New Hampshire Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery (Dumbing down deviancy!)

Wnne31, The Associated Press. ^ | November 7, 2003 | AP

[carlo3b]

 
Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery

Decision Comes In Divorce Appeal

POSTED: 11:55 a.m. EST November 7, 2003
CONCORD, N.H. -- If a married woman has sex with another woman, is that adultery? The New Hampshire Supreme Court says no.

The court was asked to review a divorce case in which a husband accused his wife of adultery after she had a sexual relationship with another woman. Any finding that one spouse is at fault in the break-up of a marriage can change how the court divides the couple's property.

Robin Mayer, of Brownsville, Vt., was named in the divorce proceedings of a Hanover couple. She appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that gay sex doesn't qualify as adultery under the state's divorce law.

In a 3-2 ruling Friday, the court agreed.

The majority determined that the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse. The judges who disagreed said adultery should be defined more broadly to include other extramarital sexual activity.

[Clintonfatigued]

ROFL--this is too ludicrous! What do the judges think the husband should do? Ask his wife if he could join them in a threesome?

[Kay Soze]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

adultery

n : extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce" [syn: criminal conversation, fornication]

[stripes1776]

In that case, you don't have judicial activism because according to the law she didn't commit adultry. Thus judges were being judicially conservative because they didn't effectively rewrite the law to include what it doesn't explicitly include as written. It's up to the legislature to close this rediculous loophole by broadly defining adultry in the divorce law.

Intercourse in the broad sense means dealings or communications between persons or groups. All of the people on this thread are engaging in intercourse with a group of people.

Does sexual intercourse mean only sex between a man and a woman involving penile penetration of the vagina? A reasonable definition would include oral sex ala Lewinsky/Clinton and also Lesbian sex.

[Cicero]

It depends on the meaning of "is."

[tpaine]

Ohioan
Leaving your spouse to engage in deviant acts with members of your own sex is hardly acceptable conduct; and should certainly have similar negative consequences, to those which the law imposes for adultery.
William Flax
178
____________________________________

Kay Soze wrote:
adultery
n : extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce"

---

Which leaves the real question.

Why should our law be involved in imposing financial penalties for adultery?
Why not have 'no fault' divorce?

[pointsal]

welcome to realality....Little Rock style.

[Devil_Anse]

How interesting.

[Devil_Anse]

I find this whole conundrum very amusing.

It will be even more amusing when New Hampshire passes a law that gives homosexual unions some sort of legal status akin to that of marriage. Eventually someone in one of those unions will be unfaithful, see, and the other person will get fed up, and will seek a divorce on that basis, see, and... hilarity will ensue!

[laredo44]

Does that mean that laws must avoid any congruence with religious principles?

Of course not.

That is destructive to the general good of a society.

Is it your contention that the individual exists to serve the needs of society?

There is sound reason in support of adhering to such principles, no matter how much it cramps your style.

What do you know of my "style"? Presumption is the first stage of delusion.

[John O]

As an aside: I don’t understand the uproar over “gay” priests. I surround gay with rabbit ears only to show its irrelevance. Priests are supposed to be sexless, right? Those celibacy vows really level the field between gay and straight priests, do they not?

The second law of homosexuality:

To the mentally healthy (heterosexual), sex is something you do
To the mentally diseased ('homosexual'), sex is everything you are

The problem with 'homosexual' priests is that they are never celebate. They define their entire lives and identities by their sexual behavior. Without their sexual behavior they are nothing. If they are celibate then they are not 'homosexual'.

Those who practice this behavior have already declared that God doesn't exist or at least that He doesn't mean what He says in His word. Breaking such a little thing as a vow of celibacy is trivial to someone who routinely commits abomination against God and man.

Thos who commit homosexual behavior cannot be trusted as they will also commit any other perversion that crosses their mind

The fact that such a small percentage of pedophiles are homosexual really would cause me to trust a priest who had once been homosexual (before taking his vows) more than the average priest.

The fact is that a large percentage of pedophiles practice homosexual behavior. And since it's been proven that a person who practices homosexuality is from 13 to 30 times more likely to also practice child molesting, I'd think twice or three times about trusting them anywhere near your children or anyone's children (including their own) for that matter

[John O]

He'll cleanse the land again one way or another.

Father God please heal our land. Save and change the deviants or remove them from among us.

[John O]

Do you want to outlaw second marriages unless the previous spouse can be proven to have engaged in adultery? Is deciding questions like this the best way for our courts to spend their time?

I'd take that. Actually I'd rather outlaw divorce except in cases of adultery or criminal conduct or abandonment. Divorce is a major problem and needs to be ended.

(A biblical case can be made for ending a marriage due to criminal conduct or abandonment. The NT gives us the right to let our unbelieving spouses leave. If they are committing criminal conduct (such as battery or assault) then obviously they are unbelieving. By commiting the conduct they have already left us in their hearts)

[John O]

It benefits all parties to settle such contracts peacebly without finding fault. No fault divorce works.

It benefits no one to end a marriage without finding fault. Marriage is until death. No fault divorce has wreaked immeasurable harm on our society.

Due to no fault divorce many children are now raised lacking a parent, usually the father. Lacking a realationship with one's father is one of the main causes of the mental disease known as homosexuality, and we all know the health and social damage that the practice of homosexuality has caused.

Due to no fault divorce marriage has been cheapened, rather than stick together through the hard times people quit and walk out. No fault divorce has turned us into a country of quitters.

Due to no fault divorce our educational level has decreased. Single parent children on average are outperformed by dual parent children. Single parent children commit more crime, do more drugs, are more promiscuous, in short practice negative behaviors with far greater frequency than children with married parents

There is no benefit to no fault divorce except to the sexually deviant as children is single parent homes are far easier for outsiders to molest. (and molestation is the main recruiting tool of the 'homosexual' community)

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Huh?

[tpaine]

Please, - help heal our land. Let our constitution be your guide.
Save and change the zealots and remove them from among us.

[Carry_Okie]

Is it your contention that the individual exists to serve the needs of society?

Obviously not. Is it your contention that an individual cannot harm society?

Two can play that game and it's a bore. Stupid baiting does not make effective rhetoric.

What do you know of my "style"? Presumption is the first stage of delusion.

Then you are guilty of your own tacit epithet. I made no specific inference and was talking of the correlation between religious precepts and law in general.

[JudgemAll]

Thy used some dictionary... whose? there is no legal research in this... just somethng to please the sodomites before dictatorship or conquest of the nation...

but but but I thought gays could do impersonations of what they physicaly are not... but others can't ??????

[Grampa Dave]

In the late 1980's and early 1990's there was a similiar exodus from N. California to Ashland, Eugene and Portland Oregon and of course Seattle.

Now those exodusees with the Watermelons and other liberals control the politics in Ashland, Eugene, Portland and Seattle.

One was a lesbian OB. She was not a real radical. She moved up in the early 1990's for the business and to live where the laws favored her sexual choice. She had a large practice here, and within months in Ashland, she had a large practice of mainly her "sisters".

We have been seeing similiar relocations to Vermont, NH and Maine for about a year. They are professionals with a practice or company they can sell at a profit, homes to be sold at great profits, and a desire to leave.

[John O]

Please, - help heal our land. Let our constitution be your guide.
Save and change the zealots and remove them from among us.

I've been praying as hard as I can. Since our constitution was written by Godly Christian men I know that they'd be horrified at what the perverts have done to this country. I'm certain that God will save and change or remove the perverts from among us. We just have to keep hanging in there.

[tpaine]

Absolutely.. Learning to control overzealousness is a key to mental health.. Keep on trying to hang in there..