that same-sex marriages are void. The principle that was utilised in permitting same sex marriages - the "right to equality without discrimination" - would then automatically also legalise marriages that at the moment are prohibited because of incest. Then neither a mother and son, nor a sister and brother could be prevented from marrying with catastrophic results for society. Roger Eldridge, |