M/clear
52°
M/clear
Hi 65° | Lo 43°

Letter: Keep anti-adultery law on the books

House Bill 1125 is currently before the New Hampshire Senate. If passed, it would repeal the crime of adultery. A recent Monitor editorial (“Repeal outdated state adultery law,” Feb. 18) encouraged passage of this bill. I disagree.

Adultery should remain a crime. The arguments against it should be unpersuasive. Taxpayers have the right to expect that those who have voluntarily stepped up and sworn to uphold the law will do so. The failure to enforce the law is to law enforcement’s discredit, not an argument to repeal the law.

Examine the law on its merits, not its enforcement. Don’t let the tail wag the dog. The government is already in consenting adults’ bedrooms, and rightly so. Our society doesn’t allow siblings to marry, or have sexual relations, consent or age of majority not withstanding. This type of behavior is repugnant to society’s idea of what a family is and is rightly considered criminal. Adultery is similarly repugnant and also ought to be criminal. Government intrusion in intimate relations should be very limited, but retaining the criminal penalties for adultery is on the proper side of the equation.

Marriage has non-controversial tax, inheritance, and criminal benefits (a spouse can’t be forced to testify in criminal proceedings) bestowed upon it by the government. It is right that conduct injurious to marriage be prohibited. Fellow citizens, please contact your state senators before April 17 and ask them to defeat this bill.

DANIEL J. HAMMOND

Nottingham

Short and sweet. Where should we draw the line in the Governments ability to legislate morality??? Im not sure where that line is. But my personal opinion is that the government trying to regulate adultery is over it!!!

Well, progressives claim the moral high ground in Obamacare and how everyone needs to "chip in" to cover others, so is that not the government legislating morality or at least their definition of morality or fairness?

I was not referring to the law itself, which for some reason I just never got around to reading, but to Itsa's research on women cheating. We might as well have a law forcing people to go to church on Sunday. It makes as much sense to mix religious tenets and secular laws.

Perhaps a little church going would be a good thing for you.

Talk about unenforceable laws! Time for this one to go.

Having only read to the "Overview" here at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery and having read none of the words in this House Bill # 1125 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/ of thank you Daniel for the number so as not to have to look it up by words like what most reporters make us do, what we're talking about, by survey is: " Three 1990s studies in the United States, using nationally representative samples, have found that about 10–15% of women and 20–25% of men admitted to having engaged in extramarital sex " of thus 1/10th and 1/5th respectfully. " The application of the term to the act appears to arise from the idea that "criminal intercourse with a married woman ... tended to adulterate the issue [children] of an innocent husband ... and to expose him to support and provide for another man's [children]".[6] Thus, the "purity" of the children of a marriage is corrupted, and the inheritance is altered. The law often uses the word "adulterate[d]" to describe contamination of food and the like ". Or in other words it is the crime of theft by the two consenting adults to a conspiracy against the innocent husband, AND in the case of the male conspirator of back to his wife of she with the possibility of receiving the death sentence from AIDS like what happened to Amanda Blake as Kitty of the TV western "Gunsmoke" fame as her husband having been contaminated did transfer the disease to her from which she died! Of thus he killed her! of it manslaughter as he did not KNOW of that such could happen, or was it murder? New Hampshire has an Article 5 Bill of Rights to practice one's religion, or lack thereof so long as "provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship. " of that should have read of another or others as not just limited to the plural?, or is the letter "s" on the word "other"(s) like that of the word "he" meaning a "she" too, right? Of per the Bible of a husband and wife as one entity of a married couple, of thus the others could refer to the family right? of these "sentiments, or persuasion"s " to de-criminalize it to compare with: " In most Western countries, adultery is no longer a criminal offense today. Nevertheless, even in jurisdictions where adultery is not a criminal offense, it may still have legal consequences, particularly in divorce cases. For example, where there is fault-based family law, it almost always constitutes grounds for divorce; depending on jurisdiction, it may be a factor to consider in a property settlement, the custody of children, the denial of alimony etc. " Of thus is N.H a "fault-based family law" state? ___ By the current criminal process no statutory filing fee as in a civil case by RSA Ch. 490:26-a,I + II(b) as charged but interpreted by the Supremes as "required" by a SHALL word interpretation "need" to be paid, but of thus now making the victim have to pay a civil court filing fee is wrong! If the Legislators do-away with this, they ought to also do-away with that un-constiututional RSA Ch. 490:26-a,I + II(b) too, of the latter the statutory $25 surcharge, as a violation of Article 14 that reads "free" with the letter "r", not with a fee!

Wait a minute, this is a joke right? "The government is already in consenting adults' bedrooms, and rightly so" This is the tip-off, right? But then when I read the rest of the letter, I am not so sure. This is kind of the logic of Republicans. Against big government, but want to tell people who to marry and control women's bodies. Maybe this is the way to balance our budget, fine people who commit adultery. And not just the woman, takes two to tango.

About that "tango": "A 2010 survey by the National Opinion Research Center found that women are 40 per cent more likely to cheat today than they were 20 years ago". "According to Dr David Holmes, a psychologist at Manchester Metropolitan University, women are having more affairs than ever - recent studies say the figure is around 20 per cent for men and a bit over 15 per cent for women - but they behave very differently from men when they cheat. 'The biggest difference is that women are much better at keeping their affairs secret,' he says. 'If you look at the studies into paternity, even conservative figures show that between eight and 15 per cent of children haven't been fathered by the man who thinks he's the biological parent.' ". And I don't care what a woman does with her body but that few minutes of bliss should not be charged to the taxpayer, take responsibility, live with your choices. Final thought, the government is already in our bedrooms and homes dictating what we should and should not do on our private property, etc. And if a woman has a right to choose and it is only between her and her doctor, why not allow men and women to choose their healthcare between themselves and their doctors without interfering.

Well, well, you have definitely researched the subject of women cheating. Adultery is cheating during marriage and unless these women are all cheating with single men, the men are committing adultery too. Unless you still believe in the Puritan ethic and just the woman needs to wear the giant A. You seem to talking out of both sides of your mouth, the government shouldn't pay for a woman's " few minutes of bliss" but they should have a law on the books saying she can't commit adultery. Seems it is all about the woman yet you guys can't seem to understand why Democrats say Republicans have a war on women.

The law has no double standard written into it. It reads: 645:3 Adultery. – A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, being a married person, he engages in sexual intercourse with another not his spouse or, being unmarried, engages in sexual intercourse with another known by him to be married. Source. 1971, 518:1. 1992, 269:19, eff. July 1, 1992. So if you are married and cheating you are committing adultery. If you are single and having relations with a married person (of the opposite sex) and you KNOW the person to be married, you are committing adultery. The punishment is a fine of up to $1200. So that's $2400 a pop in almost all cases. Interesting fund raiser, no? The state may even get some volunteers.

Well it speaks to the morality of people in general. The fact that they can face themselves after being a cheater reveals that they have no morals, ethics or scruples. More than likely a poor upbringing as well. I remember the non-chalant attitude of the woman who wrote "Baby I Can Wash My Car" a few years back. What folks don't realize is that what goes around, comes around. Once a cheater, always a cheater.

Don't forget about the law breakers who get divorces. Can't say that I know of a single case that one or the other wasn't getting sum on the side first. More than a few politicians on both sides come to mind as well.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.