Last week the New Hampshire Supreme Court handed down a ruling in a divorce case that precluded the petitioner from amending the original grounds for divorce — that old chestnut irreconcilable differences — to adultery based on the fact that his wife had carried on an affair with a woman. But since no penis insertions could be performed between the women, it wasn’t adulterous behavior:
Craig’s wife can divorce him for being a reprehensible liar and hypocrite, but not for cheating on her with cute boys in airport restrooms.
The plain and ordinary meaning of adultery is “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 30 (unabridged ed. 1961). Although the definition does not specifically state that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender, it does require sexual intercourse.
The plain and ordinary meaning of sexual intercourse is “sexual connection esp. between humans: COITUS, COPULATION.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2082. Coitus is defined to require “insertion of the penis in the vagina[],” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 441, which clearly can only take place between persons of the opposite gender.
The pesky petitioner even tried to turn the tables on the whole gay rights deal by arguing unequal treatment under the law, but the court was having none of that:
We reject the petitioner’s argument that an interpretation of adultery that excludes homosexual conduct subjects homosexuals and heterosexuals to unequal treatment, “contrary to New Hampshire’s public policy of equality and prohibition of discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation.” Homosexuals and heterosexuals engaging in the same acts are treated the same because our interpretation of the term “adultery” excludes all non-coital sex acts, whether between persons of the same or opposite gender. The only distinction is that persons of the same gender cannot, by definition, engage in the one act that constitutes adultery under the statute.
So what does this mean for wide-stance conservatives like Larry Craig? It means his wife can divorce him for being a reprehensible liar and hypocrite (probably under the catch-all “irreconcilable differences,” which could also mean that she is unable to reconcile his gayness with her heterosexuality), but not for cheating on her with cute boys in airport restrooms.
And that, it would seem, could present a significant hurdle to allowing gay marriage — if gays get married, they could not file for divorce on the grounds of adultery because gay sex is, by definition, not adulterous behavior. Unless, say, a gay guy left his gay spouse for a woman, or a lesbian left her spouse to take up with a man, but again, those scenarios could easily be filed under “irreconcilable differences.”
Very well, but your analysis omits the strong possibility Craig is bisexual.
Yeah, but bisexual sex still ain’t adultery, according to the statute. So there is a strong possibility that your point is moot.
And since Craig’s children are all adopted, there is nothing in the record that indicates he’s ever had sex with women.
Since sex must ‘entail’( excuse my choice of word) insertion of the penis into a vagina; Bill “DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN,MISS LEWINSKY”.
Buck, I wasn’t trying to refute your post by mentioning the possibility Craig is bisexual. I just think it’s a strong possibility that adds to understanding Craig and his activities.
That has to be the most assanine ruling I have heard of in quite some time. Who, in their right minds, relies on an antiquated definition of “sex” when clearly the times have changed? And it isn’t just homosexual affairs that will be excluded. It is a technicality that allows a cheater to get away with oral or anal sex. This kind of crap is what leads to the desecration of the sanctity of marriage. It has nothing to do with what homosexual couples do in their own bedrooms. But by refusing to acknowledge when marriage vows have been violated, they are making a mockery of the institution. If you don’t believe in fidelity in relationships, don’t get married. But if you do get married, you have to accept the consequences when you don’t live up to your part of the marriage “contract”. It is also the reason why so many young people are remaining “virgins” by turning to oral and anal sex which is risky because if they don’t call it real sex, they probably aren’t going to think they need real protection when in fact some of these alternatives are actually riskier in terms of STDs.
I am a woman who hase been married to a man who cheated with other man in public bathrooms. In the state of Maryland, this is not considered adultery. As for why, I haven’t a clue. Americans hold dear to the notion of seperation of church and state. So then why do we hold to the notion that same-sex sex is not grounds for adultery? Cheating is cheating people, and it is time that states, not only Maryland, recognize this. Why should a spouse have to wait an entire year for a divorce if their spouse is CHEATING with someone of the same sex? The cause of gay marriage is not the issue here. CHEATING is the issue! So if anyone has an argument for discrimination it is the individual who cannot divorce a cheating spouse because of the on-the-books definition of adultery is between a man and a woman. Those of us who have found out about a SAME-SEX CHEATING SPOUSE would like to divorce them just as quickly as the other spouses. (most of us would probably like to divorce our spouse even faster) Why should those of us who have been victims of this kind of adultery have to suffer a second victimization because the state refuses to define adultery as an act between two people of the same sex?! THE STRAIGHT SPOUSES DESERVE THE SAME RELIEF AS OTHERS DIVORCING FOR RECOGNIZED ADULTERY. UPDATE THE LAW NOW!
The real issue is this: Why are these states still operating under these Dark Ages laws, when most states, I believe, have adopted the so-called “no-fault” divorce?
Is there really any longer the need to drag the “offending” spouse through the mud of divorce court, publicly pillorying them on the cross of condemnation?
Divorce is hard enough on everyone concerned as it is, without adding this layer of crap on the top of it.