View Full Version : Lesbian sex not classed as adultery.
crappertay
11-09-2003, 12:00 PM
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.
:blat
B1ade Runner
11-09-2003, 12:30 PM
If my wife or girlfriend had "sex" with another woman, it honestly wouldn't bother me.
Even if she did it behind your back?
I think it is all about intent. If someone sneaks around and has an intimate relationship, whether it be physical or emotional with someone else outside your marriage... whether it be woman or man, that's cheating. I don't care what kind of sex they are having or what they are doing.
crappertay
11-09-2003, 12:37 PM
Yeah, we ain't talking about a cozy threesome with a camcorder here Brody :lol
B1ade Runner
11-09-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by FilmHobbit
Even if she did it behind your back?
The deception would bother me, yes, but it would be as painful as her sleeping with another man.
Originally posted by crappertay
Yeah, we ain't talking about a cozy threesome with a camcorder here Brody :lol
You never know...
Brynn
11-09-2003, 01:42 PM
The majority determined that the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse.
Did Bill Clinton write this law? :D
The majority determined that the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse.
This would have been helpful to know last week! ;)
Brynn
11-09-2003, 01:57 PM
Did you have a lesbian affair, Matt? :moon
crappertay
11-09-2003, 02:02 PM
:rofl Matt!!!!!!!!!!!!
fafhrd
11-09-2003, 11:47 PM
Sounds like a radical court if you'd ask me, not much different from the Ninth Circuit Court out in the West. They vote their party ideology but not the letter or intent of the law. Adn what's best about them is, is that you can't get rid of them!
Fafhrd
Since when is lesbian adultery part of the Democratic ideology? :lol
fafhrd
11-10-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by FilmHobbit
Since when is lesbian adultery part of the Democratic ideology? :lol
not adultery per se, but rather the whole deviancy subculture. And gay rights/homosexuality (which I have no problem with) is something that the libs just want to shove down everyones throats ad nauseam. Plus, the judges act like liberal judges, in which they vote not by the letter of the law, but rather, by whatever they feel they are ideologically bound to. Hence why you get some really weird rulings these days, like this one.
Fafhrd
Have you been listening to Rush Limbaugh again? Bad Faf bad!
::hits Faf's nose with a rolled up newspaper::
Originally posted by Brynn
Did you have a lesbian affair, Matt? :moon
lol I could have, technically. :lol
Cogito
11-10-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by fafhrd
not adultery per se, but rather the whole deviancy subculture...
- Fafhrd
This being a movie site and all, lemme quote Blade here, and hey, it's tongue in cheek, but hey -- MOTHER****ER, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR DAMN MIND?!
To classify lesbian sex as not adulterous, is to inherently say that homosexuality isn't normal -- ie., that sex -- if homosexual -- isn't actually sex at all; thus there is no ground for divorse. I'd say this court was anything but liberal.
That is what is weird about the case. I am sure as hell a conservative court wouldn't rule this way. But as Cogs says, it doesn't per se' sound liberal either. It just sound f'n stupid. But it is actually in how you read NH's state divorce law that came up with this stupid ruling. By my interpretation it is actually a sexist (against males) law. A man having homosexual sex would lose his property but his wife having a lesbian affair would not.
Another reason I wonder why we put so much weight into that beautiful yet insignificant state called New Hampshire.
It seems like the ruling was based on the letter of the law... which just happens to be flawed, rather than the judge making a moral decision.
Cogito
11-10-2003, 09:58 PM
When interpreting any law, I think one should always make a judgement as to what the intent or spirit, of the law is -- irregardless of what strange consequences you might end up, due to some odd technicality.
I'm not sure exactly where this was, but possibly it was Singapore -- some guy got off on a rape charge, because the letters of the law described vaginal intercourse, and since this case was anal, the guy got off... Now, that's clearly absurd, and any judge or jury that lets a guy get off on that, are doing something wrong -- just like in the above case.
I'm not arguing whether or not judges should try to interpret the law or stick to the letter of it... but it wouldn't be the first judge that prefers to stick to the letter of the law rather than to rule by intent.
Cogito
11-11-2003, 05:18 AM
Oh no, hell no! Judges are human beings like the rest of us, so they make mistakes too (except the rest of us aren't normally allowed to enjoy the demented illusion of omnipotence for an entire workday, of course, so their mistakes are sometimes of different proportions than ours :) ).
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.