Gay relationships aren't adultery

[mike]

http://www.theunionleader.com/articl...?article=28655 (have to register to view)

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Court: Lesbian
affair not adultery
By NANCY MEERSMAN
Union Leader Staff


CONCORD -- If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.

In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.

Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.

Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage.

Sexual intercourse, as defined in Webster's, requires a male organ and a female organ in a sexual connection, "which clearly can only take place between persons of the opposite gender," Nadeau wrote. He was joined in the decision by Justices Linda S. Dalianis and James E. Duggan.

The decision reversed a Lebanon Family Court's finding allowing David G. Blanchflower of Hanover to allege fault against his wife, Sian Blanchflower, for carrying on a "continuing adulterous affair" with a woman.

Mrs. Blanchflower and the woman named as a co-respondent in the divorce, Robin Mayer, appealed the divorce court's finding, claiming their homosexual relationship did not constitute adultery.

The case now goes back to the Lebanon court for further proceedings.

Chief Justice David A. Brock and John T. Broderick dissented, asserting the majority decision defines adultery too narrowly. They said the Legislature intended to enable injured spouses to allege fault in a divorce.

"Under our fault-based law, the innocent spouse is entitled to a divorce because the guilty spouse has breached a marital covenant, such as the covenant to be sexually faithful," the dissenters said.

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in Boston submitted a brief in the case as a "friend of the court," taking the position that cheating was cheating, regardless of the sexuality of the partners.

Nadeau stressed that the decision was not a gay rights issue. "This appeal is not about the status of homosexual relationships in our society or the formal recognition of homosexual unions," he said.

Jennifer Levi, an attorney for GLAD, said she was heartened that the justices acknowledged that "gay and lesbian relationships are significant and important" and that such a relationship could have harmed the marriage.

"In my eyes that was the greatest concern in this case -- that the court would not be understanding of gay and lesbian relationships," Levi said.

She said the significance of a homosexual relationship was not a factor in the decision -- it was decided strictly because "the adultery language was too narrow to include every significant or important extramarital relationship."

Lanea Witkus, attorney for Mrs. Blanchflower, said the court was simply following the law as it was narrowly written 200 years ago.

She said there is no common law covering divorce; the marital laws are based solely on statute and any changes have to be enacted by statute.

The ruling may have monetary consequences for David Blanchflower because he cannot use adultery to prove fault against his wife in the divorce.

"Yes, it has some consequences, but I'm not going to discuss any specifics in an ongoing case," Witkus said.

"It is a good decision . . . the court is following the law as it was written," Witkus said.

No outraged screams for equality? Surely gays want to be equal in every way, no?

[demonbuttercup]

"It is a good decision . . . the court is following the law as it was written," Witkus said.


yeah when were the laws written? 50? hundreds of years ago?
im sure back then they didn't really think about having seemily straight people cheat on their spouses w/ their own sex. back then "Bi" wasn't something as well known as it is now. they probably just considered people gay or straight and even then being gay wasn't that prominent.
i never understood that if you have gay/lesbian sex it isn't cheating.
thats bullshit i think. if you are willing to be intimate w/ another person whatever the sex. you have totally disregarding your partners feelings and given yourself to someone else.
i mean they quote websters dictionary but how old is that?

if i found out my b/f had sex/oral/anything sexual w/ another guy i would feel just as hurt as if it was w/ another woman.

[oberon]

Of course I not outraged, mike. *As a gay man, I see or hear about this sort of thing every day. *You can't have it both ways, either our relationships are real, or they are not and you can't use them in a divorce case as infidelity. *But if they are, isn't that a pretty strong case for same-sex marriage?

[mike]

Since when does adultery require there to be a relationship?

Beyond that, you're arguing semantics- which will go nowhere.

[oberon]

Actually I think semantics are exactly what we are discussing here. *We are trying to define what constitutes adultery.

There are those who deny that intercourse by those of the same gender is even sex. *They would probably quote the Webster's definition used in your article.

If two people of the same gender can't engage in sex and there is no danger of a relationship, then the woman in question wasn't taking anything away from her spouse. *She may as well have been an avid bowler spending the time away from her spouse at the alley with her league.

Of course this is ludicrous. *Sex is sex, be it homo or hetero. *Cheating is cheating. While I think the court made a bad ruling, I can't help but enjoy it when laws used to demean turn around and bite someone in the rear.

As far as defining a relationship, I'm sure you would agree that two people of the same gender can be best friends. *And if you believe this woman committed adultery then you believe that they had sex. *What is marriage but a lifetime commitment of best friends who have sex.

[Nurse Naddy]

I dunno about this one.

For one thing, I agree with Mike, adultery doesn't necessarily mean having a relationship.

But I am totally online with demonbuttercup. I don't care who my man does anything with, if it's not with me I would see it as cheating / adultery and I would be hurt.

Sometimes its crazy how the law doesn't separate the acts or right and wrong with semantics!

[oberon]

I heartily agree that this women was wrong. *She committed adultery. *She had sex outside of marriage- whether it was an on going relationship or a fling is irrelevant.

But I can't help take some satisfaction in the fact that some stupid law about a person's sexuality actually worked in favor of the gay person. *Similar laws and regulations try to keep gays out of the military, schools, and governmentally recognized marriages. *Omission from antidiscrimination laws denies gays the protection of any other minority, and sends a message that it is o.k. to hate gay people.

[tramp06660]

o.k. I'm late on this. Every one has a slightly different opinion on this.For me - as long as my mate is not hiding the fact that he/she is having sex with another and has my blessings, or in most cases, willing to include me, it's not adultry. That only happens when it's done without your knowledge.

[oberon]

Welcome tramp! I tend to agree with you, but I think you'll find the majority of people won't. Oh, not about your definitions but about actually sharing a mate.

Unfortunately, this woman didn't have the consent of her husband. I personally think this is a case of her trying to do what society told her was the right thing-marry a man- and still winding up being a lesbian. Sounds like a good case for tolerance and gay marriage in my opinion.

[Pierzeddick]

I'll file this with Bill Clinton swearing that he did not have sex with Monica. He had his dick in her mouth and came on her dress. Sounds like sex to me, and a same sex encounter is still sex, isn't it? Or is the reasoning that since reproduction is not possible, it doesn't count?