http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/11082003/news/59646.htm
though I’m from NH, I just don’t get it… seems to me, if my wife is “playing” with someone else in bed, that isn’t me (and I’m not invited/consenting), then it should be adultery. (Clinton/Lewinsky case not withstanding)
Thoughts?
-Butler
Hell yeah, it’s cheating I’d say!
Does that mean it would have been adultery if they had used a strap-on?
Offhand, I’d say if you touched somebody else’s naughty bits, you’d be hard-pressed to make a case that you didn’t betray your spouse. The real problem is obviously a silly, archaic divorce law in that state.
I think the OP is either confusing adultery with infidelity, or wants dictionary definitions changed to suit his moods.
They were having a lot of fun with this case on the radio this morning.
Apparently, there is New Hampshire caselaw defining adultery as intercourse “from which spurious issue may arise,” e.g., intercourse which might lead to little bastards in the literal sense. That not only omits lesbianism and oral sex, but also actual intercourse between folks who have had vasectomies, hysterectomies and tubal ligations. Memo to all you guys with the seven-year itch who are shooting blanks: go to New Hampshire.
Suffice it to say all of that caselaw is really, really old, stemming from an age when, to put mildly, the full range of human sexuality was not a topic of conversation among polite company. The fuddyduddies on the New Hampshire bench over a century ago probably couldn’t imagine heterosexual sex outside of the missionary position, much less hot girl-on-girl carpet munching action. And sterilization procedures simply weren’t available. It’s unsurprising that they defined the offense as they did, but I think it reasonably plausible that they intended a broader meaning to the term.
Well, they did follow the 1878 law as it defined adultery as “intercourse from which spurious issue may arise.” However, I too was surprised that the conservative judges went against the older law and the liberal judges agreed with it. That seems contrary to the nature of their respective affiliations. I wonder why.
Following this definition, oral sex would not be considered adultery.
The dictionary defines sexual intercourse as:
So why didn’t the liberal judges attempt to update the definition?
It’s only cheating when your wife won’t share the video with you afterwards.
Anyone have a link to the opinion? I’d be curious to know why they would have needed to define “adultery” at all. I would have thought no-fault divorce laws would make that unnecessary.
Never mind. The opinion.
From minty green’s link:
“Unlike no-fault divorces, a fault-based divorce presumes that there is an innocent and a guilty spouse, and permits divorce “in favor of the innocent party” for any of nine possible causes, including impotency, adultery, extreme cruelty, felony conviction for which a party has been imprisoned, habitual drunkenness, and abandonment. RSA 458:7, I-IV, VII, IX. Under our fault-based law, the innocent spouse is entitled to a divorce because the guilty spouse has breached a marital covenant, such as the covenant to be sexually faithful.”
So impotency is someone’s fault?
From minty green’s link:
“Unlike no-fault divorces, a fault-based divorce presumes that there is an innocent and a guilty spouse, and permits divorce “in favor of the innocent party” for any of nine possible causes, including impotency, adultery, extreme cruelty, felony conviction for which a party has been imprisoned, habitual drunkenness, and abandonment. RSA 458:7, I-IV, VII, IX. Under our fault-based law, the innocent spouse is entitled to a divorce because the guilty spouse has breached a marital covenant, such as the covenant to be sexually faithful.”
So impotency is someone’s fault?
Is this what you surmise, or does the caselaw say this? What about condoms, birth control pills, coitus interuptus, etc.? Do those make it not adultery as well?
Even with condoms etc. there is still a chance of a “Spurious issue” so, according to the law, yes it would be adultery. Though I feel your wife having an affair with another women is a pretty spurious issue in itself.
Bottom line:
1800’s social laws don’t work well in the 21st century. But, until amended by the the relevant legislature, they continue to govern the courts.
Yes, the laws are obsolete, but it seems to me that originally gay sex (although probably only male) would have been covered under seperate, anti-sodomy laws. So if hubby was cavorting with another man, that might have constituted the ‘felony’ that would also allow a divorce.
And sorry, yep, it’s cheating.
I quoted the relevant language. Taken literally, it would apply to actual intercourse where either or both partners are sterile. **
As Tallayan ably points out, none of the above birth control measures are 100% effective. “Spurious issue,” in those cases, remains a real (though highly unlikely) possibility.
Yeah, but remember, sodomy laws are now unconstitutional.
And sterilization is?
I’m trying to figure out where the line of probability is. If there’s a 1% chance of spurious issue, is that adultery? What about .1%? .001%?
It certainly is for a hysterectomy. It’s pretty tough to have a kid without a uterus. **
Obviously, such a question would be one of first impression for the court. But the divide between surgical sterilization and birth control is pretty logical. Botched sterilizations are vanishingly rare, and usually the result of incompetence on the part of a third party (i.e., the surgeon). OTOH, I know a couple of folks who have had condoms break on them, one with pregancy resulting, and user error is hardly unknown for other forms of birth control.
Sorry about being away from the OP for so long, but I’m glad I was, as now I have a better sense of what I want to say next.
Perhaps I was confusing adultery with infidelity, but to me they are almost one in the same anyway. If, in a marital relationship, I have been the nonparticipant of either of those, I want out of the marriage. No second chance, no plea bargan. I also would feel that the other party (read spouse) had broken the contract of marriage, and I would be entitled to an inequitable division of the marital assets. However, under this ruling, in NH (which is not a no-fault state), I would not be entitled to said inequitable division, and in my opinion would be damaged by the judgement.
Obviously the potential for “spurious issue” becomes yet another problem, in the case of a more traditionally defined adultery/infidelity situation, but for the purpose of this thread, I don’t think it should be the defining factor. I also accept that this may be the “legal” interpretation of the laws, but there should be an air of common sense in this issue. Personally I agree with the original article (posted above), and the quote from the dissenting opinion to the case :
“(A) relationship is adulterous because it occurs outside of marriage and involves intimate sexual activity, not because it involves only one particular sex act,” Brock and Broderick wrote."
, rather than taking a dictionary definition… especially if there are multiple versions of dictionaries, and possibly mutliple interpretations of that definition.
-Butler
(not a lawyer, but married to a busy divorce paralegal, so I hear this stuff all night long…)