49 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
He only sued Fitch because Fitch had $22 million. Would he otherwise have sued him? Most likely not. |
As far as punishment for adultery, there should be none by a secular government. It is not their right. |
The victims of adultery don’t usually have someone like that (with such deep pockets) to sue. That does seem like it would be one potential problem. It seems to me though, Dan (in response to comment #2) that if there are laws in place in regards to punishing adultery, that the government has the right to pursue someone who breaks the law and execute any penalties that the law permits. The whole “it is not their right” argument strikes me as a bit odd … governments “take” that right to themselves, if they wish or if the laws say so. If a person wants to use that kind of reasoning, it seems to me that governments could very quickly lose all rights to enforce anything. |
There absolutely should be punishment for adultery by a secular government. Adultery represents a breach of contract. I’m not sure about exactly what the wording is of civil marriages but I’m pretty sure they also include the idea of sexual fidelity. The adulterers have broken a social contract, one that was not only spiritually binding but legally binding as well. It’s BECAUSE of idiot ideas (sorry, Dan — you’re not an idiot but that idea is) like “secular governments shouldn’t punish adultery” that we have such a plague of it today. |
PDoE, Let me rephrase. In the past punishments equaled stoning to death. In religions, punishments usually equal excommunication. Just what kind of punishment can a secular government give on adultery? Monetary punishment? Jail time? What would be the point? |
As far as punishment for adultery, there should be none by a secular government. It is not their right. If secular government has no right to punish those involved in adulterous relationships, why should secular government have the right to punish those involved in homosexual relationships, via additional federal taxes and the denial of over 1,000 legal rights conferred on heterosexual relationships? |
My opinion is admittedly extreme, but except in rare cases I always tend to think that adultery, whether committed by a husband or a wife is almost always the husband’s fault. If the husband’s wife commits adultery, he probably drove her to it by either (1) mistreating her or (2) ignoring her. This is based on a perhaps misinformed belief that women often seek sexual companionship outside of a relationship to get something that is missing in the relationship. If the husband commits adultery, then that is also his fault because he was obviously too selfish to control his sexual urges. This is based on my belief that men generally have sex outside of relationships based on the impulse of the moment. I know that sounds extreme, but that is what I have come to believe after observing several unfortunate cases of adultery. Thus, I would never want a law on the books which allows a man to reap anything from adultery. |
#7 Jordan: Seriously? So women never drive men to commit adultery by mistreating or ignoring them? So women never commit adultery because they’re too selfish to control their sexual urges? Wow. Wow. Thus, I would never want a law on the books which allows a man to reap anything from adultery. In the case at hand, the husband recovered damages from the man who committed adultery with his (the husband’s) wife. Are you seriously arguing that the adultery must have been the husband’s fault anyway, and the adulterous man is entitled to get off (no pun intended) scott free, since it was “the husband’s fault?” Again, Wow. |
“I know that sounds extreme, but that is what I have come to believe after observing several unfortunate cases of adultery.” Yes, conclusions based on personal anecdote do tend to be rather off-the-wall on occasion. |
I agree with PDOE … marriage is a legal contract and so the government should be able to enforce penalties if the contract is broken. Dan mentioned some possibilities for punishment: money and jail. I can think of some reasons that jail might be a detrimental approach that could injure a family even further. But the unfaithful person having to make financial restitution to the offended partner – that strikes me as a start in the right direction. |
pdoe: “Adultery represents a breach of contract.” when you put it that way…i’m inclined to think that there should be some sort of punishment. No jail time but probably some financial restitution. maybe that’s already a factor in divorce cases? however, this could be a tough sell. all those super rightious law makers might not want to “legislate morality” |
Under the law of most states, you can sue someone for damages if they induce your business partner to breach his contract. It is usually called “intentional interference with contractual relations.” You can even sue someone if they interfere with a prospective constractual business relationship. Valentine sued under a similar law that relates to interference with marital relations, which, PDoE is correct, is a type of state-sanctioned contractual relationship. This is not the state stepping in to “punish” adultury. The person suing is a person who as been damaged by another because of that person’s improper interference with his existing legal relationship. The person being sued is the person who caused, or contributed to, the damage. The state (through the courts) is only the tool used to facilitate the restitution that a jury decided is due to Mr. Valentine. On a side note, you don’t always have to have a sexual relationship to sue under these statutes. You can sometimes prove an interference with marital relations without having to prove that sex occurred. I think this is a good thing. It promotes fidelity within marriage by creating a disencentive on the outside actor to fool around with a married person. |
That it is a breach of contract is an excellent point, PDoE. Additionally, adultery damages society as a whole, despite what those involved in it think. As such, it seems that society as a whole ought to have some say about it. |
If it’s a contract, what are the terms of the contract and where is my signature agreeing to them? (I’m not a troll, but also IANAL.) |
The tort Valentine sued under, alienation of affection, has been abolished in all but a handful of states. It is, however, still on the books in Utah. Nick, can you enumerate or point to a list of the 1000 legal rights conferred on heteros via marriage? I’m all for same sex marriage, but this sort of hyperbole is annoying. Shaming and social ostracization are still pretty good, non-legal punishments for adultery. Alimony/palimony is a good legal punishment in that it acts as a potential deterrent to the more economically empowered party in the marriage. |
#9- exactly, Seth. I agree. lol. Nick- I told you it was extreme. Looking at it that way, I would hold the adulterous man responsible. But responsible to whom- the man who pushed his wife into adultery to begin with? I don’t think so… Since under Jordan’s bizarro-land laws the man whose wife committed adultery would be just as culpable as the man who committed adultery, my laws would yank from him any standing to sue for his selfishness which surely drove his wife into adultery for the companionship she craved. But that’s just me, made bitter by observing some wives over the years who I feel really were driven to it by jerk husbands who mistreated them for years. |
In my land, these laws would be just punishment for the centuries in which men were able to freely visit as many women as they wanted often without stigma, whereas women who received those visits were more often than not completely ostracized (as they would bear the fruit of these liaisons for all to see). History has been so completely unfair to women in this regard that I would drastically alter things to hold men ultra-responsible. If men simply kept the law of chastity, then they would not be affected by these laws. Because if men were 100% compliant here, women would have to be (assuming heterosexual experiences, of course). So my answer to your question is that punishment for adultery should fall harshly on men, and only men, to rectify centuries of such consequences falling unjustly on women, and because I believe that men are fundamentally at fault most of the time anyway when they can’t be kind or keep their zippers up. |
The terms were in your wedding ceremony. Your signature is on your marriage certificate. You know, the one you signed after you took a public oath. I believe legal mandates call for at least two witnesses to said oaths. Said witnesses also signed that certificate. There’s your contract. (Hm, looking at things I’m not sure if it’s the marriage certificate or the Record of the Solemnization of Marriage. Either way, it’s an official piece of paper that the bride, groom, officiant and two witnesses sign.) |
Jordan, I find your arguments to be mostly nonsense, opinions that are, as you admitted in post 7, both misguided and extreme. This story almost persuaded me to your side for a few seconds, however: |
Bill, of course you are right. Thank goodness extreme opinions are most often quite ephemeral as the indigestion that may be causing them, and are tempered by common sense in life away from the internet. In other words, were it not for the internet and the outlet of a keyboard on my laptop as I sit with wireless internet access making it all to easy to glibly type any nonsense that comes to my mind, such thoughts would pass through my head and out of existence by the next morning without further notice. [/nonsensical_radical_threadjack] |
Those are good points, Carlos. I did not realize anyone would be hurt by my flippant, thoughtless comments. I certainly was not intending to be Satan’s tool which apparently I was to you tonight. Please accept my apology. |
You have given me increased understanding and compassion, for that I thank you. It is hard to overcome personal biases (mine, not yours to the extent you harbor any), which are often mis-informed by the bad things that happen to us and then inflamed by too many hours at work and too easy access to the internet. |
The idea that a man was always the responsible party (if his wife committed adultery) was completely new to me. I thought it was so obviously false that I just dismissed it as nutty and let other people respond to it. However, Carlos is saying that he has encountered this as a common idea in the Church (“in three wards in three stakes”) … which surprises me as well. I’m wondering – is this something that goes out over a pulpit? How is this idea promulgated? How is a husband or ex-husband receiving this negative feedback? |
I agree with Dan, the government should stay out of it. I don’t fault this guy for suing, though. When you’re cheated on, it’s an awful feeling. You want some kind of pay-back. I mean, I don’t fault his lashing out in any way he can, but I don’t recommend it either. It’s not ambivalence, it’s empathy toned with “you know, I understand, but in the long run, it won’t get you anywhere.” I wouldn’t sue, but dang, when my first husband cheated on me, I could have shot them, if I’d had a gun. That’s natural. Jordan, I see your point, also, but it’s too general. I think Bill’s neglect of his former wife CONTRIBUTED to her decision to commit adultery, but it didn’t FORCE her, she had a choice. When he bugs me or neglects me, I just smack him around a little. And it looks like you got smacked around enough here for your extreme comment that I ain’t gonna do it further. |
#15 Mathew: No hyperbole here, Mathew. The U.S. Government Accounting Office has identified 1,138 such rights. Here is a link to their 2004 report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf This is distinct from state rights, of course. Over 400 rights have been identified in the laws of the State of Washington, which confer rights and responsibilities on married couples. Our new domestic partnership law does allow same-sex couples to enjoy a handful of those. |
The thing is, if government is going to “stay out of it” then the government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage at all. However, I think the government should stay in the business of conferring marriage licenses _and_ should enforce those contracts. Enforce is a strong word to use – but I do think there should be serious legal and economic ramifications to committing adultery. When a spouse is aggrieved and wants to ‘get back’ at the adulterous spouse, it’s because they’ve suffered a very real betrayal and a very real personal loss. People invest years of their lives in marriage relationships, they have children, etc. Marriage is designed to be a total commitment of a person’s personal resources – so adultery is hugely damaging. When a person shoplifts – no matter how trivial the item is – no one is going to blink an eye if that person is reported/arrested and if the store presses charges. It seems to me that the responsibilities, obligations and rights of marriage are much more serious than the value of an item in a store and the damages incurred by families and society are much more serious as well. Yet we have people claiming that it’s not the goverment’s business to enforce or punish someone who willfully breaks the marriage contract. |
Adding another twist, it should be pointed out that many of these legal issues regarding adultery arise from an archaic time when women were considered the property of their husbands. When a man committed adultery with another man’s wife, he infringed on the property rights of her husband, similarly to a trespass to land. The recovery wasn’t for any sense of “betrayal,” but rather because the adulterer interfered with the husband’s “chattel.” It’s sort of repulsive, when you look at it that way. |
“that punishment for adultery should fall harshly on men” Which was typical before they reformed excommunication to adapt to a more mobile world. Men were always excommunicated for adultery, women were often only disfellowshiped. “I don’t think women suffer this as much as the single husband does” Often true in my observation from the outside. But back to the theme “Valentine sued under a similar law that relates to interference with marital relations, which, PDoE is correct, is a type of state-sanctioned contractual relationship.” Most states have what are called “heart balm” statutes that got rid of the tort, though if you can show the adultery was caused by an intent to harm you rather than the usual reasons, you can still sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Interestingly enough, this relates to the first criminal closing argument in the journal of discourses (which is a collection of important public speeches, and includes arguments in at least one criminal case, as long as the judge’s charge to the jury, but not the verdict). |
Carlos, I see your point and I think it’s a good one in many ways. It could be used to counter a reflexive and unfair judgment against someone who has suffered a betrayal in a marriage. At the same time, there may be some marriages where a spouse is cold, contemptuous, mean, frigid, etc. Such a spouse might be ‘faithful’ in the sense of not committing sexual infidelity but still leave his/her partner ‘out in the cold’ by not responding to real and healthy human needs for intimacy, friendship, kindness, etc. That may leave the neglected spouse into a greater atmosphere of personal temptation. I’m not saying that the sin of adultery is justified in such a situation – but the role that human frailty and real human needs may play in the situation is more understandable. Revisiting your analogy of leaving a car window down … I’ve heard the saying that locks aren’t meant to deter thieves but that locks are intended to keep honest people honest. After all, the determined occupational thief will find ways to break the lock or work around a lock to steal whereas the honest person would not normally consider breaking into a house or a safe. Following that analogy further, if a door or safe is left ajar and the honest person can see the contents are laid out and vulnerable, then he or she may then become subject to a temptation which arguably should not have been there. A responsible person will not be careless and leave their prized possessions (or prized relationships) vulnerable. So my argument here is that a considerate spouse can be a ward against infidelity – can help to protect the faithful spouse from being led into temptation. I have read discussion of a hierarchy of sexual sin in the church. There is the one-time offender who falls into momentary temptation but is truly repentant. Then there is the sexual predator or ‘player’ who will be unfaithful no matter how well he/she is treated. Following your analogy then – the inconsiderate spouse or mean spouse might be ‘leaving the window down’ or inviting a temptation that wouldn’t or shouldn’t normally be there. If that happens, then I think the spouse does bear some responsibility. I do suspect that there are some unfaithful marital partners out there who would have been perfectly faithful if they were treated as actual marriage partners. The following verses don’t actually speak on that subject – but they leave some room for thought and interpretation on the subject.
|
#31, Carlos, when I re-read my post, I’d forgotten what I said, and I didn’t see my own name and I thought “Bill Clinton?” Bill’s my husband and he did neglect his former wife, who looked for companionship elsewhere. She wasn’t looking for revenge, she was lonely. It happened. I wasn’t seeking to excuse or exonerate her actions. I was saying that there were contributing factors. I said, “she had a choice.” But Bill wasn’t a poor innocent perfect husband, either. |
Carlos, hang in there. Not all Mormons are judgemental. And your wounds will eventually heal. Christ can and will heal your wounds. He is the Great Physician. The fastest way to healing from wounds that were caused by someone else is to get as close to Christ as possible, through obedience to his commandments, and through repentence of our own sins. Christ paid for your wife’s sins whether she repents or not. For her to cash that check, she needs to repent. Christ also paid for your wounds wherein you were sinned against. For you to cash that check, you need to forgive her. Forgiving her doesn’t mean you have to think or say what she did was okay. That would not be forgiveness, that would be false forgiveness. Our western culture generally has a false idea of forgiveness. We (wrongly) seem to think that forgiving is to say “it’s okay” or “it doesn’t matter” or “I’m going to pretend it didn’t happen.” That’s wrong. That’s false forgiveness. Forgiveness is to relinquish her and her sins to the mercies of the Atonement. Forgiving her means you are accepting Christ’s Atonement as payment for her sins. Christ died to make _you_ (as the victim) whole too, not just her. A few years ago, I got paid a few thousand dollars for the car damage done when a drunk driver hit my car. I don’t really care if he repented of drunk or reckless driving. I cashed the check. I was repaid. So his sin is between him, the Lord and the insurance company. I’ve forgiven him. It doesn’t mean I think what he did was “okay.” It just means I’m no longer holding it against him, because a third party “made me whole.” (Well, I was shorted a few hundred dollars, but that’s another story.) Through a belief (faith) in the Atonement, you too can “cash the check” that Christ wrote in Gethsemane and signed in blood on the cross. Your healing doesn’t depend on her repentance, or on her in any way. Your healing is a transaction between you and Christ. Your healing from this is, or can be, similar to having the power of Christ’s atonement heal you from any wound by by any means or source or person. If you are having trouble letting go of something that other people did, then go read “The Enchiridion” by Epictetus. It’s free online, in at least 2 different translations from the Latin. He does a good job of explaining how our happiness doesn’t need to depend on what others do. |
Carlos, surely you are willing to recognize that: a) the sin of adultery happens in a wide variety of contexts – some more understandable than others. and b) that some adulterers are remorseful and repentant whereas others are decidedly committed to a path of immorality. Recognizing these two factors should make a person less judgmental – not more so. Also, I’m speaking in a very general way and am not pointing the finger at anyone specific. Maybe you feel like I’m pointing a finger directly at you. I’m not. |
Danithew- I think it is only natural that Carlos is on the defensive given my insane commentary the other night. Carlos- I have revised my position and think that the reasons are as unique as the people doing the act, but that each person is of course accountable at core for their own sins. Whether there are mitigating circumstances is another issue, and whether it is good public policy to recognize that moral accountability (I think one of the main issues raised by this post) still another. I do think that any such public policy would have to take into account mitigating circumstances to be fair. |
#35: Such a definition excludes non-christians from the ability to forgive, which I really doubt is your intention. I don’t share your belief an a salvific “atonement” by Jesus of Nazareth, but I am certainly able to forgive those who act against me. |
This case isn’t entirely unique. In Texas a few years ago a woman’s husband had an affair with a co-worker. She found out from other employees her husband worked with who claimed the woman chased her husband with all she had. When they divorced and her husband married the coworker she sued his new wife for breaking up her marriage, for disrespecting a marital contract. She won lots of dollars-which is good since she had 3 daughters to raise. Carlos, as much as I feel for you situation–I am trying to figure out why people in 3 stakes knew the personal details of your divorce, and why they knew your wife had an affair. I know from my single friends (female) that one of the biggest turn offs to them is when a guy tells the details of his divorce in such a pitiful way (regardless of the details), as if he is trying to say, ” Look at me, I did nothing wrong. I’m innocent.’ |
“In the modern day, what penalty should there be, if any, for adultery?” People are mixing up two concepts: criminal violations, which are punished by the state, and civil causes of action, in which private parties sue each other for damages. Alienation of Affection is a civil cause of action which still exists in a few states. Most have abandoned it as a concept, in part due to its basis in the doctrine of “women as property” and in part due to the fact that it is factually untenable. When you sue under this cause of action,you do not sue your spouse who ran off with the co-worker, you sue the co-worker for “stealing” your spouse. That’s how it works, and that’s the only way this particular tort works. So the question most courts have asked is whether it is really possible for one party in a marriage to be “stolen” by someone else or whether, in fact, the person is actually a free agent who left of their own accord. Most courts have correctly concluded that people are not “stolen” but leave of their own free will, and this cause of action has been mostly consigned to the dustbin. Utah technically still allows you to sue under this tort, but no damages have been awarded under it for a long time, and it is highly doubtful that such an award would be upheld on appeal. Adultery is still a crime in some states, however, as is fornication and oral sex. I don’t know how many but it really doesn’t matter because it is never enforced. Police in most states have much better things to do than arrest people for having consensual sex. So those of you who are looking for a punishment for adultery will have to look to God because, as far as the law is concerned, there really isn’t one. No contract damages are ever awarded for adultery, because the law does not regard the act of adultery as a breach of contract resulting in monetary damages. Monetary damages may result from divorce, but that is a separate concept, governed by a separate set of laws. In domestic law in most states, adultery is not relevant to determine alimony or other monetary issues. Property division is generally 50/50 and alimony is based on need and ability to pay. These laws are the result of a long history of trial and error, and basing such issues on whether or not one party committed adultery would be turning back the clock significantly. It should be remembered that adultery is rarely subject to easy proof, and in many cases, adultery is only a symptom, not the root cause of the end of a marriage. |
Let’s see. I happen to be a woman, so I am going to write from a female perspective, but the masculine/feminine pronouns can easily be reversed. This woman was married, had an affair with her millionaire, married boss, destroyed two familes. This woman had no respect for the contract of marriage she had with her husband, made a laughing stock out of him, hurt him, humiliated him. She had no respect for the wife and family of the boss, for the contract of marriage the boss’ wife had with the man. She hurt and humiliated this woman. She destroyed the home and family this woman spent her life building. The millionaire boss, likewise, had no respect for the contract of marriage he had entered into with his wife. He had no respect for the marriage and feelings of the Plumber. Two, low-life, immoral scumballs–they actually deserve each other. If a third party enters your home and steals something, say an inconsequential knickknack that may hold sentimental value, the home owner can seek redress through the law. The person can be arrested, charged with a crime. The owner may get his stolen item back, or the thief will be ordered to make restitution. At the very least, she will get some chance at justice. But, a person can destroy the home you have spent your life building by having the morals of an alleycat, wreck your faith in your chosen spouse, cause you all sorts of heartbreak, hurt your children (if you have them) by destroying their home, security, and family, and they should not have to pay? This millionaire needs to shut up and pay the plumber. He (and this woman) caused him PAIN, distress, stress, cost him $$$ in hiring lawyers for the divorce. Come on. I just saw this woman and her millionaire boss/husband on the Today show. Does anyone here really believe she LOVES this old man? He just sat there, like a lump. She just wanted a man with money–she is no better than a hooker. She had sex, got pregnant, to get rich–make money, and to steal a HUGE share of the inheritance from the children by his first marriage. If more states brought back the Alienation of Affection laws, allowing wronged spouses to seek financial redress against third parties who wreck their families and home, cause them all sorts of emotional and psychological harm, then we would have fewer cases like the Dan & Betty Broderick case, or that woman in Texas who ran her husband over as he left a hotel with his receptionist. Having your home ruined, having absolutely no chance of justice legally, facing the prospect of losing your home, your health insurance, your standard of living, feeling powerless, etc is HORRIBLE! The pain, the distress of the wronged spouse is very real. Wronged spouses DESERVE some legal recourse, some satisfaction. The Fitches need to pay the Plumber and be glad his pain and injured sensibilities found satisfaction with a lawsuit instead of at the business end of a shotgun. |
Bitter at all, Dawn? “Wronged spouses DESERVE some legal recourse, some satisfaction. The Fitches need to pay the Plumber and be glad his pain and injured sensibilities found satisfaction with a lawsuit instead of at the business end of a shotgun.” So you’re saying murder is acceptable if there is no chance of getting “satisfaction” monetarily? What, according to you, would be a sufficient amount of money to prevent the death penalty? What if the end of the marriage is not all the fault of the departing spouse or the third party but is the result of neglect or abuse by the husband or wife who is left behind? Advocating violence on the part of scorned spouses is not a legitimate answer to this problem, and comparing the end of a marriage to a robbery is advocating a return to the days of women as property. I can’t see how that’s an improvement. |
ACTUALLY I FIND THIS AMUSING. NOBODY FEELS SORRY FOR A GUY WHO COMMITS ADULTERY AND THEN IS TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS BY HIS WIFE. HERE WE HAVE A GUY WHO IS REALLY HITTING HIS EX-WIFE WHERE IT COUNTS, IN THE POCKETBOOK. SHE HAD A CHILD BY THE OLD GOAT WHEN SHE WAS MARRIED. THAT HAS TO HURT. AND LOOKING AT THE WIFE AND HER NEW HUSBAND, IS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT SHE MARRIED HIM FOR HIS MONEY? I THINK THEY SHOULD PAY. |
It just so happens that I have been married for 34 years, to the only boy I’ve ever even kissed. We met in a graveyard when I was 14 and he was 17. I have, however, had friends and relatives whose marriages were helped along the road of destruction by third parties who decided that the spouse and children’s feelings and futures were not their concern. I’ve seen the psychological harm that results to the first spouse and the kids. I used to be a teacher. I’ll never forget this one hard-ashed 8th grade boy. He was a big boy, bully, intimidated me and all the female teachers. I was finally able to get his mom in for a talk with me and the boy. Somehow, we got on the topic of the family. Suddenly, this big “punk” broke down crying, saying it was all her fault, that she was the one who destroyed the family. He just kept saying, “Why, mom? Why? You hurt dad so much. We used to be so happy, but you had to go sleep around with Roy. We all hurt so bad and you did it.” It’s been years and I never forgot that. My heart broke for that kid. And I was a young teacher then. Destroying a home where there are children is child abuse. Psychological child abuse. So long as ther eis no outright abuse, kids want their mommy and daddy together. When my son was a teen, once he came home and told us “Boy, you guys take the cake. Every single one of my friends get to have two houses, to bedrooms worth of toys, the chance to play one parent off the other, extort guilt gifts. But my parents? NOoooo, my parents have to be the second coming of the Cleavers. My friends have taken to alling me “the Beave.” My husband and I sat, looking at him, bemused, not knowing if he was serious or not. Then he smiled and said, “Thanks for sticking it out, guys. My friends are all so screwed up in the head. I’m so glad I’m not them.” And, I’m not saying murder is “ok.” I’m saying that this concerns human beings, human beings who are subject to losing it during times of stress, sadness, fear for the future. Having a legal, civil avenue of recourse, such as the ability to file an alienation of affection suit, might just give that person on the edge the feeling of some power, some control, so he or she does not actually grab that shotgun or hit that gas pedal and kill the former spouse and the person they think has ruined their home. |
Actually, experience has shown that putting road blocks in the way of divorce actually creates more abuse and violence. Making divorce easier and less of a financial disaster has lessened the incentive for violence on the part of spouses who want to leave but feel trapped in a bad marriage. Those of you advocating for contract remedies in divorce should understand that the idea behind contract law is not to keep two parties in a contract who don’t want to be there (contract law actually advocates breach of contract where it is economically advantageous). Rather the idea is to give the non-breaching party the benefit of the bargain, i.e. the economic benefit he or she would have received in the absence of breach. Sometimes, that benefit is zero. Carlos: “I mean if I break any of the contracts I have with clients and start working for their competition –without my clients knowledge- like, wow, I could be sued (legal remedy as they say) for everything I have (and loss my licence)” I don’t know what you do for a living, Carlos, but this is not technically accurate, in my experience. You clients are not entitled to “everything you have,” only to the benefit of the bargain. If you have a fiduciary relationship with them, that could increase the damages, but would still not be “everything you have.” Contract law is not actually a good analogy for marriage. A contract is not considered to be a moral obligation. Marriage is. Breach of contract does not, under the law, carry any legal condemnation, just an obligation to give the other party the benefit of the bargain. That is impossible in marriage, because the marriage relationship is not, in it’s essential characteristics, economic. We do not (or should not) enter into marriage with the expectation of economic gain. We do not leave marriage relationships because we were “stolen” or because we received a better economic offer. We leave because, for a variety of reasons (some of which, hard as it is to accept, may actually be attributable to the behavior of the other spouse) we stop loving someone and/or we start loving someone else. That is not a good thing or an easy thing but it does happen. Creating a system of civil or criminal punishments will not keep marriages together when the two people involved either cannot or do not make them work. It will simply create more vindictiveness and tragedy in an already tragic situation. |
I’m not defending them, Carlos, I’m answering the question that this post asked: Should there be a punishment for adultery? The answer to that is no, unless you want to incur all of the myriad unintended consequences associated with those kinds of punishments, be they civil or criminal. The fact is that we have not arrived at no-fault as a first choice, and without extensive trial and error. We got here after years and years of attempting the alternatives and the fact is that they just flat do not work. They do not keep marriages from ending and they do not give a measure of “control” or “satisfaction” to scorned spouses. Such concepts are illusory, because nothing will give you the “control” or “satisfaction” you seek. The more you look for that, the more empty you will feel. The answer is not to punish the sinner with our poor legal system. Leave that to God. Let go. Move on. You know: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” There’s nothing in there about seeking “control” or “satisfaction” or punishment. That’s not to say that we don’t punish crimes, we do. But we have come to the conclusion that adultery is a sin, not a crime. It’s also not saying that we don’t sue people for civil torts and breaches of contracts. We do. But adultery doesn’t fit into those legal models either, because there is not generally any cognizable economically compensable damage. The damages are generally emotional. That doesn’t mean they aren’t real and even horrific, just that they have no economic remedy and we shouldn’t try to impose one. The case we are discussing on this thread is an anomaly. There are fewer and fewer such cases and soon there will be none, because the legal system is no good place to address these issues. |
“under no-fault divorce, it is “harder to sever one’s relationship with an unwanted employee than it is with an unwanted spouseâ€.” It’s a great line isn’t it? The only problem is that it isn’t true. The reality is that most states are “at-will” states, which means that an employer can terminate an employee for any reason or no reason and without notice, as long as the reason is not a prohibited discriminatory one. Divorce is not that easy and never will be. |
Carlos, the “control” and “satisfaction” language is addressed to Dawn, who said she was seeking those things as a way to ensure that spouses left behind by adulterers didn’t resort to murder. My point is that attempting to placate people who might otherwise commit violence is an illogical and illegitimate undertaking for the law. You said: The assets of the marriage are already dealt with adequately in divorce law. Most jurisdictions divide them 50/50. I’d say that’s adequate in most cases. Are you saying that adultery should cause the division of property to be changed in favor of the non-adulterous spouse? That’s been tried, and all that happens is that both spouses accuse each other of adultery in nearly every case and the court is put in the position of having to decide whether adultery has been proved. Lawyers and PIs get rich. Everyone else ends up worse off. Yes, emotional damages are compensated in other cases, but look at how hard that is. Juries routinely must come up with a number to compensate people for emotional distress in torts and they are notoriously bad at it. It requires them to essentially pick a number out of the air. Emotional distress is, in fact, disfavored in most cases. Most jurisdictions require that it at least have some sort of physical manifestation in order to be compensated. Emotional damages in contract law are completely prohibited in the US. Again, we’ve been down that road in dvorce law. Both parties can generally claim emotional trauma, and if you make it compensable, both will. You want to litigate that case? You’re welcome to it. Discrimination in employment is prohibited on the basis of race, nationality, religion, disability, gender, age, and a few other protected categories (but not weight or other non-racial factors related to appearance), for good reasons. The right to be free from discrimination in employment decisions is an important public right. This right does not, however, extend to marriage and divorce, also for important reasons. Marriage and divorce are personal, private decisions, not public ones. Can you imagine if you were prohibited from making such decisions based on discriminatory reasons? You have always been allowed to discriminate in making decisions about whom to marry and whether to stay married, and you always will be. Thank goodness. You are saying that this lawsuit should be “more of the norm” but you are wrong. This case is about a spouse punishing a third party who committed adultery with his wife. Note that it is not, and under the law cannot be, directed at the wife, only the third party. A punishment that lets the adulterous wife off the hook and punishes only the third party is not just and not right. Again, as has been said repeatedly, it is based on the antequated and repulsive idea that women are property that can be “stolen.” These suits have no place in our modern legal system. They are dying out and will soon be completely dead. Good riddance. Again, I’m not defending adultery. God said it is the sin next to murder. Fine, as a sin, let God punish it. He has and he will. We do not need to also make it a crime, because, unlike murder, it is not easily proved nor do we have a good way of punishing it in our legal system. Yes it damages many people, but we don’t punish legally everything that causes damage, nor should we. You mention homosexuality. Good example of something that should, of course, not be a crime. Euthanasia has not been decriminalized. It is still a crime in most jurisdictions I am aware of. You see a failure to punish adultery as a symptom of moral decay. I see that our legal system is a blunt instrument that should not be used to enforce morality. Morality is between you and God, and should be left there. |
“I’ve yet find a law that isn’t based on morality of some sort!” Of course, but not wholly on morality, without a rationale for why the legal system can and should get involved. The law generally punishes conduct for some other reason, not solely because it is immoral. In the case of adultery, fornication, and other consensual sexual acts, experience has shown the law to be terribly poorly suited to changing such conduct. |
He’s probably afraid somebody will sue him. |
“Strange that two lawyers agree, isn’t it?” Not on that point. |
pIkr3ElrJNf6P |
There really is no clear cut answer since there are many valid arguments depending on which angle of perception you come from. The example above, adultery will always have its emotional, ethical issues from a religious standpoint. However more often than not it is going to be about the money, and people’s egos That’s a good debatable article. Both parties obviously have their issues, and it starts with emotions taking over in the form of adultery. The legal punishment is not for the adultery but for the damages that it produced |