January 15, 2007
BY BRIAN DICKERSON
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.
"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
Appears just another case where the state legislature passed a bill (probably written by someone on a cause) without reading or understanding it. It shocking the number of time legislators will vote on a bill without reading it, instead their vote is based on a quick summary or that someone asked them to vote one or another.
Futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2613 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2254 times:
So if two consenting adults choose to have sex, they can be put away for life simply because one or both are married? Well f*ck me, and here we were thinking allowing homosexual marriages would "destroy the sanctity of marriage." This is just dumb.
Jamotcx From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2218 times:
Hmm interesting law. And to be honest with you I feel a good law. I've known few people where the other half has cheated. As far as I'm concerned the cheater deserves to be punished. At least end the marriage or relationship before having sex with someone else.
KaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12306 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1998 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
While we're on the topic of adultery. Minnesota has kind of a screwy law:
Subdivision 1. Acts constituting. When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man
other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery and may be sentenced to
imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
Subd. 2. Limitations. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section except on
complaint of the husband or the wife, except when such husband or wife is insane, nor after
one year from the commission of the offense.
Subd. 3. Defense. It is a defense to violation of this section if the marital status of the woman
was not known to the defendant at the time of the act of adultery.
So basically, a married woman can only have sex with her husband. A married man though, can have sex with any woman, as long as she is not married
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
CastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1950 times:
Here's a good quote:
'Cox's spokesman, Rusty Hills, bristled at the suggestion that Cox or anyone else in his circumstances could face prosecution.
"To even ask about this borders on the nutty," Hills told me in a phone interview Saturday. "Nobody connects the attorney general with this -- N-O-B-O-D-Y -- and anybody who thinks otherwise is hallucinogenic."'
I didn't realize that some people are actually drugs capable of producing hallucinations.
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4345 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1939 times:
Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 17): I didn't realize that some people are actually drugs capable of producing hallucinations.
I don't know which is worse, that you're enough of a geek to catch that misuse of the word, or that I'm geeky enough to think it was funny?
Before people get too wound up about the US and its puritanical sexual mores, as AirCop pointed out, this is probably more of a case of unintended consequences than it is to legislate adultery. Lets be honest now, adultery is all but accepted in the world of politics these days. Long gone are the days of Gary Hart and the Monkey Business.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
Bushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 15): So basically, a married woman can only have sex with her husband. A married man though, can have sex with any woman, as long as she is not married
A case of institutionalized sexism there. Sad this happens still. I cant believe that one hasnt been changed around.
Quoting Searpqx (Reply 18): this is probably more of a case of unintended consequences than it is to legislate adultery.
This is more or less correct. Laws are written, and voted on, and often times not read thoroughly by those voting on it. A word here, a comma there and the meaning is skewed. I have the feeling this will be re-written ASAP.
Molykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1343 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1823 times:
I'm not advocating life in prison for this offense, but....
...following the link below I could certainly see some form of compensation being owed toward a betrayed spouse by both the cheating spouse and/or his/her other "partner".
Although the context (employment) of the link below is certainly different than that of marraige, this link does detail specific "emotional distress" criteria and the compensation that has been received for each. I'd have to imagine that an adultery victim could make a legitimate claim (by "emotional distress" standards) for many of these items.