Search Results: when a husband and wife cheat

Interesting story that happened in 2013. I'd like to hear your thoughts

From the article:

" Before Petrakis married Peter Petrakis in 1998, she was presented with what her lawyer called a "heavy handed" prenup that would give her $25,000 for every year that she and her husband were married, but nothing more. She originally refused to sign it, but a few days before her wedding, she agreed to sign after her husband promised her he would do away with the prenup once the two began to have children. He did not destroy the prenup, even after they had children, according to his estranged wife.

The couple separated, and a court ruled on Feb. 20 that Peter Petrakis had "fraudulently induced" Elizabeth Petrakis to sign the prenup that hung only on a verbal promise.

But Elizabeth Petrakis' cousin Alisa Houraney claims that there was more to the marriage's end than a problematic prenup

Houraney and her now ex-husband Steve Houraney were married at a 250-person wedding in Garden City, N. Y., in 2007. But Houraney said that within weeks of the wedding, she suspected the affair.

Houraney said that she and her cousin Elizabeth were so close that Elizabeth was in the waiting room a few weeks later when Houraney gave birth.

["She was sleeping with him, and she was in the waiting room when I delivered my son," Houraney said. "[My husband] left me there, and went with [Petrakis] in the waiting room."]

Houraney and her husband were married for less than a year before splitting.

["I just feel that, somebody like that, people need to know the truth," Houraney said. "She says her husband is a good guy and he's a good person. He treated her like a princess, never was mean to her, never cheated on her. I don't understand why she's saying, 'poor victim' when you had a good life and you have to destroy two families."] "

Source

So, as the educated among you know, in the USA law is drastically shaped by case law, especially when there is little to no legislation in an area. That is, courts hear cases in gray areas, decide what things mean, and it becomes law/practice. And gay marriage has just been legalized, so I wonder... will gay marriage practices bleed into family law and affect normal marriage?

For instance, say a gay couple has kids. Biology seems to indicate that only one of those two people will be genetically related to the child, no? Unlike a marriage with a man and woman, where usually both peopel are related to the child. Let's say a gay divorce or child support case goes to court, and one of the people argues against paying child support, as he/she is not related to the child. The other says, "Judge, that may apply to straight marriage, but in a homosexual relationship, there's about no cases where both parents are related to the child. You can't decide a gay marriage on straight standards!" And that person wins! Paternity is ruled to not be genetic, and it's a relationship thing, not DNA.

Then, say, a woman in a straight marriage goes to a divorce case. Her husband was cheated on, and is arguing that he doesn't have to pay child support because the kid was just born, and DNA tests confirm. But she says, "That court ruled paternity is not genetic, it's a relationship, etc, blah blah." Maybe she loses, and common sense reigns. But mayeb she finds a judge who likes new arguments and making new caselaw, and she wins. And suddenly it's standard practice that husbands have a duty to support all children their wife births, regardless of who the genetic father is. Legalized cuckoldry, made official.

So what do you think? Will judges be smart enough to keep the two beasts separate, and not alter straight marraige by applying gay marriage standards/practices? Or will the two start overlapping, and the law change?