I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court didn't rule that same sex couples need to have sex with each other in order to receive the legal benefits of marriage.
Good point. This is just all part of the current scenario of so few people knowing what the definition of true marriage actually is….even before throwing homo marriages into the mix. Once upon a time, there was no problem getting an annulment as long as it was confirmed that there was ‘marital fraud, abandonment, infidelity (sexual withholding as opposed to sex outside the marriage), non-consummation, a refusal of natural obligations’ etc. etc. Once the concept of marriage and the sexual act have nothing to do with each other, the whole thing falls apart. In countries such as Canada where homo marriages have been legal for some time, they have tried to avoid the issue of ‘grandparents marrying sons and daughters to avoid the death tax’ by stipulating that the two parties can’t be genetically related…. but like anything else, this just opens up a whole new can of worms.