Wife's lesbian sex not adultery - in N.H.

New York Daily News ^ | 11/08/03 | AP

[kattracks]

CONCORD, N.H. - If a married woman has sex with another woman, is that adultery? Not in New Hampshire, it isn't. The state Supreme Court's ruling stems from a divorce case, in which a husband accused his wife of adultery for having a sexual relationship with another woman. A Family Court judge had decided the relationship did constitute adultery, but the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, with lawyers arguing that gay sex is not adultery under New Hampshire divorce law.

Three of the five justices agreed.

Part of the problem in New Hampshire is that adultery is not defined in the state's divorce laws. So the court looked up "adultery" in Webster's dictionary and found that it mentions intercourse. It also found an 1878 case that referred to adultery as "intercourse from which spurious issue may arise."

The Associated Press

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Let's not vote for anyone who wins the New Hampshire primary.

[Fledermaus]

Let's see if those like Andrew Sullivan and other gay men and women attack this. They are so forceful in demanding "equal rights" when it comes to the so-called benefits of marriage, I wonder if they are willing to also accept the consequences.

Sex outside of marriage, if not agreed to by both parties, is adultery pure and simple.

I just can't understand the "gay marriage" argument about perceived benefits. Unless they are willing to accept the laws of marriage, which include adultery, divorce, etc., then they are phoney.

Do they then want special laws for themselves in a divorce case? A child custody case? If so, forget it unless you give those benefits to all.

To say gay sex isn't adultery is amazingly stupid. Is NH finally being taken over by Vermont liberals that preach about their utopia but move to NH for less taxes and try to shove their social view on everyone else?

Live Free Or Die is the motto of New Hampshire. It would be a shame if they too get sucked up into liberalism.

[Fledermaus]

BTW, yes, yes, I know this court decision was made based on existing law in the state, which does show NH is interpreting the law and not changing it.

So I hope the legislature changes the law.

[Lurker]

I just want to tell you I really like your tagline.

In fact, if I had thought of it before you had, I would be using it right now.

Regards,

L

[mvpel]

To say gay sex isn't adultery is amazingly stupid.

Unlike judges in vast swatches of the nation, those in New Hampshire actually follow the law as it is written, or not written in this particular case. They don't take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench - they look at what the law says and what it doesn't say, and what it didn't say was that "adultery" encompasses lesbian relationships.

Blame the New Hampshire legislature for failing to define the term "adultury" in the statutes.

[Straight Vermonter]

Sex outside of marriage, if not agreed to by both parties,, is adultery pure and simple.

I was not aware of that exception.

[Pipeline]

New Hampshire dictionaries obviously include the definitions for adultry. I wonder if they bothered to check the definition of the word 'Intercourse'??

[Mr. Morals]

The Court of David Souter...

Coming to the U.S. Supreme Court?

[Caipirabob]

The point has never been who diddled who but who diddled...

[disclaimer]

I wonder how this ruling would affect male lesbians?

[awgie2]

I heard another sex/law story yesterday:

An adult male was convicted on sexual charges for having sex with an adolescent girl...over the internet.

So lets see if I've got this right. It's not sex if 2 women (or presumably men) perform what would appear to a rational person as sex acts upon one another. But it is sex if the "acts" are performed individually and seperately while connected via internet or phone.

Go finger...I mean figure!

[gcruse]

Sex outside of marriage, if not agreed to by both parties, is adultery pure and simple.

Of course by disallowing marriage, you accomplish the same thing
as saying homosexuality is not adultery in a marriage.  There is
nothing in their union to discourage adultery if they can't be married.

[Fledermaus]

Of course by disallowing marriage, you accomplish the same thing as saying homosexuality is not adultery in a marriage. There is nothing in their union to discourage adultery if they can't be married.

I would think, if they are true to the concept of monogamy with a trusted and loving partner, they wouldn't need the institution of marriage to discourage promiscuity.

[lonestar]

Am I crazy in a sane world, or sane in a crazy world?

I can't believe all the crap going on!

[gcruse]

There are glimmers of hope. Brian Kilmeade, one of the regular regulars on Fox and Friends, prefaced a report from Iraq about new outbreaks of terrorism with, "This is from the New York Times, so take it with a grain of salt."
I love it!