Show me where it says that if she doesn't live with him, that would relieve him of his obligations. The marriage was official following the ceremony, consumation was not necessary.
I didn't say consumation was necessary, however the moving in with the husband was the last part of the ceremony.
The victim could be given the choice. DA's often confer with victims before recommending a sentence.
I'd be interested to see a study on this to see what the results are. I don't know what would be done in the case of a serial rapist, but regardless it is a very interesting theory.
This presumes that he would have had all the rights that he would have had by marriage under normal circumstances, which he didn't.
The only restriction he had was that he couldn't divorce her, unless you have other scriptures that show other restrictions.
The reason that David killed Uriah the Hittite was that Bethsheba was pregnant. David tried to cover this up by having Uriah spend some R&R with his wife. Uriah refused to enjoy time with her while his brothers in arms were in the field. David sent Uriah back carrying his own death sentence. With Uriah out of the way, David quickly married Bethsheba to make the child appear legitamate, thus avoiding a scandle. The thing to keep in mind is that just because the Bible records an event does not mean that it condones it. A number of verses later, David's actions are specifically condemned by Nathan the prophet.
Divorce by either party could only be granted for cause. Bethsheba had no cause to ask for a divorce. Uriah wasn't asking for a divorce either as he had no knowledge of the affair. A divorce simply wasn't going to happen at all. David took the course he did because he felt the need to marry her quickly. If he married her, say, 8 months before the baby arrived; it would have been a huge scandle.
I did mention that this was definetly part of the cause of their cover-up was to stop a scandal. However, don't you think if all that was needed was cause by the woman to divorce her husband Bath-Sheba could've simply lied with the King as her witness? I'm sure you agree had divorce been on the table, this would've been their first option instead of killing the man (or second option as the case may be)? By them plotting to kill the man, it leads me to believe that divorce wasn't an option for her; regardless of cause needed or not because as I said she would have the King as her witness it would've been a simple thing to lie. Please don't tell me that lying was not something that David would do as he had several times in scriptures previous, and if he's capable of murder he's capable of lying.