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.

[MattAMiller]

Any form of sex with anyone other than your spouse is adultery!

There is all manner of groping and rubbing and licking that people engage in, and there's not much concensus as to which ones constitute sex as you might think. And without knowing exactly these two women did it's hard to draw any conclusions.

At any rate I wouldn't assume that there's any "gay agenda" here. I don't know how not defineing a particular sex act as adultery is supposed to help gays.

[carlo3b]

Whoa.. Quoting the Bible to me isn't going to advace these arguement one inch.. Religion is an honorable and loafty goal, but not one of mine.. Thanks just the same. Iwill however fight for your rights to worship your God in pease

[Looking for Diogenes]

Whoa.. Quoting the Bible to me isn't going to advace these arguement one inch..Religion is an honorable and loafty goal, but not one of mine..

Ah. So then you don't want any of that religious stuff. But you do want your own particular moral code enforced by the judges of another state. A moral code that apparently says adultery should be a crime while divorce is no problem. And that any judge who dares follow the written, 208-year-old law rather then your personal morality is a "moron?"

OK. Whatever dude.

[carlo3b]

OK. Whatever dude.

Wonderful, I Knew I could get you to see it my way.. Have a nice evening.. :)

[laredo44]

When that law was written, who knew that we would be faced with a world that would accept homosexual relationships the way the they are today? But common sense should apply to the law shouldn't it?

My comment was about the ruling which stated that adultery required male/female intercourse. That act, combined with one of the participants having a spouse who is not the other participant, is the dictionary definition of adultery. So, I'm OK with the ruling. What the guy's wife did was not adultery but it sure as heck was adultery's first cousin.

[antiRepublicrat]

If they're going to err, they should err on the side of life - a God givin right in the constitution.

In other words, you believe in judicial activism when it fits your views. A conservative judge should err on the side of strictly interpreting the law.

[antiRepublicrat]

My view don't matter. It's the law that didn't change with the time. I don't think it's up to judges to keep law up to date with the latest trends of society.

[OpusatFR]

What about alienation of affection?

[laredo44]

89% feel abortion is murder.

Nonsense. I'm certain you have no legitimate source for that statement.

The concervative path, BTW. That's why the mutants never take their issues before the voters. They'll lose.

Sure, that's why, except for partial-birth, Republicans dodge the abortion issue as much as possible. George W. Bush absolutely will not run his 2004 campaign with outlawing abortion as a central theme.

[JesseHousman]

It has to be a penis thing.

[laredo44]

Do you believe "privacy" means, Mother's can Murder their babies.

No I do not. But neither do I believe a fertilized ovum is a baby.

what is your agenda.

Quite simple, actually, it is liberty. Among other things, it means I don't want laws based on people's religious views. I may believe the Bible teaches me that in marriage the husband should make the important decisions. I should be able to practice that belief in my marriage. I should not seek to impose that view on others via legislation.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

If gay sex does not constitute adultry - then it sure as hell doesn't constitute MARRAIGE either.

[carlo3b]

If gay sex does not constitute adultry - then it sure as hell doesn't constitute MARRAIGE either.

Bwhahahahhahaahhahahahah.. Standing ovation !!.. :)

[carlo3b]

Among other things, it means I don't want laws based on people's religious views.

.. a.. what about ""THOU SHALT NOT KILL"", can't you tolerate, and that old hat ""HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER"", You did have a couple of those didn't you.. Well here is another one for you.. ""THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY""??..

Life isn't a quiz show my secular, libertine buddy, you can't pick the common laws of a sane society that fits your narrow view.  You can't expect the rest of us to sit quietly, while you infect the rest of us with your sad and lonely, destructive lifestyle, without a fight.. well this is the fight.. .

A strong community clings to a much higher calling, one that has to keep us all together. For some, it's religion, and for others it's plain ole common decency, but for all, it has to be NORMAL, and your HOMOSEXUAL SH*T just isn't normal, if it was, practicing it wouldn't be so damned fatal?

You can lump me into that slot reserved for the far out right fringe if you wish, that is your prerogative. Lets just say I am a clear balance to you far left fringe that wants to use my grandbaby boy as a sex toy.. Do ya get my meaning, well do ya.. JERK!

[tpaine]

A strong community clings to a much higher calling, one that has to keep us all together. For some, it's religion, and for others it's plain ole common decency, but for all, it has to be NORMAL

You can lump me into that slot reserved for the far out right fringe if you wish, that is your prerogative. Lets just say I am a clear balance to you far left fringe that wants to use my grandbaby boy as a sex toy.. Do ya get my meaning, well do ya.. JERK


PREVIOUS PHOTOS OF THE WEEK
WEEK #14: RACHEL LOERA
WEEK #14: DESIREE MCKINNEY
WEEK #14: PHOTOGRAPHER: PAUL MORGAN
WEEK #13: JESSICA HERNANDEZ
WEEK #13: LISA DEL DOTTO
WEEK #13: DEREK SOUTHERS
WEEK #12: KERRINA
WEEK #12: MICHAEL R. SORRELLS
WEEK #12: DONNA STRADER
WEEK #11: PATRICK STOLLE
WEEK #11: MALIK KIARA
WEEK #11: VALARIE POSAS
WEEK #10: BRITTANY WALSER
WEEK #10: ALEISHA FORCE
WEEK #10: BREE
WEEK #9: JOANNA
WEEK #9: TYLER FERRIS
WEEK #9: CHICKEDY
WEEK #8: KIMBERLY SARAH
WEEK #8: MARIAL BIARD
WEEK #8: SHANA KAI LANI
WEEK #7: TANNER WILSON
WEEK #7: ERIN
WEEK #7: AMY M. FRAIR
WEEK #6: ALYSSA MARTIN
WEEK #6: ISAAC MARTIN
WEEK #6: ELIZABETH BAILEY
WEEK #5: MEGAN
WEEK #5: PAM
WEEK #4: STEPHANIE
WEEK #3: KATY DUNLAP
WEEK #2: TENNILLE
WEEK #1: BRANDON LEE ROBERTO
DO YOU WANT TO BE THE "PHOTO OF THE WEEK"?
This feature on the forum has become quite popular with everyone from models and actors, to actual agents submitting their talent to be included! Those selected will be presented here for a full week on this page linked off of the MODELS & TALENT FORUM (if you submitted, it may take several weeks to actually appear here). After that, a link will remain to your feature. Each week, three individuals will be selected - photographers are welcome to submit with an example of their best work as well. Anyone can submit a photo, it does not have to be a "professional" photo. You need to send the photo via email, or send the URL link to the shot, and include your name, some general information on yourself, your location (City/State), a link to a website portfolio if you have one, and the name of your agency (if you are professionally represented). It is helpful if you can also indicate the name of the photographer who took the photo (if available and applicable), and any additional information you wish included.

---

Interesting homepage Carlo, but is it 'NORMAL'? Or is it trolling?

[carlo3b]

HUH?

[Carry_Okie]

Among other things, it means I don't want laws based on people's religious views.

Does that mean that laws must avoid any congruence with religious principles? If so, let's legalize murder because the Bible forbids it.

How about a standard of practicality? Adultery is nearly always destructive to a family with children. After experiencing the consequences, the kids grow up not trusting in long term relationahips which deleteriously affects succeeding generations. That is destructive to the general good of a society.

Just because a law is collinear with a religious precept, does not mean that it is a bad thing. There is sound reason in support of adhering to such principles, no matter how much it cramps your style.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Adultery is nearly always destructive to a family with children.

And divorce is always destructive to families. The main reason adultery is bad is that it leads to divorce. Divorce breaks up far more families then homosexuality.

[technomage]

Well, guess that proves that it is not normal behaviour. If it was, this ruling would not have happened.

They want equality? Then the penalties should be equal.

[Carry_Okie]

And divorce is always destructive to families. The main reason adultery is bad is that it leads to divorce.

Correct. I was there as a kid. The custody war went on for nine years in the courts and left my dad destitute, a broken man.

Divorce breaks up far more families then homosexuality.

With the way the statists are cultivating homosexuality and perversion, expect that to change.