The Hippocratic oath should be applied in the circumstance of marriage and I would include the making of most laws. First do not harm.

The reason so many countries, including our own until recently, did not acknowledge rape inside of marriage is because it was theoretically impossible and legally impossible to enforce justly.

Marriage was, until we changed the definition, a sacred covenant between 1 man and 1 woman and God. In marriage, eachs body belongs to the other. If that is so, how is it rape and who's accusation includes a seperate witness? It comes down to lawyers and he said she said. That does more damage than good. (Refer to Hippocratic oath) If first do not harm? Then is the state involvement improving marriage?

The state being involved in marriage only weakend it. I offer you as evidence the state of marriage in modernity, since removal of church authority over the couple and the inclusion of state authority. The state reduced the accusation of rape in a marriage to the realm of medieval times. Where each party chooses a champion (lawyers) to fight to the death. We should all realize the outcome is seldom just or righteous.

My second point is the current definition of rape and sexual assault are no longer defined and most of us wouldn't realize we’re not even talking about the same thing.

Many feminist include all heterosexual sex as rape because there exist and unequal power dynamic between men and women during sex. If the man has more authority, strength or money in the relationship, it's considered forced. She had no option out. Sexual assault now even includes unwanted sexual advances even if just verbal. And example would include a wolf whistle.

So any discussion of sexual assault or rape in a marriage must first include defining what it is, then deciding if laws on it would do a greater good or increased harm. Should the protection of the marriage, which studies indicate is the safest most productive place for children, be enforced as a common good or are we as a society only interested in the protection of the woman?

Sometimes it's best for government not to be involved with everything. Every situation isn't made better by inclusion of a law.

I'll leave my point with this thought. Every law created is ultimately enforced by the state with armed men. Every law is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Even a parking ticket violation if disobeyed in it's entirety will have armed men confronting the violator. If that was truly understood, would we have as many laws?