|
In their dissenting opinions, two justices wrote: "We respectfully
dissent because we believe that the majority's narrow construction of the word 'adultery' contravenes the legislature's intended purpose in sanctioning fault-based divorce for the protection of the injured spouse. To strictly adhere to the primary definition of adultery in the 1961 edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary and a corollary definition of sexual intercourse, which on its face does not require coitus, is to avert one's eyes from the sexual realities of our world."
An excellent statement that encapsulates my opinion of this very surprising decision. Now you guys (US) have a very dangerous precedent out there and I hope that the actual law is reviewed post haste.
Also, I can't believe that the wife and her lover actually fought for this. If she wasn't happy with her marriage, why didn't she just end it? Is it perhaps that she wanted to have her cake and eat it too, by having a relationship that is not recognised by law, while reaping all benefits from a legal marriage?
If so, then I find this utterly despicable.
__________________
A plan is just a list of things that don't happen.
|