|
Grex > Agora47 > #162: New Hampshire Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery | |
|
| Author |
Message |
pvn
|
|
New Hampshire Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery
| 
Nov 8 06:37 UTC 2003 |
Decision Comes In Divorce Appeal
POSTED: 11:55 a.m. EST November 7, 2003
CONCORD, N.H. -- If a married woman has sex with another woman,
is that adultery? The New Hampshire Supreme Court says no.
The court was asked to review a divorce case in which a husband
accused his wife of adultery after she had a sexual relationship
with another woman. Any finding that one spouse is at fault in the
break-up of a marriage can change how the court divides the
couple's property.
Robin Mayer, of Brownsville, Vt., was named in the divorce
proceedings of a Hanover couple. She appealed the case to the
Supreme Court, arguing that gay sex doesn't qualify as adultery
under the state's divorce law.
In a 3-2 ruling Friday, the court agreed.
The majority determined that the definition of adultery
requires sexual intercourse. The judges who disagreed said
adultery should be defined more broadly to include other
extramarital sexual activity.
|
| 88 responses total. |
pvn
|
|
response 1 of 88:
|
Nov 8 06:38 UTC 2003 |
I guess it derives from the dependency of what the meaning of the word
is is... Isn't that Dean fellah from up around there?
|
tsty
|
|
response 2 of 88:
|
Nov 8 08:29 UTC 2003 |
deciding that homo-sex is not sex will be an intersting positoin
for the supreme court.
or defining sex as not-adultry .. wahtever....
|
pvn
|
|
response 3 of 88:
|
Nov 8 09:17 UTC 2003 |
Isn't it an interesting case.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 4 of 88:
|
Nov 8 14:00 UTC 2003 |
(Dean is from one state west.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 88:
|
Nov 8 14:36 UTC 2003 |
(And his relevance to this is....?)
|
tod
|
|
response 6 of 88:
|
Nov 8 16:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 7 of 88:
|
Nov 8 18:53 UTC 2003 |
Crap like this is inevitable when you have a fault-based divorce system.
Fortunately, Michigan has no-fault divorce.
|
russ
|
|
response 8 of 88:
|
Nov 8 20:27 UTC 2003 |
What "crap"? Betrayal of vows (which are a form of contract, after
all) ought to carry a price. Then again, so should perjured accusations
in an at-fault divorce.
|
richard
|
|
response 9 of 88:
|
Nov 8 21:00 UTC 2003 |
so if the husband cheats on his wife with another woman, it is adultery. But
if the wife cheats on her husband with the same woman, it is not? thats
ridiculous, not to mention hypocritical
|
lk
|
|
response 10 of 88:
|
Nov 8 21:55 UTC 2003 |
As I'm sure everyone knows, the Old Testament (Deuteronomy) considers
homosexuality to be an "abomination". That could be a mistranslation.
The Hebrew word used is "To'eh-vah". Yet "To'eh bah" means something
entirely different. The verse opens with (my paraphrase/translation)
"He who lies with a man as he does with a woman...." and then says
that this is "toevah".
So what does "To'eh bah" mean?
Doing wrong by her!
In other words, for a married man to sleep with another woman is
to wrong his wife, to commit adultery.
- - - - - -
Now I must wonder if the converse is true. If a gay male sleeps with
a woman is he not cheating on his partner? Oh, wait, there was
intercourse so the Supremes say yes. See?! The right-wingers were
right. Now homosexual marriage is suddenly more sacred than straight
marriage.....
- - - - - -
Corollary to the ruling: Bill Clinton did not commit adultery with
Monica Lewinsky.
|
tod
|
|
response 11 of 88:
|
Nov 9 00:56 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 12 of 88:
|
Nov 9 04:05 UTC 2003 |
(How do I adjust my monitor? I thought I saw something written by Mr.
richard with which I agree.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 13 of 88:
|
Nov 9 04:40 UTC 2003 |
It's hard to believe that the usually-sensible Russ Cage wrote #8. The
fault divorce system has all kinds of pernicious effects. A marriage is
not like a commercial contract to which one party may compel adherence by
the other.
Rather, nowadays it is appalling that two people who no longer want to be
married would be required to "prove fault" (one by the other) in order to
dissolve the union. This often means, even in uncontested cases, that
people have to go to court and lie under oath. Sure, everyone in the room
(the other spouse, the lawyers, the judge, court reporter, spectators)
KNOWS that the witness is lying. It makes a mockery of the legal system.
Or, in contested cases, the fault system makes the fighting all that much
worse, and sharply reduces the options of having a reasonable settlement.
It means that matters which might otherwise be kept private get aired in
open court, or even in the media. More court time (costing thousands in
tax dollars), more legal fees, more hostility, worse outcomes for any
children caught in the middle.
This is yet another thing that Michigan gets right, and many other states
get wrong.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 88:
|
Nov 9 05:43 UTC 2003 |
As was pointed out, NH law requires coitus to have occurred for
"adultery". So the court acted properly. The judge that disagreed
was out of order as he acted because he wanted there to be a different
law. But there wasn't.
It is better if they had no-fault divorce.
|
russ
|
|
response 15 of 88:
|
Nov 9 14:45 UTC 2003 |
Re #13: If only one party has to want out to get a no-fault
divorce, that's different from a mutually agreeable dissolution.
I am acquainted with someone who just walked out on her husband.
Literally just walked out. She didn't let him know beforehand
that she wasn't happy. She told me she didn't even tell her
*son* (who she did not take with her, but left to live with his
stepfather). Should someone like this be able to demand half
of all "marital" property (even if it was his before marriage)?
If the boy was his child, should she be able to take 40% of his
before-tax income but leave him to pay the taxes on it?
That's the problem with no-fault divorce. The consequences are
that marriage has become dangerous to men, and they're shunning
it. See http://www.mattweeks.com/strike.htm for some opinion
on the matter.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 16 of 88:
|
Nov 9 18:07 UTC 2003 |
The courts should see to it that a divorce is fair to all, including
children. But I don't think that personal behavior that is not physically
injurious to another is criminal, so even though a person can "cause" a
divorce, it isn't right to make that a punishable offense.
|
russ
|
|
response 17 of 88:
|
Nov 10 02:34 UTC 2003 |
>But I don't think that personal behavior that is not physically
>injurious to another is criminal
So taking all the comingled funds and writing a check to one's
extramarital lover wouldn't justify criminal or even civil
sanctions? How about chronic verbal abuse of partner and children?
But most divorces aren't criminal matters, they are civil splits
deciding who gets what. Ironically, if two people get together
for a business venture they can sign a contract which states who
is obligated to do what and any penalties for failure to deliver.
If you invest time and money based on someone else's promise, you
can get something back if they renege.
Yet two people who get married can't do that. Under no-fault, anyone
can walk out at any time. Worse, with custody and support laws the
man is usually expected to pay for everything. This effectively pays
women to go for divorce rather than hold to the commitment they made
when they got married, and there is no civil remedy for the breach.
If you don't think this is corrosive, you sure as hell aren't paying
attention.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 88:
|
Nov 10 02:41 UTC 2003 |
Fraud and abuse are crimes whether in or outside a marriage, and should
be prosecuted accordingly. I think marriage contracts should be more
businesslike with provisions in the contract for separation or divorce.
Still, there is no need for "fault" apart from criminality. It doesn't matter
who violates the social contract - all that does is break the contract, it
needn't break the individuals.
|