Court: Homosexual sex not adultery - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

seretogis · 11-08-2003, 04:41 AM

Quote:

LAW OF THE LAND
Court: Homosexual sex not adultery
3-2 ruling based on traditional definition of extramarital activity
Posted: November 8, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Married women are free to have extramarital sexual relations with
other women, says the New Hampshire Supreme Court, without being at
fault for the break-up of their marriage.

In a 3-2 ruling handed down today, the jurists decided the definition
of adultery doesn't include homosexual sex, but requires heterosexual
intercourse to have taken place.

The decision comes in a contentious divorce case.
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...3/blanc150.htm

David Blanchflower, of Hanover, N.H., originally filed for divorce
from his wife, Sian, on grounds of irreconcilable differences. He
then amended his petition, asserting his wife's "continuing
adulterous affair" with Robin Mayer, a woman from Brownsville, Vt.,
caused the irreparable breakdown of their marriage.

An "at fault" finding benefits the husband in the division of the
couple's property.

The two women attempted to block his efforts, contending a homosexual
relationship between two people, one of whom is married, does not
constitute adultery according to state divorce law.

The trial court disagreed with the women's argument and ruled in
favor of the husband, prompting Mayor to pursue the issue with the
state's high court.

In rendering their decision, the justices found the outdated law
didn't define adultery. In the absence of necessary definitions, they
explained in their opinion, they must "ascribe to them their plain
and ordinary meanings."

In other words, they looked the word up in Webster's Third New
International Dictionary and found the word defined as involving
intercourse between members of opposite genders.

The justices further relied on case law from the period during which
the 1842 divorce statute was drafted and concluded the definition of
adultery as it was applied in State v. Wallace in 1838 and State v.
Taylor in 1878 was "intercourse from which a spurious issue may
arise." They deduced that because a "spurious issue" can only arise
from intercourse between a man and a woman, "criminal adultery could
only be committed with a person of the opposite gender."

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."

Court observers agreed with the dissenters.

"I think the majority opinion is unintentionally trivializing same-
sex relations and violating modern notions of the sanctity of
marriage," Marcus Hurn, a professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center,
told the Associated Press.

A sexual relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, he added,
is "exactly an equivalent betrayal."

"That, I think, is the ordinary meaning most people would give," said
Hurn.

Neither David Blanchflower, his wife nor Mayer commented following
the ruling.

In an effort to thwart efforts to pull them into the burgeoning
debate over homosexual "marriage," the justices stressed the appeal
was "not about the status of homosexual relationships in our society
or the formal recognition of homosexual unions."

This is absolutely ridiculous, imho. I agree with Professor Hurn on this issue -- regardless of who the wife is sleeping around with, she is committing adultery by doing so. With a man or a woman, cheating is just as much of a betrayal.

Arc101 · 11-08-2003, 05:00 AM

Yet again the courts prove common sense is in short supply. It doesn't matter if you sleep with someone from the same sex or not, it still is adultery.

Sparhawk · 11-08-2003, 07:35 AM

WTF.

At least 2 of the judges had the common sense to step back and say, "We're basing a decision on Fucking WEBSTERS, for crying out loud." Too bad it wasn't 3 of them...

My god...

ARTelevision · 11-08-2003, 08:10 AM

Yes, ultimately no one gains by constantly making these distinctions we are often pressured into making because of certain sensitivities that are encouraged and tolerated in the interest of particular constitiuencies.

TIO · 11-08-2003, 09:29 AM

Hey, if gay people can't get married, then their relationships aren't a threat to a 'real' marriage. So gay sex is not adultery.
Isn't that obvious?

The_Dude · 11-08-2003, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TIO
Hey, if gay people can't get married, then their relationships aren't a threat to a 'real' marriage. So gay sex is not adultery.
Isn't that obvious?

nice one. i like this explanation.

empu · 11-08-2003, 10:15 AM

This decision is not really about the universal definition of adultery. It's about the legal definition as written in New Hampshire's divorce law. What they're saying is, "this law is vague, so we'll need to interpret it." There was a clear difference of opinion among the 5 justices, but the majority happened to be on the side that favored the Webster's definition. If the people of New Hampshire consider this interpretation inconsistent with the way they'd like their laws to work, they'll ask their legislature to update the law to be more specific.

The more interesting legal scenario would be if the law stated that same-sex relationships did qualify as "adultery" and the court struck that law down.

SuperMidget · 11-08-2003, 05:30 PM

So, the way this court ruling can be taken is to imply that sexual discrimination based on orientation is now legal.

Or maybe I am just being dumb.

Bob Biter · 11-08-2003, 07:00 PM

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.

BoCo · 11-08-2003, 10:18 PM

According to God, it is adultery. That judge is an idiot.

filtherton · 11-08-2003, 10:43 PM

^^^^

Your god. Besides, what god thinks is irrelevant.

Mael · 11-09-2003, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
^^^^

Your god. Besides, what god thinks is irrelevant.

TIO · 11-11-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mael

I second the motion

seretogis · 11-11-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TIO
I second the emotion

Maybe you'll wanna give me kisses sweet
But only for one night and no repeat
Maybe you'll go away and never call
And a taste of honey is worse than none at all

Oh, girl, in that case I don't want no part
I do believe that that would only break my heart, oh
But if you feel like lovin' me
If you've got the notion
I second that emotion, so
If you feel like givin' me
A lifetime of devotion
I second that emotion

Maybe you'll think that love will tear you down
And you don't have the time to hang around
Maybe you'll think that love was made for fools
And so it makes you ask to break the rules

Oh, girl, in that case I don't want no part...

Oh, girl, in that case I don't want no part...

11-08-2003, 07:35 AM	#3 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	WTF. At least 2 of the judges had the common sense to step back and say, "We're basing a decision on Fucking WEBSTERS, for crying out loud." Too bad it wasn't 3 of them... My god... __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

11-08-2003, 08:10 AM	#4 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes, ultimately no one gains by constantly making these distinctions we are often pressured into making because of certain sensitivities that are encouraged and tolerated in the interest of particular constitiuencies. __________________ create evolution

11-08-2003, 09:29 AM	#5 (permalink)
TIO Addict Location: The Land Down Under	Hey, if gay people can't get married, then their relationships aren't a threat to a 'real' marriage. So gay sex is not adultery. Isn't that obvious? __________________ Strewth

11-08-2003, 07:00 PM	#9 (permalink)
Bob Biter Non-smokers die everyday Location: Montreal	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.

11-08-2003, 10:18 PM	#10 (permalink)
BoCo Fear the bunny Location: Hanging off the tip of the Right Wing	According to God, it is adultery. That judge is an idiot. __________________ Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

11-08-2003, 05:00 AM	#2 (permalink)
Arc101 Addict Location: Nottingham, England	Yet again the courts prove common sense is in short supply. It doesn't matter if you sleep with someone from the same sex or not, it still is adultery.

11-08-2003, 10:15 AM	#7 (permalink)
empu Crazy	This decision is not really about the universal definition of adultery. It's about the legal definition as written in New Hampshire's divorce law. What they're saying is, "this law is vague, so we'll need to interpret it." There was a clear difference of opinion among the 5 justices, but the majority happened to be on the side that favored the Webster's definition. If the people of New Hampshire consider this interpretation inconsistent with the way they'd like their laws to work, they'll ask their legislature to update the law to be more specific. The more interesting legal scenario would be if the law stated that same-sex relationships did qualify as "adultery" and the court struck that law down.

11-08-2003, 05:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
SuperMidget Banned Location: Farm country, South Dakota	So, the way this court ruling can be taken is to imply that sexual discrimination based on orientation is now legal. Or maybe I am just being dumb.

11-08-2003, 10:43 PM	#11 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	^^^^ Your god. Besides, what god thinks is irrelevant.