SC Governor reappears...after going to Argentina?

[JonoBN41]

Isn't adultery a crime?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Isn't adultery a crime?

Yes, in South Carolina, although one would have a perfectly reasonable argument that a law against adultery is unconstitutional.

ETA: Cite to SC law: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Yes, in South Carolina, although one would have a perfectly reasonable argument that a law against adultery is unconstitutional.

I didn't think the laws against adultery are still upheld aside from adultery being cause for divorce.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I didn't think the laws against adultery are still upheld aside from adultery being cause for divorce.

I think at this point it's generally seen as a waste of time and resources to bring criminal charges against someone or prosecute them for adultery.

From the legislature's point of view, I could see where it would be a bad PR move to repeal a law against adultery (although that's what's probably been done in most states). On the other hand, if someone were to actually get convicted for it, I could also see the courts declaring the law unconstitutional.

I remember there being talk about it in NY during the Spitzer thing. I don't know if NY still has the law on the books.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Yes, in South Carolina, although one would have a perfectly reasonable argument that a law against adultery is unconstitutional.

ETA: Cite to SC law: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm

Please correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm at the world's slowest computer & research on it is a luxury), but wasn't there a case in South Carolina in the past ten years where a wife sued her husband's mistress for adultery? I'm fairly certain it was in SC or NC, and the wife won.

Frankly, I was expecting some sort of drug revelation, rather than a relationship.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm at the world's slowest computer & research on it is a luxury), but wasn't there a case in South Carolina in the past ten years where a wife sued her husband's mistress for adultery? I'm fairly certain it was in SC or NC, and the wife won.

Frankly, I was expecting some sort of drug revelation, rather than a relationship.

I'm not sure, it's a possibility and doesn't sound completely far-fetched. It would be a different issue than the SC criminal code provision (probably based on something like intentional infliction of emotional distress), but I'd bet that suits like that happen all over the country.

ETA: Kevin's the resident family law expert, though, so he would know more about this than I would.

[DaemonSeid]

Bing search result...click here and then take your pick

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Yes, in South Carolina, although one would have a perfectly reasonable argument that a law against adultery is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

The law is the law.

And the Constitution is the superior law. As KSigKid says, there is a very good chance that any state statute making adultery unconstitutional would not pass federal constitutional muster.

Besides, if I've got it all straight, the actual acts of adultery occured in Argentina, not in South Carolina, so any SC law would be irrelevant.

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm at the world's slowest computer & research on it is a luxury), but wasn't there a case in South Carolina in the past ten years where a wife sued her husband's mistress for adultery?

It was in NC, but it was for alienation of affection, not adultery.

[UGAalum94]

I can't remember ever thinking about this before, but why would adultery being illegal be unconstitutional?

I can understand how investigations of adultery could be but not the statute itself. Marriage has traditionally involved assumptions of fidelity. Marriage is a legal issue. . .

Are crimes for which there's likely to be uneven enforcement all suspect constitutionally?

FYI: I'm not emotionally invested in adultery being a crime; I'm just curious about it.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And the Constitution is the superior law. As KSigKid says, there is a very good chance that any state statute making adultery unconstitutional would not pass federal constitutional muster.

Besides, if I've got it all straight, the actual acts of adultery occured in Argentina, not in South Carolina, so any SC law would be irrelevant.

This sums up the points I was concerned about quite well, although I think MysticCat meant to say, "making adultery illegal would not pass federal constitutional muster." Maybe it would; maybe it wouldn't. I still don't understand how the prospect that a law might be unconstitutional can be a reason for non-enforcement. In other words, it's still the law until stricken from the books. Right? A constitutional challenge would come later.

On the other point, why would it matter where the adultery took place? Sanford and his wife are residents of South Carolina and fall under SC law. If he married his mistress, would he not be guilty of bigamy? Would it be perfectly fine for him to have wives in Argentina, Georgia, North Carolina, etc., just as long as he doesn't have two wives in SC? I think not. By the same token, it shouldn't matter where the adultery took place.

In fact, it seems to me that bigamy is just as questionable constitutionally as adultery, and yet the government goes after bigamy with a vengeance while waving off adultery as not even worthy of consideration. I'm just wondering why.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm at the world's slowest computer & research on it is a luxury), but wasn't there a case in South Carolina in the past ten years where a wife sued her husband's mistress for adultery? I'm fairly certain it was in SC or NC, and the wife won.

Frankly, I was expecting some sort of drug revelation, rather than a relationship.

Some states do allow a wife to sue the woman that has an affair with her husband. I believe NC still has such a law. I'm not sure about SC.

Even if SC has such a law, I suspect his wife probably would have no interest in suing this woman. Women like the First Lady of SC are satisfied as long as they have their money, power, prestige, and children. There would be no real justice (or point) in suing the mistress.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Women like the First Lady of SC are satisfied as long as they have their money, power, prestige, and children.

That's a weighty assumption.

She probably won't sue the other woman because it would be more trouble than it's worth. That may be more about torturing her children than being "satisfied" with money, power, prestige, and children.

Besides, there are tons of women who do not have money, power, and prestige but hold onto loser men.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That's a weighty assumption.

She probably won't sue the other woman because it would be more trouble than it's worth. That may be more about torturing her children than being "satisfied" with money, power, prestige, and children.

Besides, there are tons of women who do not have money, power, and prestige but hold onto loser men.

I understand how it would APPEAR that it is a weighty assumption, but the truth of the matter is that many women in her position feel that way. The Kennedy wives are prime examples of women who had this mentality, especially Jacqueline. She often told women in similar positions the same thing.

But you are right...it would be more trouble than it is worth and her kids don't need to deal with that.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

But you are right...it would be more trouble than it is worth and her kids don't need to deal with that.

Right.

Everything else is a weighty assumption that can't be proven. Some would consider his wife a hero for standing strong. Others (like myself) would consider his wife an idiot for standing there. But, none of us know what's going on in their household.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

For some reason I just think everyone is really overreacting. I saw some interviews the media did with constituents who were saying that he left them "unattended."

I feel like others who have said the man is entitled to vacation time. And I don't believe for one minute that no one knew where he was. I think key members of his staff and his wife knew exactly where he was. I just think they didn't feel the need to tell the media and understandably so...

I agree on some level, in that I don't know that a person's faithfulness to their spouse has much bearing on their ability to govern. If your statement is accurate, that his higher-level staff knew where he was at all times and could get in touch with him at all times, then I think the story changes a little (at least with respect to his continuing fitness to be governor). However, I would think that his staff would have made that all perfectly clear when the story broke; unless they REALLY hate the guy, they would have told the media anything to make him look better to the media and general public.

I will say though that anyone who is a leader of an area, with that level of responsbility, needs to be easily contacted at a moment's notice. There could very well have been some sort of crisis, whether it be man-made or natural, and in those situations the Governor would be expected to step in and make decisions (regardless of any Constitutionally or legally-provided transfer of power to the Lt. Gov.). It's not the same level of responsibility as, say, the President, but it's high enough up and important enough that big decisions could arise at a moment's notice.

As for the media response - I think it's just a symptom of the over-sensationalization (if that's a word, which it probably isn't) of these types of events. Sanford is a prominent politician with some national following, and it's an easy way for the media to pick up readers/viewers/listeners/etc.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Even if SC has such a law, I suspect his wife probably would have no interest in suing this woman. Women like the First Lady of SC are satisfied as long as they have their money, power, prestige, and children. There would be no real justice (or point) in suing the mistress.

I'd disagree, in that the position of a person within society doesn't necessarily mean that they are more or less affected by problems in their marriage. Whatever personality she project publically, this could very well have devastated her. I think it's tough to assume that anyone would be "satisfied" if their spouse was cheating on them, especially if the cheating became widely-known.