Relax! It's OK...you're in Colorado!
In most states, adultery is one of the great examples of how something can be wrong and destructive without being illegal, a useful concept to have in mind when a corrupt politician or a crooked corporate executive says “I didn’t break any laws!” It is also a good example of unethical conduct that is better controlled by ethics than law. A law against adultery is theoretically defensible as a deterrent of harmful social conduct, and the state definitely has an interest in preserving family stability. The problem is that regulating offenses triggered by love, lust and romance feels excessively intrusive to most of us. It has overtones of the Plymouth colony. For better of worse, minimizing adultery belongs in the realm of ethics, not the criminal law.
Colorado is one of several states that has an old statute on the books that makes adultery a crime. It hasn’t been enforced for over a hundred years, thus joining thousands of over-broad, archaic, or unenforceable state and municipal laws across the country that have been nulled by prosecutorial neglect. In Fayetteville, Arkansas, for example, it is illegal to kill “any living creature.” These laws linger on in the statute books, like the hideous Victorian lamp in the attic, not bothering anyone except the periodic blogger who wants to show how dumb a particular region is by digging out its dumbest dead letter laws. But some Colorado legislators have decided that the state needs to repeal its anti-adultery law, thus violating the common sense principle of not knowing when to leave well enough alone.
“These are very antiquated notions, and in my mind they’re actually unconstitutional,” says the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Pat Steadman.
Wait a minute—what’s an “antiquated notion,” Senator? That people shouldn’t cheat on their spouses? That’s okay now, because “everybody does it?” Or perhaps you just mean that having a law prohibiting adultery is antiquated, because there you are on firmer ground. Steadman’s rhetorical sloppiness illustrates Colorado’s dilemma perfectly. What is the message Colorado wants to send by repealing the statute, and what message will be sent regardless of its intent?
There are two possibilities:
- A state should enforce its laws, and therefore shouldn’t have any laws on the books that it can not or will not enforce.
- Colorado officially approves of adultery.
Colorado cannot send one message without sending the other. There is the dilemma. The state once made adultery illegal to show its disapproval of the practice, a well-intentioned exercise of the government’s legitimate function of helping to set positive cultural and societal norms. Having done that, there is no way to repeal the law, non-functional as it is, without sending the opposite message. Marital fidelity is old-fashioned, Colorado is sophisticated, so cheat away—the state legislature supports you.
Leaving the law on the books to preserve the cultural disapproval of a destructive social practice, while not enforcing it in recognition of the limitations of government, is the wise and effective course. Interestingly, it was the course Colorado took with no controversy or fanfare until Senator Steadman decided to louse everything up. Now he has put the state in a no-win situation, requiring the legislature to choose between voting for a law that should never have been passed, and putting the government’s stamp of approval on home-wrecking, philandering, Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, and Newt Gingrich.
Ethics Alarms 
You forgot to mention Gary Hart, one time presidential front-runner.
Ah, yes, the “Monkey Business”…how quickly they forget.
Being of Colorado, Gary Hart deserved a mention.
Jack,
Until someone decides to take this particular dusty old law off the books, give it a fresh coat of wax, and start the insanity all over again. There was much the same dilemma with sodomy laws (selective enforcement) before they were all deemed unconstitutional. And let’s not forget those laws against “profane” speech, either ..
I think there’s a bit of intellectual elitism to assume Colorado couldn’t repeal the law without it seeming a tacit endorsement of adultery by those living there. Moreover, even if the message is taken that way, why blame the state instead of the idiots who assume anything that isn’t illegal must be moral? Laws don’t make people ethical, nor are they looked to as a standard “code” which society looks to for guidance and those who do should double-check they’re not part lemming.
-Neil
Except that sodomy and profane speech do not do measurable harm to innocent people, and adultery does. No, the government can’t make people ethical, but laws are both reflections of cultural conduct norms and reinforcements of them. I am pretty sure that of the two evils, a dead letter law about something the government can’t regulate, and appearing to endorse that conduct by explicitly (rather than unofficially) repealing it, the first is safer, better, and more responsible.
I can’t agree with you on those last contentions that profanity and (God help us) sodomy are lesser to adulterous behavior. Profanity promotes not only illicit, but violent thoughts and actions. Sodomy is a hideous simulation of the sex act that is not only the result of deviant mentality, but promotes disease as few other actions can. For a Christian, all are major sins… and for obviously good reasons. For the same reasons, any self-respecting polity would refer to them under its criminal statutes.
One thing is clear—laws against sodomy and profanity are slam dunk unconstitutional. Adultery? Probably.
I can’t see the unconstitutionality of this, Jack. What Article or Amendment to the Constitution prevents states from enacting laws aimed at maintaining law & order, health issues or public morals? All, I maintain, are necessary to the preservation of a decent and orderly environment within whose parameters only can a free society exist and prosper.
Profanity is First Amendment; sodomy is 9th. So sayeth SCOTUS, and what they say, goes.
Jack: I can tell you with utter certainty that not one of the Framers would have agreed with that. The 1st Amendment is there to protect political free speech and interaction, not perversity, incitement against public order or promoting delinquency among the young. And by what logic the 9th Amendment can be construed to protect actions of unspeakable vileness? States have every right to pass such laws, just as the federal government has none to deny them. SCOTUS isn’t the final word on the Constitution. The document itself- and the words of those who authored it- provide that in abundance.
I think you are right about the Founders, which just demonstrates the brilliance of the Constitution, a document whose principles and wisdom transcends the times and limitations of its creators.
I would reply that some virtues and standards were not meant to change with the wind. The Framers, being educated Christian gentlemen, understood this, too. That’s why the Constitution was deliberately made hard to amend, thus being bulwarked against emotional or depraved movements and passions. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, those wards have not always been strong enough.
I’d say that you can’t protect political speech without protecting profane speech. Simpling deciding that, say, communist speech is profane would blow up the point of the amendment.
And by what logic the 9th Amendment can be construed to protect actions of unspeakable vileness?
The 1st amendment bans the government for basing it’s actions on religious beliefs (read: fictious beliefs).
SCOTUS isn’t the final word on the Constitution. The document itself- and the words of those who authored it- provide that in abundance.
Considering that the Constitution iteself sets up SCOTUS as the arbiter of the Constitution, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
You can’t have civil (and thus informative) political discourse WITHOUT profanity? Is that actually what you’re telling me? I’d suggest that the exact opposite is true. Nor does it excuse obscenity for profit in the context of “entertainment”; an endeavor that animalizes and corrupts the most vulnerable sector of human society. You don’t have to be either a Christian or a constitutionalist to understand this. But it sure helps! Nor is a ruling by the Supreme Court a word set in stone. If it were, black Americans would still be 3/5 of a person. Jefferson himself pointed out the weakness in the Constitution that allowed judges appointed for life the potential to legislate from the bench. That warning has now been realized in present times. When persons are appointed to the bench who are free to insert entire passages into the Constitution which were never there and, by any reasonable analysis, were never implied and which violate the entire spirit of the document besides, then all our freedoms and moral bases are in jeopardy. And they are.
You can’t have civil (and thus informative) political discourse WITHOUT profanity? Is that actually what you’re telling me?
No. I was very explicit in saying the opposite. Disliked opinions could be called profane, like what the catholic church does to statements denying god.
I’m going to ignore your little rant on profanity and society as being completely irrelevant to our discussions.
Nor is a ruling by the Supreme Court a word set in stone.
No one has claimed it is.
Jefferson himself pointed out the weakness in the Constitution that allowed judges appointed for life the potential to legislate from the bench. That warning has now been realized in present times. When persons are appointed to the bench who are free to insert entire passages into the Constitution which were never there and, by any reasonable analysis, were never implied and which violate the entire spirit of the document besides, then all our freedoms and moral bases are in jeopardy. And they are.
So you’re saying the framers knew this and still codified it? What side are you arguing on again?
No, you weren’t explicit, TGT. What you were trying to do is redefine profanity and obscenity. As for the constitutional aspect, I need to point out that Jefferson was not one of the framers. No one ever suggested that the Constitution was perfect. If it had been, then it couldn’t have been blasphemized in the way it has been in the present day. It remains, however, as the premier text of defining the workings of a free republic. Any such work, however, depends on moral citizens who are willing to guard it against those who would destroy it from within. Those others found a weakness in the judicial system and have sought to exploit it to bring down that Republic. That’s why we, the citizens, are (belatedly) stepping up to the plate in present times.
“We have staked the whole of our political institutions upon the capacity of Mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”- James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)
No, you weren’t explicit, TGT. What you were trying to do is redefine profanity and obscenity.
I am not redefining obscenity. I am noting that if obscenity is not protected, than people are likely to redefine obscenity to suppress differing views. Why do I say this? Because it has happened numerous times already.
As for the constitutional aspect, I need to point out that Jefferson was not one of the framers.
Did I say he was, or did I say that this view was known at the time?
No one ever suggested that the Constitution was perfect.
So you’re admitting that parts of it are bad. Good. Who determines which? Right, Scotus.
If it had been, then it couldn’t have been blasphemized in the way it has been in the present day.
Doesn’t follow. Even if I grant you the word and any of the possible meanings I could come with. It doesn’t follow.
It remains, however, as the premier text of defining the workings of a free republic. Any such work, however, depends on moral citizens who are willing to guard it against those who would destroy it from within.
True.
Those others found a weakness in the judicial system and have sought to exploit it to bring down that Republic.
False. Unsubstantiated BS.
That’s why we, the citizens, are (belatedly) stepping up to the plate in present times.
You mean you’re trying to interpret the constitution as you see fit, instead of how the people designated to interpret it do. It sounds to me like you are the one behaving extraconstitutionally.
“We have staked the whole of our political institutions upon the capacity of Mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”- James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)
So, are you saying that since God doesn’t exist, we should throw out the constitution? I wouldn’t suggest that. I’d simply suggest modifying it to account for that problem.
1. Indeed it has… by your side. Christians understand the difference. Relative moralists couldn’t care less, as they hold nothing sacred beyond their egos and interests.
2. Jefferson, who was Madison’s neighbor, had much indirect influence on the framing of the Constitution. That’s why I pointed this out.
3. No, I didn’t say that the Constitution was bad. Merely imperfect… as are all human creations. That’s why the amendment process was included. That some corrupt jurists have taken it upon themselves to bypass the procedure (and have succeeded in some cases) is a reflection on them- and our own lack of diligence in defending our institutions.
4. It does follow. See my previous remarks.
5. Indeed.
6. One of the deadliest truths of our times.
7. One cannot be “extraconstitutional” when defending that document from its enemies.
8. If you believe that God doesn’t exist, then all life and all endeavors are thereby without purpose. So what would the Constitution then matter? And I didn’t say “since God doesn’t exist”. He does. Those were your words.
1. Argh. Not by “my side.” By leaders throughout time. My main example was the Church. That aside, you have ceded my point that you can’t have freedom to express ideas without the freedom of profanity. By your logic, it should be for your own protection.
2. So, again, this inherent structure was known and intentionally codified. Good we cleared that up.
3. Imperfect means partially bad. I don’t see why you’re arguing that point. The process of interpretting the constitution is being performed by the people it was entrusted to. You just don’t like their interpretation.
4. A perfect document can still be blasphemed, bastardized, and any other meaning I can come up for blasphemized. This is basic logic.
6. No one is trying to bring down the republic. This isn’t us against them. This is “our ideas are better than your ideas.”
7. …unless you are directly attacking the processes the document itself set out, which you are proudly doing.
8. There doesn’t have to be a purpose to life for life to be important. A better question is “If there’s a God and Heaven and Hell, what does the constitution matter? This corporeal life is but a blip in the eternity of life. We shall live our lives according to His wishes, and let Him judge those who do not.”
8.5. I may be have been a bit unfair with my comment about Madison. I jumped a step. I don’t care if Madison based his contribution on the 10 commandments, the teachings of the dalai lama, or something he found written in the margin of a library book. The only thing that matters is what was written and if it’s any good. No appeals to questionable authority.
Your religion has no impact on the law in a secular country.
Well, TGT, I missed a lot here!
1. By what mindblowing leap of illogic did you come up with that?
2. Meaning what??
3. Imperfection means “human”, not “partially bad”. I prefer the Framers’ interpretations of their own work to those of agendized politicians in black robes, appointed by other agendized politicians.
4. Of course. My point.
5. You consider the foremost author of the Constitution to be a “questionable authority”? That’s a pretty stunning contention.
6. Certainly you are. Your side’s ideas are not only against the spirit of the Constitution, but against the very basis of what America means.
7. I’m hardly attacking them. I’m attacking those who have used extra-constitutional means to circumvent them… and for the express purpose of bringing the Constitution itself down.
8. If you contend that there’s no purpose to life, then you deny the existence of the Creator of life.
1) Me: “I am noting that if obscenity is not protected, than people are likely to redefine obscenity to suppress differing views. Why do I say this? Because it has happened numerous times already.” You: “Indeed it has… by your side.” There’s your agreement right there.
2) This went back to the process of how the constitution would be interpretted. It was set up to be interpretted by judges by the original writers.
3) Imperfection DOES mean partly bad. You can’t define that away. Also, I prefer that we use the defined arbiter’s of the consitution instead of the agendized politicians in silly wigs.
4) You have just argued that your statement being proved wrong supports you. Why do I even bother?
5) err…you actually meant 8.5) The appeal to questionable authority is Madison’s supposed founding of the document in religion. It doesn’t matter what his inspiration was. It only matters what was decided and written.
6) Demagoguing does not suit you.
7) What? The constitution says that judges are the final arbiter. Full stop. You don’t like what the judges say, so you say they are violating the constitution. You are the one attacking the constitution here. there’s no way around it.
8) What does that have to do with anything? I don’t believe in fairy tales. Neither should you.
Adultery doesn’t necessarily do measurable harm. I can think of one girl I know with a legal husband and live in boyfriend. All parties have been happy with this relationship for the past 5 years. Granted, her case is the exception, but it is a valid counterexample.
There’s no such thing as a dead letter law when there is a prosecutor who could charge under it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62581-2004Sep4.html
If the partner consents, it isn’t adultery.
Colorado Section 18-6-501 states: “Adultery. Any sexual intercourse by a married person other than with that person’s spouse is adultery, which is prohibited.”
It doesn’t matter what the common definition is. (Though one could very well argue that the common definition doesn’t necessarily require a lack of consent; dictionaries are split on the matter.)
Also, you ignored my point of there being no such thing as a dead letter law. Does anyone here have access to Westlaw to look up recent adultery prosecutions?
It also means that the crime does not include the partner. Nonetheless, where there is consent in such situations, even a jurisdiction that prosecuted the law wouldn’t. Presumably someone has to press charges, and if the spouse won’t, law enforcement officials usually won’t.
You are right that as long as something is on the books, it can theoretically be prosecuted. But the defense that a law is a dead letter is permissible, and judges will dismiss prosecutions on that basis…though they don’t have to.
Basically:
If everyone is a good actor, no one will be prosecuted under this law.
Unfortunately, there’s no reason to believe that everyone will always be a good actor (by our definition of good).
Granted, indeed!
If you really want to send the first message but not the second, what could be done is to repeal the law but allow alienation of affection lawsuits (which Colorado has a law against, strangely enough). If you are going to look at the harm done by infidelity, it probably is better to have it as a civil rather than a criminal matter.
I’d say that mitigates the second message but doesn’t mute it. Still, that’s a reasonable solution. Such lawsuits are not permitted in most jurisdictions (except on stage, in Gilbert and Sullivan’s “Trial by Jury”), on the theory, I understand, that divorce proceedings tend to cover the same territory.
Alienation of affection goes after the third party. Divorce proceedings can’t touch them.
Yes…I should have added a civil breach of contract suit to that. Alienation of affections is a bad lawsuit when it casts the blame only on the third party. It takes two, after all. I’ll never forget Rep. Maxine Waters in the House impeachment debate arguing that the evil, sexy young tramp lured the helpless middle-aged President into infidelity.
I think Congress and every individual state need to pass a law and/or amend its Constitution such that any criminal statute for which there are NO prosecutions for some long period of time (20 years? 50 years?) is automatically considered repealed.
If some law gets aut0-repealed that a legislature wants to preserve, then that’s the time to re-introduce and re-ratify it (with the expectation that the law will also be re-written to be applicable to modern times and address the actual reason that it was never enforced).
Problem solved.
–Dwayne
Great idea, and indeed, it sends message #1 without risking message #2. Bravo.
Jack,
I’ve been reading occasionally for a little while, taking in a week or so worth of entries at a time. I read this entry a short time ago, and then moved on, coming across this statement on April 26: “A government has an obligation to duly execute its laws or repeal them.”
Would you please reconcile the apparent discrepancy between these two positions for me?
Sure, but you’ll first have to tell me what the other position is that you feel is inconsistent. The suspense is killing me…
“Leaving the law on the books to preserve the cultural disapproval of a destructive social practice, while not enforcing it in recognition of the limitations of government, is the wise and effective course.”
On the one hand, you state – fairly unambiguously – that the government’s duty is to repeal or enforce the law. Here, you argue that the government should leave an unenforced and perhaps unenforceable law on its books.
I do see a distinction between the two cases, so perhaps the issue is an imprecision of language rather than an actual inconsistency in your stance…but to me, it seems a contradiction as worded.
Not to put words in anybody’s mouths, but I think Jenna is referring to your article about Paul Clement resigning over his firm’s refusal to defend DOMA, where the quote she cited is found.
–Dwayne
Thank you – a bit more specificity on my part would have been helpful. It was after midnight and I was perhaps lazy.
Jack, I’m specifically referring to your position found within the post Dwayne linked that the Obama administration decision not to defend DOMA is “troubling” and “raised issues of governmental integrity” as it goes against the government’s “obligation to duly execute its laws or repeal them.”
However, see my follow up post below.
Carrying the thought out further, you argue that repealing the law against adultery would send the message that the government condones adultery, which it does not wish to do (and should not do). With DOMA, on the other hand, the branch of the government responsible for enforcing the law DOES want to send the message that gay marriage is okay, despite the fact that the branch of the government responsible for repealing the law has not done so.
So I can accept without contradiction the following:
The duty of the government is to either enforce or repeal the law.
However, in the case of a law where enforcement is not possible or desireable – but the government cannot appear to condone the behavior the law prohibits – the government’s duty not to endorse behavior harmful to society overrides the duty to enforce or repeal.
I’m not necessarily saying I agree (or disagree) with your positions on these issues, but I can fit them together with this elaboration.
I don’t think they are inconsistent. In the case of DOMA, it’s ONE government, and the choice is to repeal or enforce. And repealing would send the message that there is nothing wrong with same sex-marriage, which is the message it would presumably like to send…if the act were repealed.
In the case of the adultery statute, it’s a true dilemma: leaving a law on the books without enforcing it is a breach of integrity, repealing it sends the wrong message. My first choice would be not to get in such a fix, by not passing the law. Of the two less-than-ideal options, leaving it on the books unenforced seems to me to be the least harmful.
The government should enforce laws that are passed, and repeal those that aren’t. The adultery rule, unlike DOMA, creates the “exception that proves the rule”—once it has been passed, repealing it is worse than ignoring it. (Obama’s administration can’t responsibily “ignore” DOMA, however, because it is the subject of lawsuits.)
Yes – this the same place I was trying to get to with my elaboration as well. Last night, past midnight as I mentioned before, the sentence I quoted jumped out at me as seeming to be contradictory to this post; upon consideration of the context of that sentence and the distinctions between the two cases, they are not, since – as you say – the adultery law is an exception to the general rule.
Which is why I was drawn to the controversy. Most archaic laws harken back to old and irrelevant social norms, so 1) nobody cares that they are on the books and 2) removing them would have no effect on attitudes or anything else. Here we have a law that prohibits bad conduct of the sort that the law is ill-equipped to regulate, though the existence of the law expresses a legitimate societal norm. My point is that there is no ideal solution—something that happens often in ethics. You can take a fatal step from which the ideal is unreachable.
It should be noted that there is a difference between state prohibition of immoral conduct and state encouragement of alternative moral conduct. The Supreme Court noted this in Maher v. Roe , 432 U.S. 164 at 475 (1977)
To illustrate a closely related example to adultery and DOMA, a state could repeal its laws making bigamy a felony. Would such a repeal constitute state approval of bigamy?
Would it constitute that? No. Would the culture take it as approval? Yes. I view the decriminalization of pot in this light.
I agree with the distinction that the Supreme Court notes, but that there is a distinction does not mean that they are not related. States that have lotteries, for example, have pretty much blown any chance of sending the message that gambling is harmful conduct. The official position of all but two states is that gambling is OK, the state just wants to control it.
Late to the party, but keep in mind that this law may have been passed in specificity, and may have also been only prosecuted in specificity back in its heyday. Think of the Mormons and polygamy. There were plenty of Mormons in CO (still are) and lots of them like polygamy (some still do). People of other faiths DID NOT like that, so laws like this were used pretty much only on them. Random history comment, but I’d also argue that it brings an element of removal of former bigotry to lean towards repeal. Although Dwayne’s idea of auto-repeal is really, really nice.
This law needs to be enforced for real. Adultery destroys not just the lives of the spouse but also the children lives. This happened to me and my kids, and there is no cure for the pain. I wish my wife was charged with it.
I don’t doubt you and your kids were hurt, but being an asshole shouldn’t be illegal.
Would you and your kids be better off if your wife was charged with a crime? Do you thing the government should write all sorts of nonexistent clauses into private contracts?
Yes we would have been better off if she was charged. We would not b in our present situation if she had.
Really? What situation are you in?
Really not any of ur bizzness. Her being a cheating whoring abusive slut destroyed our lives and it will never ” heal” with time. She has no repercussions from her behavior yet we continue to suffer the consequences for HER actions.
If you claim that your situation would be different with her in bars, then your current situation is relevant. What you’ve added is mostly “she’s bad it hurts, but no one’s punished her! It’s unfair!” You did include “abusive”, but that has no bearing on the adultery. There are laws about abuse, and whether she was charged with adultery or just committed adultery isn’t going to change the abuse.
Unless u can change things for us, i have no logical reason to go into the details of the sfter effects. I have no reason to believe she would b behind bars if she was charged. I doubt it would b a felony and even if it was it wud have been hee first offense so she wud b free. The main point is to teach a lesson. The fact that it wud have made a bttr outcome for my kids and i is the big thing. She wud have been kicked.out.of the army and that aline wud have made a big didference in our present lives. And abusive, yes, very. I actually have ptsd now because of her and the kids r scarrd for life and have learned that adultry is.ok and acceptable from seeing it happen with no consequenses.
The main point is to teach a lesson.
Wah! She was mean to me! Mom!
The fact that it wud have made a bttr outcome for my kids and i is the big thing.
You can’t have “the main thing” and “the big thing.”
So why would it be a better outcome? That’s what I’ve been trying to find out. This is like pulling teeth.
She wud have been kicked.out.of the army and that aline wud have made a big didference in our present lives.
(1) The army has rules about adultery independent of laws.
(2) You think being charged with adultery would get someone kicked out of the army as opposed to the same information and no charge? I don’t think you understand how either civilian justice or military justice works.
(3) Why isn’t the abuse enough to get her court martialed/charged?
(4) How in the world would your life and your kids’ be better if the mother of your kids lost her job?
And abusive, yes, very. I actually have ptsd now because of her and the kids r scarrd for life and have learned that adultry is.ok and acceptable from seeing it happen with no consequenses.
I didn’t question the abuse. It was still irrelevant to the point about wanting her punished for adultery.
The kids are scared for life, you’re clearly in shambles, and your family is broken, yet the kids have someone seen that adultery is okay and that there are no consequences? I don’t get it.
Err…yet the kids have somehow seen that adultery is okay…
Yeah they saw that there is no repercussions of cheating and an adulterer that is not okay it is not acceptable so they will grow up b b the same kind of a.person. y go into marriage if u r going to cheat?
*sigh*.
My point was that they saw your family explode, and the damage done to both you and them. They saw negative consequences of adultery.
You seem so hell bent on revenge that you don’t actually understand what’s happening to your children. Teach them to love and they won’t hurt people the same way your wife did. Teach them that the only consequences are legal consequences, and you end up with unethical assholes trying to find loopholes.
Sounds to me like ur trying to defend adultry. The kids witnessed hee doing it. They are now living with the aftermath. There needs to b a enforced punishment because it is simply wrong. Marriage is sacred, not something u go back on. She will burn in hell for wut she did and no that does not help n e 1. I dont want revenge, i want retribution. I want her to admitt she was wrong and tell the kids it was wrong. It is.a shame that people like u and her feel it is.ok to cheat on ur spouse which u have a legal.comtract with, its called marriage.
Sounds to me like ur trying to defend adultry.
How do you say I’m defending adultery. I haven’t said one word in favor of it, and I’ve talked about the negative consequences.
The kids witnessed hee doing it. They are now living with the aftermath. There needs to b a enforced punishment because it is simply wrong.
Again, the kids saw the negative results. And again, it’s up to you to show them that there are negative ethical consequences even though there are no legal consequences. That’s your job as parent. If you don’t recognize the existence of negative consequences other than legal ones, then I feel doubly sorry for your kids (that their mother is unethical, and that you’re, at best, ethics-blind).
Marriage is sacred, not something u go back on. She will burn in hell for wut she did and no that does not help n e 1. I dont want revenge, i want retribution.
Sounds like you’re one of those “compassionate Christians”. You’re also looking for a legal response. That’s not retribution.
I want her to admitt she was wrong and tell the kids it was wrong.
I want John Boehner to admit to his obstructionism and tell all the republicans it’s wrong. Ain’t gonna happen. And her being legally punished wouldn’t make it happen either. Life isn’t fair. It sounds like you don’t want to put the work into teaching your kids morals. You’re tilting at windmills.
It is.a shame that people like u and her feel it is.ok to cheat on ur spouse which u have a legal.comtract with, its called marriage.
I still have not backed cheating.
u sed u dont support laws against adultry being enforced. which would imply that u are guilty of doing it and wud not want to b charged. i dont know u well enough to say if u are any of the things u have been called. i am in school for criminal justice and i got a 98 in the ethics class and a 90 in logic. i amnot all about religion, i dont own a bible. i have been to church and i find it incredibly boring, plus id rather find logical explanations for all of the supposed miracles and events. ones that can be seen. i am old fashioned, i believe that when u r with someone u should b with only them, not the whole neighborhood. that is disgusting. a marriage is a legally binding contract and since that is so, a person should not enter into that contract unless they are willing to pay the consequences of breaking it. which means it needs to b enforced. sure the kids see consequences, but not ones that the guilty person has to deal with, only ones that they and i have to deal with. how is that a learning tool for the kids? she literally fucked other people in front of them. and u say i am unethical? there is so much to the story, i wont even try to go into the detail. and as far as u being a pot smoker… people are ignorant to say it is bad for anything. the economical boost alone that colorado will get is going to step up many projects and causes that otherwise would suffer. hopefully they will get a brain and dump pot seeds all over the burn areas in the state because that is going to be the only way to begin repair on the scars and prevent the soon to be floods. besides, if they legalize industrial hemp we will have thousands of new jobs, a booming new economy, and the country could stop importing it from china and korea, than we could export it. the uses of the plant extend even to fuel. adultry is wrong in every way imaginable, nothing makes it acceptable and yes people need legal consequences for doing it. it is a truly selfish act that only destroys those around. the result of her getting charged with adultry would have totally changed how our lives turned out. i know u dont understand why, but it would have prevented her from doing everything else that she did afterward. yes her cheating was a painful event, especially since it was over an over with many people, and in front of the kids who wer extremly young. but it is the actions that it led up to which ruined our lives and will be a major part of the kids memories and personalities as they grow up. no amount of my teaching or proper raising will alter that or erase it. i am a very involved father who gives every fiber of his soul to his children. i even choose to not get involved with anyone ever again because i want all of my attention devoted to my kids, and i dont want them to think it is okay to just sleep around. even if i did not have the kids, i would not be interested because i can no longer trust. i gave everything to her in our marriage, i cant honestly say now what the word marriage means to her, but it is obviously not much, certainly not important or reserved. the end results of her adultry are and have been atrocious. i dont know if u feel it is okay to cheat or not, but u saying a person should not face any type of consequence is sure defending it. u also kind of sound a bit spiteful and bored with your life if u are constantly on the internet dabating issues with strangers. i got on this site trying to find help with our issues, not to try and get her charged with a crime. i need a lawyer not a critic. i dont care if she goes on cheating on everyone she ever meets, i dont care if someone shoots her in the head. she is the one that will ultimately pay the price, whether it is with disease, burning in hell, or just plain karma. im done with her, i just wish i could put a warning on her forehead for the next guy that is stupid enough to fall in love with her do to her trickery.
u sed u dont support laws against adultry being enforced. which would imply that u are guilty of doing it and wud not want to b charged.
0 for 1. I can think something’s a bad law without having violated it.
i dont know u well enough to say if u are any of the things u have been called.
Did you not understand that? I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your comment. Eesh.
i am in school for criminal justice and i got a 98 in the ethics class and a 90 in logic.
I weep for our authoritarian future and your ethics class. Also, 90% in logic is like saying you don’t understand logic.
i amnot all about religion, i dont own a bible. i have been to church and i find it incredibly boring, plus id rather find logical explanations for all of the supposed miracles and events. ones that can be seen.
But you think she will burn in hell? I think I’m justified in mocking you there.
i am old fashioned, i believe that when u r with someone u should b with only them, not the whole neighborhood. that is disgusting. a marriage is a legally binding contract and since that is so, a person should not enter into that contract unless they are willing to pay the consequences of breaking it.
Agreed.
which means it needs to b enforced.
The contract? Yes. Of course, the contract law punishment for adultery is granting the other person the ability to get out of the contract. The silly law that shouldn’t exist? No.
sure the kids see consequences, but not ones that the guilty person has to deal with, only ones that they and i have to deal with. how is that a learning tool for the kids?
Again, I weep for your kids. If another kid punches one of your kids, you can’t use that to show your kids that it isn’t right to punch? This is just like that, but on a grander scale.
she literally fucked other people in front of them.
So she’s a horrible person. Ethics and law are not the same thing, but If that actually happened (other than by accident, which would mean you are misrepresenting it), why isn’t she in jail for sexual abuse?
and u say i am unethical?
(1) I didn’t.. I said you were ethics-blind.
(2) Just because she’s horrible doesn’t mean you can’t also be bad.
and as far as u being a pot smoker…
Sigh. I’m not a pot smoker. Have you seen “My Cousin Vinny”? I think you’re the sheriff The defendant said “I shot the clerk.”
adultry is wrong in every way imaginable, nothing makes it acceptable and yes people need legal consequences for doing it. it is a truly selfish act that only destroys those around.
Not anymore so than an acrimonious divorce. Should divorce be illegal?
result of her getting charged with adultry would have totally changed how our lives turned out. i know u dont understand why, but it would have prevented her from doing everything else that she did afterward.
That she did other bad things does not suggest that adultery should have been prosecuted. You want to punish her for later bad acts as well now.
yes her cheating was a painful event, especially since it was over an over with many people, and in front of the kids who wer extremly young. but it is the actions that it led up to which ruined our lives and will be a major part of the kids memories and personalities as they grow up.
So the adultery was a side item. You just can’t punish her for the main course, so you want to sneak a punishment in the back door.
no amount of my teaching or proper raising will alter that or erase it.
If the other behavior wouldn’t put her in prison or cause you to divorce her, then I can’t believe such.
i am a very involved father who gives every fiber of his soul to his children.
But you don’t understand how to teach about consequences.
i even choose to not get involved with anyone ever again because i want all of my attention devoted to my kids, and i dont want them to think it is okay to just sleep around.
And you think that getting involved with someone else = sleeping around.
even if i did not have the kids, i would not be interested because i can no longer trust. i gave everything to her in our marriage, i cant honestly say now what the word marriage means to her, but it is obviously not much, certainly not important or reserved. the end results of her adultry are and have been atrocious.
Rant of the wounded. Get over it.
i dont know if u feel it is okay to cheat or not, but u saying a person should not face any type of consequence is sure defending it.
I never said there should be no consequences for committing adultery. I said it shouldn’t be illegal. There are all sorts of non-legal consequences. I’d hope someone with kids understood that.
u also kind of sound a bit spiteful and bored with your life if u are constantly on the internet dabating issues with strangers.
“You’re a loser, so I don’t care what you say.” It wasn’t smart in elementary school, it isn’t smart now.
i got on this site trying to find help with our issues, not to try and get her charged with a crime. i need a lawyer not a critic. i dont care if she goes on cheating on everyone she ever meets, i dont care if someone shoots her in the head. she is the one that will ultimately pay the price, whether it is with disease, burning in hell, or just plain karma. im done with her, i just wish i could put a warning on her forehead for the next guy that is stupid enough to fall in love with her do to her trickery.
More random ranting. You hate her and she’s evil. You want vengeance. I think we figured that out. I’m not sure how you thought posting here would get you a divorce lawyer, but good luck to you. You seem to have a hell of a job in front of you.
Should I edit that comment? I didn’t have the heart…
I think it works as a good example of how not to post here. Rationalizations, ridiculous misinterpretations, no attempt to use punctuation or form coherent groups of points…
Obviously you yourself are you cheeter otherwise you would see things differently Its a damn shame that you are also a cheater because cheeters need to be punished
Really, that makes sense. I must be the hated evil because I disagree with you about something related to that evil. By that logic, and the comments I’ve made elsewhere on Ethics Alarms, I’m now a pot smoking, prohibitionist, transgender, gay, republican, female who believes in Jesus Christ and Allah.
Nice try though. It’s a common, invalid tactic to avoid engaging on the points.