Same-sex marriage seems to be wheeling along nicely now (and, IMHO, so it should) but with marriage nowadays comes the possibility of annulment or divorce.

Whereas a two-sex marriage could possibly be annulled for non-consummation, how would we determine "consummation" in a same-sex marriage?
Similarly, how could we determine adultery in a same-sex marriage?

Gonna be a field day for lawyers I reckon.

.....change the word consummation for penetration

One of Jimmy Carr's few funny moments.

"The reason I am against gay marriage is gay divorce. Now that WILL be bitchy!"

Faeces on penis test?
Suppose it has it's own DNA similar to sperm?

Cameron already said as part of his plans they propose to remove the requirement for consummation.

Dunno what he would do about adultery, as the definition of that is having penetrative sex with a person of the opposite sex who is not your spouse. I suppose he'd just remove the "opposite sex" restriction.

What beats me, in these times of crisis, is how the hell this has got to the top of Dave's list.

That would might be admissible proof (if obtainable) of man on man action but are we saying that anal sex with another man is the only form that adultery could take in a male same-sex couple?
Would adultery have to be with the same sex?
And what about two women in a marriage ... what constitutes adultery there?

And for women?

Will they check the tongue or under the finger nails?

It's a bad move according to Nigel Farage.
This issue could ''rip apart'' the Tories, he believes.

This is the guy who would relish working with a Michael Gove lead Tory party as he believes him to be far more ''open-minded''.

I reckon it's either a quick-win that he thinks makes him look good ... or displacement activity because they are doing fookall about getting growth into the economy.

And penetrative being defined as occuring in the nether regions?

I think it's an important issue. Perhaps not quite as important as the economy, but I suppose Dave would argue that he's fixing the economy [ias well[/i as passing marriage equality legislation.

So far as I recall, the actual requirement is "sexual intercourse" and I'm certain that excludes eg oral sex. But it would be pretty academic as you'd get a divorce on unreasonable behaviour just the same, even if it wasn't adultery.

Maybe instead of doing away with consummation, they could simply transfer the requirement to the economy, as he and his buddies are royally consummating that.

Checking the ring is intact gets a whole new meaning

Will same-sex marriage replace civil partnerships? If not (probably for the first time) gay couples will have an advantage over straight couples: straight couples do not have the option of a civil partnership.

I also wonder if same-sex marriage will also see a change in pension rules, so that they are in line with heterosexual marriage?

The difficulty, of course, will be making it stand up in court.

[size=50b'dum, tsssh[/size