# 1st Circuit Court of Appeals: Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653 "2012-05-31T14:26:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 440
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/440 "2012-06-08T01:29:11Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I would bet that ovum/ovum fertilization could be accomplished with mammal ova today, or at least in the next few years. Alas, mammalian sperm/sperm fertilization is a lot trickier, as there isn’t any “there there.” No reservoir of cell material for cell division. You’d have to do a three-way, two sperm _and_ an egg. Not impossible, and it may happen some day. > > I was astonished to learn this. I Googled, and found the recent case of someone in New York being charged with criminal adultery. It seems to be quite rare, and a lot of people think it is absurd. For my part, I’d rather it be handled as a civil case – the old-fashioned “alienation of affections” and so on – rather than wasting the courts’ time with a criminal prosecution. > > (I could see a criminal case against someone who gave their spouse an STD from an affair, but not for simply being unfaithful.) > > Anyway, as an argument, it doesn’t carry any weight with me. I’d change those laws, and change the laws against SSM. All you’ve done is educated me about another case of legislative injustice that needs to be remedied. So you do not belief in the right to exclusive intercourse with your spouse? Or just the criminal end of it? I definitely see it as a crime along the lines of trespass. A person’s right to sleep with who one chooses is bargained away in exchange for the right being given up by the partner. Really marriage is becoming nothing more than getting some federal goodies. Thed onlya dultery I wouldn’t prosecute is when a married person deceives a single person, I’d not prosecute the single one. There was another recent case in Arizona. There weren’t any for many many years. One of my former bosses said he’d been watching the matter for 30 years and hadn’t found a single instance in 20, and this was in the mid 90’s. I’ve been watching closely too, remembering what he said. It might mean that prosecutors are starting to battle a declining marriage rate with force, and I’m glad. I would not only bring back heartbalms, I would eliminate no-fault divorce, prosecute adultery, end the nonsensical part of domestic violence prosecutions and find ways to encourage large families. I would modify child support laws and practices; I cannot believe a cause of action exists that if you plead there has been no adequate support for the child it doesn’t have to be true; the courts just want to make sure. if you actually were taking care of your kid, they’ll say it was a gift, (as though you could pay through the courts before there is a case, maybe you’re supposed to sue yourself?) and make you pay it again. Here is a cause of action in which it is impossible to do right. A cause of action that can almost automatically result in a judgment for the exercise of a fundamental right, even if you do every last blasted thing the government says it wants parents to do. neither of the attorneys I worked for ever told me to brief the Ks Supreme Court on this, I sure wanted to. One last thing I’d do is, in any marriage where they agree from the outset on a religion and be governed by it, I would require the district courts to obey the ecclesiastical rules. Many people see marriage as a religious matter, and I believe the government establishes “no religion” to govern any dissolution. if the married couple feel religion is important to their marriage, no court should be able to strip them of those religious principles. I’m against “covenant” amrriages, but appreciate the sentiment behind them. it just creates two classes of unions again and undoubtedly we’d be going through this same crap again with “second-class” marriages. Not really related, but dealing with sex issues–as long as I’m on the soapbox–I find it ludicrous that it is legal in some jurisdictions to have sex with a teenager as young as fourteen, sixteen in the majority of states, BUT taking a picture is a crime if she’s a day younger than eighteen. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653)._