I don't think it's practical, especially if they have children. It should factor into divorce settlements though if it leads to that. If the man cheats for example he should have to offer more, or if the woman cheats she should get a lot less if anything at all.
@OlderAndWiser the judge I clerked for actually explained to me why some states still have laws criminalizing adultery even though they would never pass constitutional muster.
1. If it's not enforced, there is no one with standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute.
2. No legislator wants to have their name attached to a bill that decriminalizes adultery, because - next election - it will be spun into a story about how you support adultery, probably because you are guilty of having committed adultery. Probably loses many votes for you. This is why some legislatures allow bills to be sponsored by committees rather than individual legislators.
@OlderAndWiser 3. In the state where I clerked, adultery was punished by a $10 fine. Not much of a penalty, but enough to allow the accused adulterer to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if questioned about it during a divorce trial.
@Tstrbrainer it’s a little more complicated than that, but by and large the Supremacy Clause makes Supreme Court decisions binding on the individual states
The US Supreme Court has ultimate authority to determine the applicability of the US Constitution and federal law. If a state law is inconsistent with federal law or the Constitution, the US Supreme Court can invalidate the state law. But the US Supreme Court will not get involved with merely interpreting state law if there is no conflict with federal law.
To challenge a statute as being unconstitutional, the person making the challenge must have "standing." This means that they must show that they are directly affected by the application of the law and will gain relief if the law is declared unconstitutional. Until someone is actually prosecuted under an adultery law, no one has standing to challenge it. It is a rule designed to eliminate lawsuits that are simply a bother to the courts and which don't really make a difference to anyone.
That would never work in America. In America, crossing the border illegally, is not only legal, you will be treated better than the legal citizens.
Governor Cuomo appointed a cop killer, to be on the commitee to help reform policing in New York. The piece of shit shot an off-duty cop, execution style, so now he is being rewarded by Cuomo.
So if Dems don't even give a shit about murder, I'm sure they won't give a shit about adultery.
None of the governments fucking business. They already read our e-mails, access our SMS, see our purchasing history and track our phones and location with radiowaves. They control too much and leave us with too little.
Not illegal, but spouses who betray people they married shouldn't benefit from alimony laws and property sharing after divorce. In lot of countries there is still a difference between divorce with mutual consent and forced divorce due adultery, despite adultery isn't illegal by law. I think it's a good compromise.
No!! In my country adultery is illegal, not only that but if you catch your spouse in the act of having sex and you kill your spouse out of anger then it's a valid reason not to go to prison.
To me, personal relationships problems like cheating (unless abuse, murder etc then obviously criminal or civil law should be act) shouldn't be something government should bother with. There's enough shit already the slow inefficient justice system should focus on.
None of the 12 countries present on Antarctica (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Russia, UK and the USA) have such laws where, if you murder someone, you are exempted from being sentenced.
well technically marriage is a legally binding contract. But that doesn't stop abuse between spouses and one might walk out if they feel like the other is not keeping up their end of the relationship and is afraid of going to custody court or having to pay massive alimony.
most of those laws are enforced against women not men and even enforced against men it is usually charged as a minor offence. But even more so you can not legislate morality you can try but most of it happens behind closed doors and rarely brought to light.
No. Getting the government involved in such personal matters (especially where it’s incredible difficult to provide material proof vs. relying on non biased observations/assumptions) is a breeding ground for one gender getting exploited to no end.
People are coming at this in a place of equality. How would you proce it? Would men need physical proof, and women word of mouth? That's a double standard that all ready exists in the courts, as women don't lie.
hmm, not really? i think in some ways, adultery is already factored into the law (for purposes of divorce, child support, custody, etc) and i think to that extent it's maybe enough?
As damaging, senseless and shitty behavior as adultery is; no, I don't support making it illegal. You should forfeit all your rights to marital assets as a result, but it shouldn't be illegal.
Nope I don't belive government should have that kind of control over relationships themselves plus it will just become another crime of he said she said so no I wouldn't support that
It’s none of the governments business what adults do in private. The government should not even be involved in marriage... it’s none of the governments business or societies business.
I do not, although it morally wrong. My reason is simple. Our (US) government is deeply corrupt and I do not want government to have any more power. That outweighs the moral aspect.
Who people fuck isn't the government's business unless its below the age of consent. Even the age difference isn't the governments business. if the age of consent is 16 an she wants to fuck 30 year old, go for it
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
104Opinion
I don't think it's practical, especially if they have children. It should factor into divorce settlements though if it leads to that. If the man cheats for example he should have to offer more, or if the woman cheats she should get a lot less if anything at all.
Nope, it should not be illegal anywhere.
no country has a right to say.
I wonder how many of the Non American countries where it is illegal also have arranged marriages and the baggage of honour killings as well.
we have moved away from the 6th Century,
it should be made easier globally to divorce and without the need for proof.
if you don’t like each other etc, then make it a simple bloody process.
I would not. That would be unconstitutional.
@OlderAndWiser the judge I clerked for actually explained to me why some states still have laws criminalizing adultery even though they would never pass constitutional muster.
1. If it's not enforced, there is no one with standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute.
2. No legislator wants to have their name attached to a bill that decriminalizes adultery, because - next election - it will be spun into a story about how you support adultery, probably because you are guilty of having committed adultery. Probably loses many votes for you. This is why some legislatures allow bills to be sponsored by committees rather than individual legislators.
@OlderAndWiser 3. In the state where I clerked, adultery was punished by a $10 fine. Not much of a penalty, but enough to allow the accused adulterer to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if questioned about it during a divorce trial.
There was no requirement that prosecution be actually threatened or likely? (It's been a long time since I delved into criminal law and procedure.)
@OlderAndWiser not at the time, no
Can't the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional once and for all?
@Tstrbrainer they could but they haven’t
Can't a person move a public interest litigation? Does such practice exists in US's judicial system?
@Tstrbrainer it can be done but there are special complicated procedures for it
Okay.
The decision of supreme Court is binding, despite the autonomous powers of federal states right?
@Tstrbrainer it’s a little more complicated than that, but by and large the Supremacy Clause makes Supreme Court decisions binding on the individual states
The US Supreme Court has ultimate authority to determine the applicability of the US Constitution and federal law. If a state law is inconsistent with federal law or the Constitution, the US Supreme Court can invalidate the state law. But the US Supreme Court will not get involved with merely interpreting state law if there is no conflict with federal law.
To challenge a statute as being unconstitutional, the person making the challenge must have "standing." This means that they must show that they are directly affected by the application of the law and will gain relief if the law is declared unconstitutional. Until someone is actually prosecuted under an adultery law, no one has standing to challenge it. It is a rule designed to eliminate lawsuits that are simply a bother to the courts and which don't really make a difference to anyone.
@OlderAndWiser thank you. Standing is vital, especially in class action/mass tort lawsuits
Okay. Yes the procedure is quite different I guess.
It's different in my country, I think the concept of standing is wider here
That would never work in America. In America, crossing the border illegally, is not only legal, you will be treated better than the legal citizens.
Governor Cuomo appointed a cop killer, to be on the commitee to help reform policing in New York. The piece of shit shot an off-duty cop, execution style, so now he is being rewarded by Cuomo.
So if Dems don't even give a shit about murder, I'm sure they won't give a shit about adultery.
None of the governments fucking business. They already read our e-mails, access our SMS, see our purchasing history and track our phones and location with radiowaves. They control too much and leave us with too little.
Imagine being imprisoned for eating chocolate.
Not illegal, but spouses who betray people they married shouldn't benefit from alimony laws and property sharing after divorce. In lot of countries there is still a difference between divorce with mutual consent and forced divorce due adultery, despite adultery isn't illegal by law. I think it's a good compromise.
No!! In my country adultery is illegal, not only that but if you catch your spouse in the act of having sex and you kill your spouse out of anger then it's a valid reason not to go to prison.
To me, personal relationships problems like cheating (unless abuse, murder etc then obviously criminal or civil law should be act) shouldn't be something government should bother with. There's enough shit already the slow inefficient justice system should focus on.
What country are you from?
I must disagree with you.
None of the 12 countries present on Antarctica (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Russia, UK and the USA) have such laws where, if you murder someone, you are exempted from being sentenced.
@SueShe But I'm not from any of those countries
Then you are not from Antarctica and you should change your country in your bio. This is misleading.
@SueShe lol you serious 🤣🤣. No one lives in Antartica apart from scientists or tourist, there's no native population there. It's kind of obvious.
wait you live in Antartica too in your bio
well technically marriage is a legally binding contract. But that doesn't stop abuse between spouses and one might walk out if they feel like the other is not keeping up their end of the relationship and is afraid of going to custody court or having to pay massive alimony.
Yes. It should absolutely be illegal. Your point number 3 is the most pivotal by far, but adultery should certainly be illegal.
most of those laws are enforced against women not men and even enforced against men it is usually charged as a minor offence. But even more so you can not legislate morality you can try but most of it happens behind closed doors and rarely brought to light.
No.
Getting the government involved in such personal matters (especially where it’s incredible difficult to provide material proof vs. relying on non biased observations/assumptions) is a breeding ground for one gender getting exploited to no end.
People are coming at this in a place of equality. How would you proce it? Would men need physical proof, and women word of mouth? That's a double standard that all ready exists in the courts, as women don't lie.
Criminalizing adultery would damage the family unit even more than the cheating itself (which is damaging enough).
hmm, not really? i think in some ways, adultery is already factored into the law (for purposes of divorce, child support, custody, etc) and i think to that extent it's maybe enough?
Hell no. How would you enforce it? Eavesdropping on bedrooms? We've been there and it was horrible.
As damaging, senseless and shitty behavior as adultery is; no, I don't support making it illegal. You should forfeit all your rights to marital assets as a result, but it shouldn't be illegal.
Nope I don't belive government should have that kind of control over relationships themselves plus it will just become another crime of he said she said so no I wouldn't support that
It’s none of the governments business what adults do in private. The government should not even be involved in marriage... it’s none of the governments business or societies business.
I do not, although it morally wrong. My reason is simple. Our (US) government is deeply corrupt and I do not want government to have any more power. That outweighs the moral aspect.
Who people fuck isn't the government's business unless its below the age of consent. Even the age difference isn't the governments business. if the age of consent is 16 an she wants to fuck 30 year old, go for it