US Law about divorce: spouse's duties

[Estro Felino]

I was wondering what the American law says about the kind of duties the two spouses are obliged to fulfil in the matrimony contract.

Let's analyze this fictitious case:

Claire is a woman married to Johnathan. Johnathan has decided to abstain from sex. They both are 40 and sexually healthy. Claire wants him to have sex with her, and keeps asking him to satisfy her request...he refuses. She threatens him to ask for the divorce, demanding a periodic check as compensation for the hedonic damage.

What does the US law say? Federal and local.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was wondering what the American law says about the kind of duties the two spouses are obliged to fulfill in the matrimonial contract.

Let's analyze this fictitious case:


What does the US laws say? Federal and local.

Either member of the couple is free to divorce; the sex part is irrelevant.

Nobody is compelled to provide sex to someone else, not even within a marriage. Sex without free consent is sexual assault.

 

[Shad]

I was wondering what the American law says about the kind of duties the two spouses are obliged to fulfill in the matrimonial contract.

Let's analyze this fictitious case:

"Claire is a woman married to Johnathan. Johnathan has decided to abstain from sex. They both are 40 and sexually healthy. Claire wants him to have sex with her, and keeps asking him to satisfy her request...he refuses. She threatens him to ask for the divorce, demanding a periodic check as compensation for the hedonic damage."

What does the US laws say? Federal and local.

She can divorce but her harm case will be thrown out as denying sex by a single individual does not cause harm. He could file blackmail due that demand. Contract sex is illegal as it is prostitution. Sex without consent is rape.

 

[sun rise]

Left and right agree on this one.

 

[Estro Felino]

What the Italian Law says


Art. 143 Civil Code: duty of moral and material assistance of the two spouses. This includes duties of sexual nature.

If either spouse decides to stop performing this duty, through chastity, the other spouse has the right to ask for the divorce, having the right to obtain a monetary compensation for the hedonic damage. The divorce guilt is charged onto the unperforming spouse, who will pay this compensation.


Sources
Artt. 143, 151 Civil Code
Court of Cassation 119112 / 2012

 

[Estro Felino]

Either member of the couple is free to divorce; the sex part is irrelevant.

Nobody is compelled to provide sex to someone else, not even within a marriage. Sex without free consent is sexual assault.

But you are Canadian...
But I guess u know US law too....

 

[Estro Felino]

She can divorce but her harm case will be thrown out as denying sex by a single individual does not cause harm. He could file blackmail due that demand. Contract sex is illegal as it is prostitution. Sex without consent is rape.

Interesting. What do you think of our laws? See above

 

[crossfire]

Interesting. What do you think of our laws? See above

Don't get married--ever.

(Do they still try to make young women marry their rapists there, like Franca Viola?)

 

[David1967]

I was wondering what the American law says about the kind of duties the two spouses are obliged to fulfil in the matrimony contract.

Let's analyze this fictitious case:


What does the US law say? Federal and local.

It varies from state to state.

 

[pearl]

Either member of the couple is free to divorce; the sex part is irrelevant.

I think there might be a difference if the divorce is no fault or is contested, then the lawyers get involved.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Interesting. What do you think of our laws? See above

Some laws attempt to regulate things that they can't regulate. They are unenforceable, silly and arrogant. Suppose you wanted people to think of the moon as a lawbreaker. You could make a law ordering the moon to always remain in its full state. Then the moon would soon be a criminal according to your law. You could go further and order that citizens not aid the moon in its fullness, not speak of it, not look at it, not allege its fullness. The effect would be that very soon all of your citizens would be criminals and would have no reason to follow your other laws.

 

[Estro Felino]

Some laws attempt to regulate things that they can't regulate. They are unenforceable, silly and arrogant. Suppose you wanted people to think of the moon as a lawbreaker. You could make a law ordering the moon to always remain in its full state. Then the moon would soon be a criminal according to your law. You could go further and order that citizens not aid the moon in its fullness, not speak of it, not look at it, not allege its fullness. The effect would be that very soon all of your citizens would be criminals and would have no reason to follow your other laws.

But a common law system like that of USA and UK turns judges into tyrants, that is they decide according to their arbitrary sensations, and not accoding to strictly codified laws, that makes the judge's hands tied.


In this case the Italian law is very rational. If you cannot or will not satisfy your wife sexually, you have the obligation to consent to a peaceful divorce.

In Roman law matrimonium is a contract. Do ut des

 

[Brickjectivity]

But a common law system like that of USA and UK turns judges into tyrants, that is they decide according to their arbitrary sensations, and not accoding to strictly codified laws, that makes the judge's hands tied.


In this case the Italian law is very rational. If you cannot or will not satisfy your wife sexually, you have the obligation to consent to a peaceful divorce.

You actually have two sets of laws. Consider that most Italians are roman catholic, and the church does not allow divorces. For many there is no divorce. The law stating that sex is required seems antiquated, something from the past which was once important for contract marriages.

 

[Estro Felino]

You actually have two sets of laws. Consider that most Italians are roman catholic, and the church does not allow divorces. For many there is no divorce. The law stating that sex is required seems antiquated, something from the past which was once important for contract marriages.

Canon Law, that is the law of the Church stopped having juridic value when Rome was taken from the Pope in 1870, and Napoleonic Code Civil replaced the matrimony legislation.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But a common law system like that of USA and UK turns judges into tyrants, that is they decide according to their arbitrary sensations, and not accoding to strictly codified laws, that makes the judge's hands tied.


In this case the Italian law is very rational. If you cannot or will not satisfy your wife sexually, you have the obligation to consent to a peaceful divorce. Roman law matrimonium is a contract. Do ut des

Not at all. The common law is just OLD law. Much of it has now been superseded either by statute or by superior court decisions. Judges do Not invent laws. They follow case law and statutes. The Supreme court might well interpret the law to take into account changed circumstances... And they can rule on the legality of new legislation. They are not involved in politics in the UK. Judges are not sponsored by political parties, that would itself be illegal.

In my lifetime only Lord Denning, a quite fantastic judge, was the only one to make judgements that created new law that has stuck, and never been overturned.
His decisions were often controversial, but invariably proved correct.

 

[Estro Felino]

The law stating that sex is required seems antiquated, something from the past which was once important for contract marriages.

Sex is not a dirty thing. It is a natural thing, according to the ius naturale that justifies the contractual nature of marriage. Rights and duties.
Also faithfulness is a duty. Being faithful to your spouse and satisfy them are sensible duties.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not at all. The common law is just OLD law. Much of it has now been superseded either by statute or by superior court decisions. Judges do Not invent laws. They follow case law and statutes. The Supreme court might well interpret the law to take into account changed circumstances... And they can rule on the legality of new legislation. They are not involved in politics in the UK. Judges are not sponsored by political parties, that would itself be illegal.

In my lifetime only Lord Denning, a quite fantastic judge, was the only one to make judgements that created new law that has stuck, and never been overturned.
His decisions were often controversial, but invariably proved correct.

Meredith Kercher's case. The British family Kerchers are angry with the Italian judicial system because they are convinced Amanda Knox is guilty, but we cannot sentence a girl when there is insufficient evidence to incriminate her.
Laws present in codes deprive judges of absolute power.

 

[crossfire]

Sex is not a dirty thing. It is a natural thing, according to the ius naturale that justifies the contractual nature of marriage. Rights and duties.
Also faithfulness is a duty. Being faithful to your spouse and satisfy them are sensible duties.

I agree sex is a natural thing. Pooping is also a natural thing. However, when you force someone into sex against their will, it is like pooping on them against their will.

 

[sooda]

It varies from state to state.

I doubt this applies.

Loss of consortium legal definition of loss of consortium
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/loss+of+consortium
loss of consortium n. the inability of one's spouse to have normal marital relations, which is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Such loss arises as a claim for damages when a spouse has been injured and cannot participate in sexual relations for a period of time or permanently due to the injury, or suffers from mental distress, due to a defendant's wrongdoing, which interferes with usual sexual activity

 

[Estro Felino]

I doubt this applies.

Loss of consortium legal definition of loss of consortium
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/loss+of+consortium
loss of consortium n. the inability of one's spouse to have normal marital relations, which is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Such loss arises as a claim for damages when a spouse has been injured and cannot participate in sexual relations for a period of time or permanently due to the injury, or suffers from mental distress, due to a defendant's wrongdoing, which interferes with usual sexual activity

Very interesting. Is this codified in any American federal law?