Comments on: Good News for GOP Wide-Stancers â€” Court Rules Homosexual Sex Is not Adulterous

By: Farnsworth

Farnsworth — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:08:54 +0000

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.

By: Marilyn Hope

Marilyn Hope — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:25:46 +0000

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!

By: Scarlett

Scarlett — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:23:23 +0000

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.

By: S.W. Anderson

S.W. Anderson — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:28:15 +0000

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.

By: Roy Murtishaw

Roy Murtishaw — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:43:32 +0000

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”.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:13:30 +0000

And since Craig’s children are all adopted, there is nothing in the record that indicates he’s ever had sex with women.

By: Buck

Buck — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:13:29 +0000

Yeah, but bisexual sex still ain’t adultery, according to the statute. So there is a strong possibility that your point is moot.

By: S.W. Anderson

S.W. Anderson — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:53:41 +0000

Very well, but your analysis omits the strong possibility Craig is bisexual.