I wonder what constitutes “voidable”. In CA I might not have been able to divorce my abusive wife, because I didn’t have that much proof, and anyway, in many of the more liberal judges’ minds men can’t be abused by women.
and anyway, in many of the more liberal judges’ minds men can’t be abused by women.”
In the eyes of many MEN inside the total justice system- women are responsible for their own rapes.
“What were you wearing, dearie?”
“What did you say to piss him off, dearie?”
“Why did you wear that outfit if you didn’t want a man to pay attention to you, dearie?”
“Why did you decide to go to that bar to use the cigarette machine, dearie?”
“Are you sure you were to meet other girl friends at that bar, dearie?”
“Are you sure you weren’t looking to make a connection with a man, dearie?”
“Are you sure he didn’t just like you a little too much, dearie?”
Are you sure that you weren’t leading him on, dearie?”
“Are you sure you said ‘NO’. dearie?”
“Are you sure that you meant ‘NO’, dearie?”
“Did you enjoy the experience even a little, dearie?”
” Did you experience an orgasm, dearie?”
“If so, then is it really a rape, dearie?”
I could go on and on.
Here is an idea for CA. Put a really huge fee/tax on granting a divorce. That should close the budget gap in a hurry.
$5 marriage license and a $100,000 divorce fee . . . start with a loss leader.
A 'void' marriage is one that can never be valid. A man "marries" his brother, for instance. (Yeah, I know, it will be civil rights issue, if I live that long.)
A voidable marriage is one that is not automatically illegal, but may be set aside. You marry a supermodel, in Las Vegas, while she is spectacularly drunk. If, on sobering up, she leaves you, and does not come back, she is entitled to have the marriage voided on the grounds that she was intoxicated, and did not voluntarily enter into it.
In Texas anyway.
And assuming that you are a guy.