Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From our old pal Joseph Farah:
Legally speaking, though, even in an increasingly secular society like ours, there is a reason same-sex marriages could never be recognized. A marriage that is not consummated has long been considered incomplete, not deserving of any legal recognition whatsoever. A marriage union that remains unconsummated never happened in the eyes of the law. So please tell me how a same-sex couple consummates one of these make-believe marriages? Acts of sodomy were never considered consummation in the eyes of the law. Again, this suggests that whatever it is the homosexual activists are trying to achieve through their relentless campaign, it is not marriage.
Politics
Comments
So, would Mr. Farah, I wonder, like to tell some friends of mine who are elderly, and married for companionship during their last days, that because they are unable to consummate their union, they are not really married?
Posted by: Ellie | September 6, 2010 10:17 AM
I wonder if Mr. Farah would recognize consummation if he ever had the opportunity to experience it?
Posted by: c-serpent | September 6, 2010 10:24 AM
couldn't you just have a Farrah quote ticker to constantly reload the DQOD?
To rip off Roy Edroso (about Jonah Goldberg)- "This is the stupidest thing ever written and will remain so until Jonah writes something else."
Posted by: tommil | September 6, 2010 10:25 AM
Ellie #1,
Excellent point.
Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 10:34 AM
I had an elderly friend - recently deceased -- who married a WWII veteran. This particular vet lost most of his.. ummm... junk to a piece of artillery shrapnel, so they could never have intercourse. She married him anyway. So, were they never actually married either? Just wondering because they were together for nearly fifty years and they sure seemed married to me.
Posted by: woods | September 6, 2010 10:38 AM
Could Mr. Farah please point to the relevant statute that says one must "fuck and pump out a kid" for a marriage to be considered valid. I would be interested in reviewing such language.
Posted by: tim | September 6, 2010 10:41 AM
He's just desperately fishing around for someone to explain how gay people have sex now. It's become pathological.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | September 6, 2010 10:42 AM
It seems almost every complaint raised against gay marriage would, if put into law as a requirement for marriage, also exclude straight marriage.
Wow. Who'd have thought people of different sexualities could have things in common? /snark
Posted by: Sivi | September 6, 2010 10:42 AM
So, is Farah going to start lobbying for the old 'bloodied bedsheet' as a requirement for a marriage licence?
Posted by: Ashley Moore | September 6, 2010 10:42 AM
False, at least in Illinois, where I live. Inability to consummate the marriage (even assuming Farah's penis-vagina requirement) is not a ground for annulment unless one party DID NOT KNOW that the marriage couldn't be consummated. And, even if that condition isn't met, application for annulment must occur within one year of the wedding.
Posted by: Dr X | September 6, 2010 10:50 AM
He's gay.
Posted by: Tuco | September 6, 2010 10:51 AM
Really? Show me the law then, Farah.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 6, 2010 10:53 AM
The consummation law must be in the right-wing Secret Constitution, the one that's based on the Bible.
Posted by: Emily | September 6, 2010 11:06 AM
Aren't nuns "married" to Christ?
Just sayin' ...
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | September 6, 2010 11:07 AM
Wow, Joseph sure is curious about gay sex...
Posted by: peter | September 6, 2010 11:15 AM
I hate to point out that us filthy gayers don't all go in for sodomy either :-S
Posted by: David Waldock | September 6, 2010 11:33 AM
And wasn't Joseph the husband of the Virgin Mary?
Posted by: Dr X | September 6, 2010 11:38 AM
SINCE THE NEED STRAP-ONS TO PENETRATE EACH OTHER,PERHAPS LEZBOS SHOULD EXCHANGE DILDOS RATHER THAN RINGS!!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
ENJOY THE VEGAN WEDDING CAKE!!!!!!
R O T F L M A O ! ! ! ! !
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | September 6, 2010 11:42 AM
Tuco at #8:
You're right: he's gay. Must be. Why else would he dwell on that, um, particularity?
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | September 6, 2010 11:47 AM
This is just the ten billionth or so reiteration of the bigot's meme, Gay marriage/ gay relationships are invalid because they can't produce children biologically. It wasn't a valid premise the first time, and it's not valid now.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 6, 2010 11:58 AM
According to the findlaw web site, here is what is needed to get married:
Or, to put another way:
So nothing about consummation as a requirment for marriage. However, there is grounds for annulment based on lack of consummation but that is related strictly to impotentcy.
While that could apply to SSM, I doubt that would be in the sense that Farah is talking about. To the extent that Farah is correct that SSM is invalid is only due the fact that most states do not recognize them as such. However, that hardly helps him out any since that is not what he based this silly argument on in the first place.
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | September 6, 2010 12:14 PM
Why are these people so obsessed with sex? There's far more to marriage than sex - and you can have as much sex as you like without being married.
Posted by: S.Atherton | September 6, 2010 12:16 PM
To both Joseph Farah and Americaphile @ 18:
You know how many cartoons are improved if the phrase "Christ, what an asshole" is used in place of the original punchline?
It's also the perfect coda to your ignorant rants...
Posted by: cognitive dissident | September 6, 2010 12:56 PM
Man. It's just all about the butt secks, ain't it?
Posted by: Martin | September 6, 2010 1:06 PM
Umm - maybe I am not that familiar with secular marriage, but I thought the "consumation" bit was only for religious ones. Even if it wasn't, I thought it was only used for annulment, which was a voluntary process. In addition to what others have said, all it takes is intercourse - you don't need to create a kid, and last time I checked, even Farah would agree that homosexuals can have se - that's one of the reasons these morons consider them icky!
Posted by: Badger3k | September 6, 2010 1:06 PM
Sweet ! Maybe we'll stop being harassed now that we can say we're not having sex, we're just saving ourselves for marriage.
Posted by: marie-annick | September 6, 2010 1:16 PM
What the hell? Does Farah think that the government goes around making sure that married people boink each other, and if not, revoking their licenses? When he fills out a form that asks for his marital status, does he write "consummated"?
And just to add to other people's stories that contradict Farah's stupidity: My great grandfather got married in his mid 90's, a few years after his wife died, to the woman he played checkers with at the nursing home. It was entirely for the sake of companionship and the advantages of being a married couple in the home. Of course, each of them were in wheelchairs with oxygen tanks at the time, and in no shape to consummate.
Posted by: Wes | September 6, 2010 1:18 PM
"So please tell me how a same-sex couple consummates one of these make-believe marriages?"
'how is babby formed?'
Could Americaphile be banned? It was never a particularly clever or funny poe, and now it's just consistently trying to hijack threads.
Posted by: Coryat | September 6, 2010 2:05 PM
If gay people are unable to consummate our unions with each other, then whatever gay people may do together is not sex.
If gay people have never had sex, all gay people are virgins.
If all gay people are virgins, none are sexual sinners.
The religious right has no complaint against gay people because we cannot by their definitions be sexual sinners.
Posted by: Boo | September 6, 2010 2:22 PM
The wonderful thing about the English language is that a single word can mean many things, and it is marriage, whether gay sex technically qualifies as consummation or not.
Posted by: kalki | September 6, 2010 2:56 PM
Funny. When I got married I got a license and had a ceremony. Nobody checked back to see if we did the nasty. In which alternate universe is it that people get married by screwing in front of the officiant?
Posted by: Buffy | September 6, 2010 4:21 PM
That closet must be a very sad place to make Americaphile and Farah so angry.
Posted by: Paen | September 6, 2010 4:28 PM
Not that I really care, but what was his take on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?
Posted by: Brad | September 6, 2010 4:44 PM
The oddest thing is that Farah says, "could never" as if states would not be able to amend or repeal a "consummation required" law if one existed. He seems to have very little understanding that state legislatures are not actively constrained by one wingnut's interpretation of natural law.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 6, 2010 4:51 PM
"being sober at the time of the marriage"
WTF? Really, WTF?
Posted by: Coragyps | September 6, 2010 5:17 PM
So your saying that a marriage isn't legal unless a dick fucks the cunt!?. Sorry that is a major fail!
Non-consumation can be grounds for annuling a marriage but the marriage does not have to be annulled.
Posted by: Pacal | September 6, 2010 5:26 PM
Aren't nuns "married" to Christ?
Just sayin' ...
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | September 6, 2010 11:07 AM
http://www.divine-interventions.com/baby.php (NSFW)
Posted by: Kirsi | September 6, 2010 5:46 PM
Coragyps, IANAL, but what I remember from my business law course in college is that contract law stipulates that all individuals involved in a binding contract must have the capacity to enter into the contract. The most obvious factor that would inhibit capacity is infancy (that is, not being of age for the specific type of contract, which of course varies by state), and one's state of mind is another factor. This can apply to debilitating mental illness, as well as to intoxication or other mind-alteration. That is actually a good thing, since (as I'm sure we're all aware) people often do stupid things while drunk that they would not have done if they had really been of sound mind at the time. As a result, intoxication is one of the multiple reasons that an annulment can be granted; I have no idea what kinds of laws are on the books for officiants/clerks to be prohibited from granting marriage licenses to intoxicated individuals, however.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | September 6, 2010 5:59 PM
Again Farah is attempting to make a religious argument but paint it in secular terms. Five or six hundred years ago the church would authorize "annulments." Divorce wasn't allowed, but the church would pretend you had never been married. One of the grounds for this bit of play acting was the claim that the marriage had never been "consummated."
This isn't as much a secular law as it is a religious one. Though it was adopted in some European cultures as grounds for terminating a contractual marriage, it is most strongly a loophole set up by the church to allow rare "divorces" at a time when divorces were "impossible." The most famous use of this loophole is likely when Henry VII received permission to allow Henry VIII to marry his sister-in-law because they claimed that the marriage to Arthur was unconsummated. Given that they were together for six months prior to his death, this is rather unlikely, but it created a useful story. What makes it so ironic is that this marriage with Catherine of Aragon was later annulled (without the approval of the Pope) despite the fact that they had six children together (5 died) because Henry claimed that the marriage was unlawful because of the Bible prohibition against marrying your brother's wife.
Farah is pretending this "consummation law" is secular grounds for considering a marriage legal when it actual functioned as the best method to get out of an unwanted marriage.
Posted by: dogmeat | September 6, 2010 6:00 PM
"Man. It's just all about the butt secks, ain't it?"
If you're a Christian fundie, and your marriage is based on little more than continuous P/V f*cking, then it's natural to assume that gay marriage is based on little more than continuous P/A f*cking.
Posted by: anon | September 6, 2010 6:23 PM
"Acts of sodomy were never considered consummation in the eyes of the law."1
Just for chuckles, how many states still criminalise sodomy?2 - Dingo
----
1 Note the past tense. What the law used to declare illegal ain't relevant unless it's still illegal
2 I wonder if Farrah would be shocked at various sex acts that constitute 'sodomy'? Sorry to disappoint ya Joe, but it ain't all hot, sticky, testosterone-fueled man-on-man buttsex. Bummer! [rimshot]
Posted by: DingoJack | September 6, 2010 7:31 PM
DingoJack @ 41:
"[rimshot]"
Oh my god, you are a terrible person.
*hi fives*
Posted by: ThatOtherGuy | September 6, 2010 8:03 PM
Someone should point out to Farah that no straight man has sported a mustache like his since the 1970s.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | September 6, 2010 8:20 PM
Huh. He's confusing religious tradition and proclamations with real laws. What an idiot. I guess he believes he's living in a theocracy.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 7, 2010 12:37 AM
S.Atherton "Why are these people so obsessed with sex? There's far more to marriage than sex - and you can have as much sex as you like without being married."
Lies! In Wingnut marriage, the large amount of time the couple spends not having sex is spent worrying about other people who are.
Boo "The religious right has no complaint against gay people because we cannot by their definitions be sexual sinners."
Typical Leftist nonsense! You Relativists and your trying to use words with consistent definitions! When will you ever learn that words mean whatever you need them to mean to bash the outgroup.
Rob Ryan "Someone should point out to Farah that no straight man has sported a mustache like his since the 1970s."
Except, of course, for me. I've got a medical condition. Burt Reynoldsism. It's not so bad. It comes with a Firebird and an 8-track of southern rock.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 7, 2010 2:23 AM
If what gay people do is not real sex, then can I assume that Farah fully supported Bill Clinton and campaigned heavily for him to be aquitted during his impeachment trial. After all, what gay people do is not sex, and Bill and Monica only did stuff that gay people can do...
Posted by: Donalbain | September 7, 2010 3:16 AM
What sort of legal precedent is there for any of this, anyway? As others have mentioned, there are plenty of marriages in which vaginal intercourse does not take place for one reason or another, and the validity of those marriages never comes into question. In fact, the issue of consummation is never given any mention at all, as far as I know, except by a minority of kooks.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 7, 2010 5:21 AM
Valhar2000 "What sort of legal precedent is there for any of this, anyway?"
"What sort of legal precedent"?! You can't be serious! It's all right there. In the Bible.
"As others have mentioned, there are plenty of marriages in which vaginal intercourse does not take place for one reason or another, and the validity of those marriages never comes into question."
Those are okay. They don't involve the gays and their gaymansex.
"In fact, the issue of consummation is never given any mention at all, as far as I know, except by a minority of kooks."
Hah! You admitted it! Real Americans™ really are an oppressed minority! Did I say "an"? I meant "the".
Also, this "minority of kooks" forms the majority of the oppressed minority [of kooks]. While you liberals are sipping your so-called "lattes" and plotting to have government work to help all of its constituents get their so-called "rights" under the Constitution, Real Americans™ are fighting to have their voices heard against the tide of elitist university re-education camps, the liberalmedia, Hollywood and liberalactivistjudges; standing up to protect marriage from so-called "people" who would icky it up with the gaymansex, love and commitment!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 7, 2010 5:50 AM
I'm curious as to where the requirement is for marriage to be "consummated" in Farah's strict interpretation of what constitutes an acceptable "consummation" of marriage. For example, what about elderly couples that enter into a legal marriage? What about straight couples with medical conditions that significantly hinder their ability to have sex? Again, he's making a more religious argument in defining "consummation" and lazily dressing it up in secular terms that couldn't possibly be more divorced from what he's saying.
Posted by: swedishskinjer | September 7, 2010 9:20 AM
"...Bill Clinton smoked a cigar/ with intern he came across..." - Roy Zimmerman
Posted by: Roy_Zimmerman | September 7, 2010 9:30 AM
if no consummation = no marriage
and no marriage + baby = bastard
then virgin + baby = bastard?
Posted by: JerseyJim | September 7, 2010 9:41 AM
In English Law non consummation renders a marriage voidable not null and void, you can have a marriage annulled on grounds of non consummation, you don't have to. There are two differences between civil partnership and marriage the obvious one is the sex of the participants the obscure one is that a civil partnership cannot be annulled on grounds of non consummation.
@51
In most systems children born in a voidable marriage which is later annulled are legitimate.
Posted by: Brett Dunabar | September 8, 2010 12:03 PM