Last week the New Hampshire Supreme Court handed down a in a divorce case that precluded the petitioner from amending the original grounds for divorce — that old chestnut irreconcilable differences — to adultery based on the fact that his wife had carried on an affair with a woman. But since no penis insertions could be performed between the women it wasn’t adulterous behavior:
Craig’s wife can divorce him for being a reprehensible liar and hypocrite but not for cheating on her with cute boys in airport restrooms.
The plain and ordinary meaning of adultery is “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 30 (unabridged ed. 1961). Although the definition does not specifically express that the “someone” with whom one commits adultery must be of the opposite gender it does demand sexual intercourse.
The plain and ordinary meaning of sexual intercourse is “sexual connection esp between humans: COITUS. COPULATION.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2082. Coitus is defined to demand “insertion of the penis in the vagina[],” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 441 which clearly can only take displace between persons of the opposite gender.
The pesky petitioner even tried to turn the tables on the whole gay rights deal by arguing unequal treatment under the law but the court was having none of that:
We reject the petitioner’s argument that an interpretation of adultery that excludes homosexual conduct subjects homosexuals and heterosexuals to unequal treatment. “contrary to New Hampshire’s public policy of equality and prohibition of discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation.” Homosexuals and heterosexuals engaging in the same acts are treated the same because our interpretation of the term “adultery” excludes all non-coital sex acts whether between persons of the same or opposite gender. The only distinction is that persons of the same gender cannot by definition engage in the one act that constitutes adultery under the statute.
So what does this mean for wide-stance conservatives like Larry Craig? It means his wife can divorce him for being a reprehensible liar and hypocrite (probably under the catch-all “irreconcilable differences,” which could also mean that she is unable to reconcile.
Related article:
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/11/12/good-news-for-gop-wide-stancers-%E2%80%94-court-rules-homosexual-sex-is-not-adulterous/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
