Fri | Nov 17, 2017

Marital rape mistaken for grievous sexual assault

Published:Saturday | July 29, 2017 | 12:00 AM

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I question how the law can impose an obligation on one spouse to financially support the other, while it does not compel either not to unreasonably withhold sexual gratification from the other.

At the same time, knowingly infecting a spouse with a sexually transmitted disease should be treated under a separate offence clause, with severity of the penalty depending on the infection.

We need to understand the consensual nature of the contract of marriage. Christians bring God emphatically into the midst of it.

Accordingly, if the Constitution genuinely accords religious freedom, they should not be compelled to trivialise it.

People who are so separated that they do not want to have any sexual relations with each other should, pursuant to filing for dissolution of the marriage, obtain an order from the court to determine the distance that should be maintained between them.

You can't call yourself a spouse, after deciding you will no longer be sexually involved, while remaining in the same location/residence, ostensibly because you have children together, when in truth and in fact it may be because you want the other to continue to support you financially like a slave.

This is a BLATANT family law injustice perpetuated in Jamaica, which is worse in America.

We should not be playing politics with the law!

HYLTON W. DENNIS

Mona, Kingston 7