DHC
02-21-2013, 13:52
In the 'Polyamory' thread in GD, I mentioned that Democratic Representatives Kagan and Steadman have re-introduced a bill to de-criminalize adultery and other laws that address 'promoting immorality.' Link here --> http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22636378/colorado-lawmaker-wants-decriminalize-adultery-other-morals-laws
Given the reported incidence of infidelity, this may meet with a divided audience here. If anyone has ever had a spouse cheat on them, chances are you will favor keeping the laws on the books. If, OTOH, you have stepped out on a spouse, you might be inclined to prefer that act NOT be a criminal one. I think the issue is a bigger one than the simple act of sex with a paramour. When examining the factors leading to kids becoming criminals and acting out with guns, there seems to be some agreement that family values, or lack of them, play a role and possibly even a leading role. What message does it send when a legislator steps up to remove one of the few remaining condemnations of an act known to be destructive to families?
At the Denver Post page carrying the article there are a number of comments - some rather insipid. They argue since marriage is a civil contract then rather than adultery being a criminal matter it should be settled as a civil matter. They must be unaware that Colorado, like all but about 7 states in the country, has adopted "heart balm" legislation making it impermissable to bring a civil action for "alienation of affection," "criminal conversation," or "intentional interference (adultery)" claims. Notably, our neighboring state, Utah, allows such claims and there are a large number of cases heard each year with many of them successful for the plaintiffs.
In a period when answers are sought as to WHY these mass shooters become crazed nutbags - and family dysfunction is at least a part of the reason - and adultery is recognized as destructive to families - does it make ANY sense to be considering passing legislation that removes existing laws that support the concept of an intact family?!? Worse, doesn't the act of removing those laws also send a message of tacit approval/encouragement of those acts?
My opinion is probably clear from the biased form of rhetorical questions. What do y'all think?
Given the reported incidence of infidelity, this may meet with a divided audience here. If anyone has ever had a spouse cheat on them, chances are you will favor keeping the laws on the books. If, OTOH, you have stepped out on a spouse, you might be inclined to prefer that act NOT be a criminal one. I think the issue is a bigger one than the simple act of sex with a paramour. When examining the factors leading to kids becoming criminals and acting out with guns, there seems to be some agreement that family values, or lack of them, play a role and possibly even a leading role. What message does it send when a legislator steps up to remove one of the few remaining condemnations of an act known to be destructive to families?
At the Denver Post page carrying the article there are a number of comments - some rather insipid. They argue since marriage is a civil contract then rather than adultery being a criminal matter it should be settled as a civil matter. They must be unaware that Colorado, like all but about 7 states in the country, has adopted "heart balm" legislation making it impermissable to bring a civil action for "alienation of affection," "criminal conversation," or "intentional interference (adultery)" claims. Notably, our neighboring state, Utah, allows such claims and there are a large number of cases heard each year with many of them successful for the plaintiffs.
In a period when answers are sought as to WHY these mass shooters become crazed nutbags - and family dysfunction is at least a part of the reason - and adultery is recognized as destructive to families - does it make ANY sense to be considering passing legislation that removes existing laws that support the concept of an intact family?!? Worse, doesn't the act of removing those laws also send a message of tacit approval/encouragement of those acts?
My opinion is probably clear from the biased form of rhetorical questions. What do y'all think?