[antiRepublicrat]

NH divorce law states that he comes out on top if she engages in "adultry." In other NH laws, adultry is defined as "sexual intercourse." Maybe the court just took the standard definition of sexual intercourse, which is "coitus," and that doesn't happen in lesbian sex.

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

"adultery" where is my spelling today?

[Naspino]

I totally agree. If the law says intercourse then it should be broadened to include a sexual relationship. Of course Clinton muddied those waters.

[carlo3b]

Maybe the court just took the standard definition of sexual intercourse, which is "coitus," and that doesn't happen in lesbian sex.

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEee! Thats is the nitwit thinking and the reason we find ourselves in this mess.. Geeze!

[StriperSniper]

That's the way I read it. It's not a matter of morality, but strict interpretation of what the wording of the law actually says.

I just hope the court doesn't turn around and count the husband getting reamed by the court as adultery. ;-)

[highlander_UW]

"NH divorce law states that he comes out on top if she engages in "adultry." In other NH laws, adultry is defined as "sexual intercourse." Maybe the court just took the standard definition of sexual intercourse, which is "coitus," and that doesn't happen in lesbian sex.

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."

You're only looking at one of the defintions...

Main Entry: sexual intercourse
Function: noun
Date: 1799
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS
2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis
source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Perhaps the judge didn't have access to an internet dictionary.

[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?

[pchuck]

You are correct. I just read the opinion and the NH Supreme Court was merely interpreting the statute. The statutory definition of adultery is far too narrow. You are correct, the NH Supreme Court was not being activist. The NH Legislature should simply amend the statute, toot-sweet.

[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.

[longtermmemmory]

no that is not right. This is attempting to use the letter of the law to violate the spirit. This is not different than a husband trying to convice his wife that a oral sex from his secretary was not really sex and adultery.

No this is judicial activism.