By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling effectively prevents French divorce judges from making similar judgments. The recently enacted law primarily serves as a clarification, given the ECHR’s precedent. This means the legislative change is not expected to significantly alter court proceedings. Therefore, the impact on French courts is likely to be minimal.
Read the original article here
So, the buzz is that France is making a move on the idea of marital duty when it comes to sex. It seems a bit strange, right? Because, as it turns out, there wasn’t even an actual law *requiring* sex within marriage to begin with. What’s happening here is more about clarifying things, specifically because some courts were getting a bit creative with the existing laws, particularly the “community of living” clause. This essentially states that spouses should live together. Some judges, in certain divorce cases, were stretching that interpretation to suggest a mandatory sexual obligation.
It’s pretty clear that many feel that this is a case of judges misinterpreting the law. The general consensus appears to be that the government should not be dictating how people in a relationship treat each other, provided it’s all consensual. In fact, most people would agree that what goes on in the bedroom is, well, nobody else’s business. The crux of it is, and this seems to be where the new directive comes in, clarifying that a spouse cannot be divorced for “withholding sex”.
Now, given that the concept of marital rape is already illegal, the core issue here isn’t about forced sex. It’s more about how the absence of sex can be interpreted within a marriage, especially during divorce proceedings. Many people have opinions on the situation: some believe the current state of affairs is not a full-fledged solution but, instead, a halfway measure. They feel that marriage as an institution needs a serious re-evaluation. Either we keep it as a symbolic act with no legal strings attached, or it remains a legally binding contract with real implications. If it’s a contract, there should be clear expectations, and if those aren’t met, there should be ways to dissolve it without penalty.
The underlying question, then, is about what marriage *is*. Is it a romantic ceremony, a financial agreement, or a social contract? Some believe there should be more options, allowing contracts for friends, or family, for the purposes of managing finances, medical decisions, or childcare. There are suggestions that the focus should be on how people want to structure their relationships and their legal rights, rather than what the government currently deems appropriate.
The discussion about the change highlights that there’s a need to define what marriage is, because it impacts divorce, finances, and children. In current French law, sex is not currently expected in marriage. This move seems to affirm that. The real issue is the abuse of the notion of consent, specifically when sex is weaponized to harm a spouse. Many people believe that consent is a cornerstone of any healthy relationship.
There are many strong feelings about the current situation, especially considering those cases where the withholding of sex can be interpreted as grounds for divorce. One case involved a judge assigning “fault” and a fine to a woman because she refused to have sex with her husband, which goes against the idea of consent. The ruling, effectively, clarifies this ambiguity. The focus here is not to legalize or endorse marital rape, which is already illegal. It seems that the clarification primarily addresses whether a lack of sex can be considered grounds for an at-fault divorce. Many feel that the lack of sex is a valid reason for divorce, but not as grounds for additional legal penalties or judgments. The issue also seems to be about defining the obligations that come with marriage.
Ultimately, this is a discussion about what a marriage is, what obligations it includes, and when it is legally acceptable to dissolve it. There are many different points of view involved. Some propose that if marriage involves a legal contract, it should be treated like any other contract, with clear expectations. In general, the concept of forced sexual activity in marriage should have no legal standing, especially since there is no legal requirement for people to live in the same house.