|
Do any states still have laws against adultery?
If so, I could look at what they say, especially if I knew the state.
If no states do anymore, what I really want to know is what the laws
against adultery used to prohibit. For example, if one party was
married and the other single, was the single person breaking the law
also? If so, was the penalty as great?
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
|
| |
| |
mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Do any states still have laws against adultery?
If so, I could look at what they say, especially if I knew the state.
If no states do anymore, what I really want to know is what the laws
against adultery used to prohibit. For example, if one party was
married and the other single, was the single person breaking the law
also? If so, was the penalty as great?
If you go to a good law library you can find annotates statutes from
all the states. In those volumes you will find not only the current
statutes, but their histories and former statutes as well.
Stu
|
| |
| |
[OP, mm, asks: "Do any states still have laws against adultery?"]
Sure. As we beat to death earlier this year, here's the Michigan
statute:
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-29
Careful - if Judge Murphy is right, then with certain extenuating
circumstances you could get put away for life. (I cannot help but
question whether the Legislature actually intended such a draconian
penalty, but is the neighbor's spouse really worth the risk?)
--
I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.
East Dakota isn't so harsh as Michigan. On the other hand, Meana would
kill me.
|
| |
| |
In article <8n5td3to6hftluaale45m1ir67gjtq7dns@4ax.com>, mm wrote:
Do any states still have laws against adultery?
Massachusetts:
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/sex.html#adultery
--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:24:25 -0400, Meano.Culpa@yahoo.com wrote:
[OP, mm, asks: "Do any states still have laws against adultery?"]
Sure. As we beat to death earlier this year, here's the Michigan
statute:
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-29
Thanks a lot. =20
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
750.29 Adultery; definition.
Definition=97Adultery is the sexual intercourse of 2 persons, either of
whom is married to a third person.
750.30 Adultery; punishment..
Punishment=97Any person who shall commit adultery shall be guilty of a
felony; and when the crime is committed between a married woman and a
man who is unmarried, the man shall be guilty of adultery, and liable
to the same punishment.
=3D=3D=3D=3D> I'm confused. Doesn't the first clause already imply the
second? Doesn't "Any person" imply "the man" even if he is single?
What about "the woman" if she is single? They don't itemize that
case, so does it mean something that they don't mention it? =20
Aren't all the cases covered by the definition, which says nothing
about which is married, or the marital status of the other?
It refers to punishment and says it's a felony, but I haven't found
what the punishment is. Is that just covered in a general rule of
punishment for felonies?
750.31 Adultery; complaint and time of prosecution.
Complainant and time prosecution to be commenced=97No prosecution for
adultery, under the preceding section, shall be commenced, but on the
complaint of the husband or wife; and no such prosecution shall be
commenced after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.
=3D=3D=3D> This seems reasonable.
750.32 Adultery; cohabitation of divorced parties.
Cohabitation by divorced parties=97If any persons after being divorced
from the bonds of matrimony for any cause whatever, shall cohabit
together, they shall be liable to all the penalties provided by law
against adultery.
=3D=3D=3D=3D> Wow. So iiuc this means that even if one is divorced, it'=
sstill adultery if he or she lives with somone, even if the other has
never been married??? So is this straight from some branches of
Christianity, that one can't actually get a divorce? Even there,
there is an exception for adultery. (prior adultery making divorce
possible)
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:24:25 -0400, Meano.Culpa@yahoo.com wrote:
Sure. As we beat to death earlier this year, here's the Michigan
statute:
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-29
I looked at the thread from about January 23, and found this tentative
conclusion about Michigan law from Mike:
The way they make it look is like:
Married man, married woman: both guilty.
Married man, unmarried woman: only the man is guilty.
Unmarried man, married woman: both guilty.
I'm wondering if this was an attempt by the legislature to combine
Jewish and Christian law. AIUI, the set of three rules above is the
mathematical union of the two sets of prohibitions.
In Christianity, aiui, if a man or woman is married and has sex with
someone else, it's adultery for the married person but not for the
other one if the other one is single. This conforms to rules 1 and 2
above.
In Judaism, A) if a married woman has sex with another man than her
husband, it is adultery for her and for him. Equally, with the same
punishment possible**. This conforms to rule 3 above.
So these two religions together might be the reason for the 3 rules
listed (if those are in fact what the Michigan legislature meant, in
iirc 1931.)
B) OT, maybe. Although there are various rules** against premarital
sex, and other extra-marital sex by men, it's not Biblical adultery if
a married man has sex with a single woman. It's not one of the laws
that a person has to give up his life rather than commit. **Polygamy
is permitted, and concubines (the rules of which I don't know) but the
Torah and everything since then only show one or the other practiced
by Abraham and Jacob (before the Law was given at Sinai) and by some
kings and maybe some other verrry important men. (It was outlawed for
Ashkenazim a little over 1000 years ago, and outlawed in the state of
Israel, except for immigrant families which already included more than
one wife, mostly from Yemen iirc. AFAIK, there are no new such
families arriving for 40 years or more.)
**The punishment is possible only if they were warned and did it
anyhow; if there were two kosher witnesses (not sure how much they
have to witness); only punished after a trial where only direct
evidence is admissable and where any witness for the prosecution found
to have been lying is liable for the same punishment the original
defendants could have been liable for. And other rules of due process
that apply to all, especially all criminal trials.
P&M
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
|
| |
| |
mm wrote:
750.32 Adultery; cohabitation of divorced parties.
Cohabitation by divorced parties=97If any persons after being divorced
from the bonds of matrimony for any cause whatever, shall cohabit
together, they shall be liable to all the penalties provided by law
against adultery.
=3D=3D=3D=3D> Wow. So iiuc this means that even if one is divorced, it'=
s
still adultery if he or she lives with somone, even if the other has
never been married??? So is this straight from some branches of
Christianity, that one can't actually get a divorce? Even there,
there is an exception for adultery. (prior adultery making divorce
possible)
I read that one as saying "If Jane and John are married and then
divorced and then these TWO live together after the divorce, they're
committing adultery, even if neither has remarried." Basically a way of
preventing people from divorcing and then living together so they can
get tax breaks, welfare, etc. that might only be available to a "single"
person and not a married one.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:30:01 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
mm wrote:
I read that one as saying "If Jane and John are married and then
divorced and then these TWO live together after the divorce, they're
P&M
Wow. I didn't get that at all, but you are clearly right, now that I
reread it. Thank you.
committing adultery, even if neither has remarried." Basically a way of
preventing people from divorcing and then living together so they can
get tax breaks, welfare, etc. that might only be available to a "single"
person and not a married one.
Preventing this kind of fraud is a worthy goal, but I have big doubts
about making the crime involved adultery. There is lots of cheating
involving tax breaks, welfare, etc. where only one person is involved.
They legislate against that directly. They don't call it illegal
self-pollution.
And what about people who continue to live together after they
divorce, because they are in the process of reconciling, or because
neither can afford to move out, and then they miss each other, for two
possible reasons, when they aren't cheating on taxes or welfare or
anything. Now they are labelled adulterers, when neither has a spouse
to cheat on and iiuc by Catholic standards they're still married and
not doing anything wrong.
I think it is an insulting label and an invitation for abuse by police
and/or prosecutors for reasons we can and can't foresee.
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
|
| |
| |
|
