When that law was written, who knew that we would be faced with a world that would accept homosexual relationships the way the they are today? But common sense should apply to the law shouldn't it?
My comment was about the ruling which stated that adultery required male/female intercourse. That act, combined with one of the participants having a spouse who is not the other participant, is the dictionary definition of adultery. So, I'm OK with the ruling. What the guy's wife did was not adultery but it sure as heck was adultery's first cousin.