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.

[GeekDejure]

How would the judicial geniuses rule if my Apple sued me for "computery" just because I was having an affair with my Dell ???

.

[Beck_isright]

And the gerbils are even more nervous now.

[itsahoot]

Thus judges were being judicially conservative because they didn't effectively rewrite the law to include what it doesn't explicitly include as written.

Come on fess up, are you Terry?

[itsahoot]

No sherlockless, I live in California where they are very open.

grandPa did you know, Palm Springs just elected an openly gay black man as Mayor this week.

[Old Professer]

Take him skiing.

[MississippiMan]

And yet in every other aspect the sodomites want the same acknowledgments as heterosexual couples.

Bingo. Then again, liberalism has never been concerned with fair play for one millisecond.

Who doesn't believe we are living in the end times?

I do believe. The signs line up more each day.

MM

[cookcounty]

I guess the new Bishop of New Hampshire is now free to visit the rest rooms for fun and relaxation!

[Sandy]

The judges who disagreed said adultery should be defined more broadly to include other extramarital sexual activity.

Yes, adultery should be defined more broadly. But right now, it isn't. The majority is right; the dissent is way off base. Court's aren't supposed to decide cases based on what the law should be. Want the law changed, get the legislature to do it, not a court.

[Theodore R.]

Are the NH Supreme Court judges appointed by the governor or elected directly? If appointed, could these "geniuises" be a legacy of the popular former Gov. Jeane Shaheen?

[antiRepublicrat]

Terry?

[Looking for Diogenes]

Here is the New Hampshire statute, dating from 1795, as quoted in another case.

RSA 645:3 (1996) provides that a person is guilty of adultery "if, being a married person, he engages in sexual intercourse with another not his spouse or, being unmarried, engages in sexual intercourse with another known by him to be married."

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH, SS. SUPERIOR COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT NO. 00-M-1926 MONIQUE A. COLLINS V.

[antiRepublicrat]

Different sets of judges, differing views. There's not exactly a nationwide conspiracy going on.

[carlo3b]

Want the law changed, get the legislature to do it, not a court.

Of course the law has to be changed, but that will not change the outrages rulings, whatever hole we plug, the liberals will create a new leak that lets these scum slither out again.

I am not suggesting anarchy, and I think you know that, and your argument is a straw dog. Fighting clean won't work, we need grassroots outrage, and heavy handed political pressure to get back on track..

One thing that all the apologist are correct about, some of us are indeed becoming as defiant as those that we condemn, and that might be just what it takes to defeat the deviants in our culture.. fire vs fire!

[Sandy]

When it came to the Texas Gay case another court chose to find hidden meanings of words that didn't exist.

Great. "Hidden meanings of words that didn't exist." That's judicial activism in a nutshell. And you support that?

[carlo3b]

The Clinton defintion of sex.

That isn't the only problem with this ruling, or what is happening to our country. Our problem are the moderates, and libertarians, giving cover to the wicked.

If some of the voters would allow more than one issue to determine their vote and find at least common ground with conservatives. Or if the middle-of-the-road squishes had any principles at all, we might get rid of the Rhinos, and put someone with sharp teeth in those seats.

[carlo3b]

Thank you bill clintoon!

No, thank you Ross Perot, and all of the 3rd party freaks, that allowed Bubba to get into office.. Remember that mess?

[carlo3b]

That's judicial activism in a nutshell. And you support that?

What difference does that make? The problem is the judges, and I can only draw attention to the hypocrisy, and to draw out the phony apologist, so we know who the enemy is....

[carlo3b]

There's not exactly a nationwide conspiracy going on.

Really, it seems like it is pretty wide spread, and there is a common thread.. Liberal appointed Judges! But you knew that!

[concerned about politics]

Gay (self loathing/dysfunctional/masochistic) sex (Homosexual sodomy/Butt worship)is not Adultery...and oral sex is not sex. Yeh, sure. The perverse liberals have a way of putting a pretty face on the villest of behaviors. Dismembering a child alive from it's mothers womb or sticking sissors into it's little skull to suck it's brains out is called "pro-choice."
Pretty, pretty, pretty.

[carlo3b]

I really don't care how many cases are currently on the books.. that hasn't kept other Judges from find a reason from finding new meanings to assist Gays in intruding in our schools and churches and business and every other damn place we try to hide from them.. so why should we care what prior laws are?? Don't you see whats wrong with your straw man.. everyone else does.. LOL