Are we that sentimental? Adultery law pursued

[Lucky... 0]

http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/27518

And why did these guys own up to it?

[lawrocket 3]

Rim County? HA HA HA!!!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Rim County? HA HA HA!!!

Judge Little? BWAHAHAHA!!

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

However, he said, since there is a statute for the offense, it is something the police department has to enforce.

Bullshit! All kinds of laws are broken in full view of police without them being enforced.

It seems pretty stupid to punish both husband and wife by making them pay (assuming they still share finances they are both paying) when one should be considered the victim.

A better punishment, I think, would be to allow the wronged spouse to obtain a divorce with preferential treatment in terms of child custody, child support payments, alimony, division of assets.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[quade 3]

Quote

A better punishment, I think, would be to allow the wronged spouse to obtain a divorce with preferential treatment in terms of child custody, child support payments, alimony, division of assets.

Really?

I would think that assumes quite a bit about the causes of things such as this. It also sets up a "honey pot" situation for any spouce wanting a divorce.

No. The BEST thing is for the government to not be involved in the business of personal relationships.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sundevil777 94]

Yes, damn right - really!

There sure as hell should be some consequence to breaking that particular marriage vow.

Of all the 'grounds for divorce', I think that is the most important, and it should damn well matter which spouse did it.

Government already is involved in deciding the terms of divorce.

I think pre-nuptual agreements should be required before marriage.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There sure as hell should be some consequence to breaking that particular marriage vow.

There are consequences. They are called divorce lawyers.

Quote

Of all the 'grounds for divorce', I think that is the most important, and it should damn well matter which spouse did it.

Actually, what seems to destroy more marriages is money issues. Should the spendthrift be charged to face the consequences?

As a lawyer/businessman, I hate No-Fault divorce. It would be so lucrative to have three-day trials over the issue of who is at fault for the marital breakdown. And oh, the juicy tidbits.

Quote

Government already is involved in deciding the terms of divorce.

Yep, because marriage is not a right. It's a privilege that occurs with licenses.

Quote

I think pre-nuptual agreements should be required before marriage.

They are. Always have been. Along the lines of, "Do you take this woman...until death do you part?"
"I do."

So add another contract to be breached?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,406]

>A better punishment, I think, would be to allow the wronged spouse to
>obtain a divorce with preferential treatment in terms of child custody, child
>support payments, alimony, division of assets.

I think a more interesting test case would be a woman accused of adultery and prosecuted under this statute - but whose husband has already made his peace with it and no longer feels wronged. After all, as the law is written, it doesn't matter what the spouse thinks of the act.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

There sure as hell should be some consequence to breaking that particular marriage vow.

>There are consequences. They are called divorce lawyers.


True, but the fact of infidelity has no bearing on the proceeding. I think it is reasonable to say that it should matter.

Quote

Quote

Of all the 'grounds for divorce', I think that is the most important, and it should damn well matter which spouse did it.

Actually, what seems to destroy more marriages is money issues. Should the spendthrift be charged to face the consequences?

There usually is no vow to not be stingy.

Quote

Quote

I think pre-nuptual agreements should be required before marriage.

They are. Always have been. Along the lines of, "Do you take this woman...until death do you part?"
"I do."

So add another contract to be breached?

Usually, doesn't the breaking of a contract put a person at risk of some sort? For many, there is nothing but benefit from breaking the marriage contract. I say that it is reasonable to change that, at least if the vow of fidelity is broken. Many states don't even require counseling when one spouse claims "incompatibility". At least if there was a pre-nup, both parties would know what the terms of a split would be at the time they enter into the contract. Divorce is used as a weapon by some to make their spouse support them without having to put up with their company.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

>A better punishment, I think, would be to allow the wronged spouse to
>obtain a divorce with preferential treatment in terms of child custody, child
>support payments, alimony, division of assets.

I think a more interesting test case would be a woman accused of adultery and prosecuted under this statute - but whose husband has already made his peace with it and no longer feels wronged. After all, as the law is written, it doesn't matter what the spouse thinks of the act.

As I said before, for spouses that share finances, both spouses are being punished if the penalty is a monetary fine. That is stupid.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[quade 3]

Quote

Divorce is used as a weapon by some to make their spouse support them without having to put up with their company.

Which is exactly why the government should stay OUT of people's personal relationships.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Divorce is used as a weapon by some to make their spouse support them without having to put up with their company.

Which is exactly why the government should stay OUT of people's personal relationships.

That would be OK with me. Churches wouldn't have the power to take assets and decide how to split them, or make one spouse pay the other every month.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[tbrown 26]

At least they're not stoning anyone to death.

That Joe Arpaio asshole would love to give it a try, I'm sure...

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

Which is exactly why the government should stay OUT of people's personal relationships.

Even in a libertarian utopia the role of government is the enforcement of contracts. At its bare bones marriage is just a contract in my opinion.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[billvon 2,406]

>At its bare bones marriage is just a contract in my opinion.

Exactly. Which is why churches should deal with the holiness/morality/sanctity/definition of marriage, and the government should be in the business only to deal with the legal aspect of the civil union it creates. It wouldn't be too much different than the way things work now, but would solve a _lot_ of problems.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

>At its bare bones marriage is just a contract in my opinion.

Exactly. Which is why churches should deal with the holiness/morality/sanctity/definition of marriage, and the government should be in the business only to deal with the legal aspect of the civil union it creates. It wouldn't be too much different than the way things work now, but would solve a _lot_ of problems.

How would you see it being different? No marriage allowed unless a church gives its OK?

What problems would be solved, besides getting rid of the definition/same sex aspect of it?

The public would also have to put up with polygamy and incestuous marriages, because the prohibition of it would have to end. We might not even be able to count on marriage being between two humans.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,406]

>How would you see it being different? No marriage allowed unless a
>church gives its OK?

Any church can perform any sort of marriage it wants. The government provides the civil union, that's all. You can get a civil union without getting married. Then you might not be married in name, but you would have the legal rights that entails. You could get married in a church but not get a civil union. Then you would be married in the eyes of your god but not have the legal ramifications of being in a civil union.

>The public would also have to put up with polygamy and incestuous
>marriages . . .

Not at all! If you don't like it, join a church that prohibits it.

>because the prohibition of it would have to end. We might not even be
>able to count on marriage being between two humans.

So? If the Church of the Big Dog wants to marry people to great danes, let em. No reason _your_ church need allow that.

[sundevil777 94]

You know, I can't really think of the last time I had to PROVE I was married to get the traditional benefits/recognition of being married.

So, I suppose most could just claim to be legally married and most companies/hospitals/etc. would provide benefits with no checking.

Quote

>The public would also have to put up with polygamy and incestuous
>marriages . . .

Not at all! If you don't like it, join a church that prohibits it.

The public would still have to "put up with it", regardless of what church sanctioned the marriage. There is a lot of prejudice against polygamy and incestuous relationships that wouldn't go away under such a system that you suggest.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[GravityJunky 0]

Hmmm, I'll have to be more discreet when I 'visit' your mom!

*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Rim County? HA HA HA!!!

Want a job in rim county?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

However, he said, since there is a statute for the offense, it is something the police department has to enforce.

Bullshit! All kinds of laws are broken in full view of police without them being enforced.

It seems pretty stupid to punish both husband and wife by making them pay (assuming they still share finances they are both paying) when one should be considered the victim.

A better punishment, I think, would be to allow the wronged spouse to obtain a divorce with preferential treatment in terms of child custody, child support payments, alimony, division of assets.

Yea, the courts are overwhelmed with he said / she said whining, just split it down the middle and quit bugging us is the position of the courts.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

At least they're not stoning anyone to death.

That Joe Arpaio asshole would love to give it a try, I'm sure...

Yea, but e is mellowing in his old age. is agenda now is to defend animal rights, so he may become a human b4 he dies of old age.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hmmm, I'll have to be more discreet when I 'visit' your mom!

I don't mind you visiting my mom, that way I know you're not with your wife.

[billvon 2,406]

> You know, I can't really think of the last time I had to PROVE I was
>married to get the traditional benefits/recognition of being married.

Hmm. I've had to produce the marriage certificate to get my wife covered by my health plan and to open a joint account. Fortunately that's all I've needed so far.

>The public would still have to "put up with it" . . .

No more so than the public has to "put up" with BASE jumping, or bow hunting, or your owning a gun, a bible or a bottle of whiskey.

>There is a lot of prejudice against polygamy and incestuous relationships >that wouldn't go away under such a system that you suggest.

That's fine. There will always be prejudice of some sort.

[GravityJunky 0]

Quote

Quote

Hmmm, I'll have to be more discreet when I 'visit' your mom!---I don't mind you visiting my mom, that way I know you're not with your wife.

ROTFLMAO

*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}

• Quote