Maryland being one of those states for most all of the above. Worrying the adultry issue is almost always pointless as heck because it has no effect on the outcome anyway.
Should Adultery Be A Crime?
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
Maryland being one of those states for most all of the above. Worrying the adultry issue is almost always pointless as heck because it has no effect on the outcome anyway.
Cheeky1
Yae warsh wif' wutr
I believe the original intent of the law forbiding adultry was to deter by means of the penalty. I wasn't around for it, but I am damn sure there was a good reason for making legislation to discourage the act of adultry. Committing adultry has consequences that are further reaching than the adulterers. All around, adultry is BAD.
Yes, legislating morals isn't the answer. This boils down to living responsibly in all aspects of life. Which, without any hesitation I can say, this society has been given grace to re-interpret "old" or "outdated" laws, or get rid of them entirely.
I don't believe this is some "beginning of the end" doomsday bull****. However, altering laws to fit the peoples' lifestyle is nothing but appeasement. I don't have a high opinion of appeasement and believe it is not effective in any aspect.
Yes, legislating morals isn't the answer. This boils down to living responsibly in all aspects of life. Which, without any hesitation I can say, this society has been given grace to re-interpret "old" or "outdated" laws, or get rid of them entirely.
I don't believe this is some "beginning of the end" doomsday bull****. However, altering laws to fit the peoples' lifestyle is nothing but appeasement. I don't have a high opinion of appeasement and believe it is not effective in any aspect.
Last edited:
UNA
New Member
Just making sure
But it often is, you need proof i.e. photos, emails, texts...or admission I suppose
By "of the heart" I mean adultery that didn't result in actual sex, 'emotional' adultery can be just as hurtful.
I think the 'victim' does get a certain amount of leverage (unless there was abuse on their part I suppose...) and will often get more in the divorce...I think, IDK, I've never been divorced! This is all from people I know who've been divorced, one was cheated on but without proof...he got nothing...
Right, easy to prove. The problem would be if the law wasn't written to exclude that. I (maybe incorrectly) would assume this law would be a conservatively driven one, and conservatives are often aghast at this prospect!! LOL
Really, I have no problem with this law in it's intent. My problem is that a law like this edges dangerously close to government trying to regulate my morals. At the most, there should be provisions WRT divorce regarding adultery, and I think there are (at least in most states).
In MD, there is only one kind of adultery recognized.
IF one somehow manages to prove adultery in MD, doing so can affect the divorce process in only one way; the normal two-year wait period for contested divorce is reduced..I believe it's reduced to one year which is the same as it is for an uncontested divorce.
UNA
New Member
Thanks for the info! So you wouldn't (as the 'victim') get any kind of 'pain and suffering' consideration? Or if both partied wanted custody, the cheater isn't less likely to get the kids?
Mongo53
New Member
Thank You, excellent point. You can legislate a moral code, to limit behavior that would harm others or society, even if its an secondary result of the behaviour. You can't legislate people to be moral in their heart, only prevent them from committing ilmoral behaviour.
There is a difference, and it's often forgotten when we get into a debate about legislating morality.
Which if we go back to the thread, there is no evidence their intent is to legislate morality, in fact the whole debate in the colorado legislature is to whether its appropriate to leave these purely ignored laws on the books, or just strike them down. If you point to any argument to keep the law, I think you'll see its a matter of moral code and NOT trying to change people's morality.
My emphasis added.There is a difference between outlawing murder and outlawing adultery. Murder, theft, sex with a child or animals, incest, and public intoxication are all acts that hinder MY (and others) right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Adultery, prostitution, and what "kind" of sex do not hinder MY rights. I could care less what people choose to do with their bodies WRT sex (or body art and so on....). There shouldn't be laws against these things. If one chooses to have an open marriage, get paid for sex, have 'other' types of sex (I won't go into details, I assume you can imagine
How are Public Drunks NOT doing what they want with their own bodies?
Public Drunkeness infringes on your rights and freedoms, but Adultery and Prostitution could NOT for others??
You may NOT see it this way, but many people do see it, that just like public drunkness can infringe on other rights and freedoms, so does Adultery and especially Prostitution.
We probably agree though, on the fact that Public Drunkness Laws do serve some purpose and do give police the power to keep some order when people over indulge in alcohol, and become a danger to themselves or others, or become an unreasonable nuisance. It pretty much solves the problem at hand and once they sober up, they don't fight the fine, because they realize they were the ones being unreasonable, NOT the cops.
BUT, Adultery Laws, although others are hurt by Adultery, maybe NOT in all cases, jailing or fining people if they do it, isn't really going to solve the problems at hand with the Adulterer and the people they hurt with the act? I tend to agree, laws against adultery are pretty mote and serve little purpose.
I'd argue, the legislature has just as much right to pass laws for Adultery as they do Public Drunkness, its just a matter of if its really effective, like some reasonable laws for public drunkness are.
Prostitution on the other hand, the fact is, its NOT just simply someone doing what they decide with their body, in reality in just about all cases its exploitation with tons of other associated crime. Just like loan sharking, racketeering and other underworld type crimes. Everyone starts out voluntarily entering into the acts, but in the end they are exploited and abused.
If you're against bans on Prostitution, you have to be against bans on predatory lending and most racketeering schemes. Because the beginning and end of all those things start the same. You would NOT be intellectually honest if you did NOT follow that.
The fact that people NOT involved in those crimes at all, that attest to how their neighborhoods were destroyed by prostitution or similiar, and people that can show how much cleaned up and better a neighborhood became after targeting the prostitution to stop it, is more evidence its NOT a victimless crime and does hurt others.
Last edited:
UNA
New Member
Oh, well that sucks LOL
itsrequired
New Member
Murder pretty obviously impedes the victim's life and freedom. Sex, not so much.
.
So what about prostitution? Who does that impede?
Nope..the adultery has no direct impact per se. I've 'heard' that judges can and do consider adultery (only if proven or admitted, I assume) in their consideration of an alimony award. That said..I've never seen any guidelines.
In MD 'nutshell':
Forget the adultery. Even IF yr cheating partner will freely admit in writing that it happened..it buys you nothing if you both want the divorce anyway. Proving adultery otherwise;...well lets just say that's gonna be one up close and personal hidden cam ya got there.
Property settlement is 50-50. Period. End of discussion-don't-let-any-slimeball-attorneyy-try-to-convince-you-otherwise-and-take-yr-money-for-trying.
The court frowns on custody battles in general and does not smile on joint custody either. MD family judges put the welfare of the children paramount above all else; suffice to say, adjudicating a battle between two bitterly fighting parents does not create a warm fuzzy in any judge's mind that the parents can jointly rear their children conflict free.
Mongo53
New Member
Really, I would think that would be a factor.
Although Divorce is NOT about suing for damages, its about ending a Marriage and fairly dividing the assets after the split.
So I guess, if you're emotionally hurt by an affair, you could file a lawsuit for emotional duress, or something like that, and sue your spouse for money for hurting you.
I always got the impression, that when they went into court for a divorce, the one more wronged by the other, ended up with more of the estate as a settlement. That may be an impression given by TV, and people relating their bitter memories of divorce.
I think where you see Adultery playing as a big factor is when the Parents fight over the kids. They make the case that the acts of Adultery make the one parent less fit to be a parent than the others, which makes sense to me.
philibusters
Active Member
Nope..the adultery has no direct impact per se. I've 'heard' that judges can and do consider adultery (only if proven or admitted, I assume) in their consideration of an alimony award. That said..I've never seen any guidelines.
In MD 'nutshell':
Forget the adultery. Even IF yr cheating partner will freely admit in writing that it happened..it buys you nothing if you both want the divorce anyway. Proving adultery otherwise;...well lets just say that's gonna be one up close and personal hidden cam ya got there.
Property settlement is 50-50. Period. End of discussion-don't-let-any-slimeball-attorneyy-try-to-convince-you-otherwise-and-take-yr-money-for-trying.
The court frowns on custody battles in general and does not smile on joint custody either. MD family judges put the welfare of the children paramount above all else; suffice to say, adjudicating a battle between two bitterly fighting parents does not create a warm fuzzy in any judge's mind that the parents can jointly rear their children conflict free.
Adultery can be considered when determining child custody, but only if it can be showed that child was negatively affected by the adultery, which is not usually clear cut.
UNA
New Member
Wirelessly posted
Sounds like a bad situation all around, no matter what. And taking adultery into account probably wouldnt help either side. I have a few friends that have gone through it, men and women, mothers and fathers, kids and no kids. What. A. Mess. Bleh...
Gilligan said:
Nope..the adultery has no direct impact per se. I've 'heard' that judges can and do consider adultery (only if proven or admitted, I assume) in their consideration of an alimony award. That said..I've never seen any guidelines.
In MD 'nutshell':
Forget the adultery. Even IF yr cheating partner will freely admit in writing that it happened..it buys you nothing if you both want the divorce anyway. Proving adultery otherwise;...well lets just say that's gonna be one up close and personal hidden cam ya got there.
Property settlement is 50-50. Period. End of discussion-don't-let-any-slimeball-attorneyy-try-to-convince-you-otherwise-and-take-yr-money-for-trying.
The court frowns on custody battles in general and does not smile on joint custody either. MD family judges put the welfare of the children paramount above all else; suffice to say, adjudicating a battle between two bitterly fighting parents does not create a warm fuzzy in any judge's mind that the parents can jointly rear their children conflict free.
Sounds like a bad situation all around, no matter what. And taking adultery into account probably wouldnt help either side. I have a few friends that have gone through it, men and women, mothers and fathers, kids and no kids. What. A. Mess. Bleh...
In some states you can sue the third party for a tidy sum.
Alienation of affections - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LOL..I don't even need to look at your link. Some years ago I was 'all over that', soon discovering, of course, that it (alienation of ..or denial of affection) does not exist in MD.
Only about half a dozen states left that you can do it in.
Actually..you used 'was'. And so no..the court focuses on what 'will be' as best they can determine it will be. What 'was'...the whole 'ew struck ew' just does not matter in MD unless the 'struck' part is literal and not Monty-Python figurative in nature.