SC Governor reappears...after going to Argentina?

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

Short version: Since Lawrence v Texas, in which the US Supreme Court struck down Texas's law criminalizing sodomy on the grounds that it violated constitutional privacy protections (ie, criminalizing acts of sexual intimacy between consenting adults), there has been speculation that a similar reasoning would invalidate laws criminalizing adultery. Civil laws of alienation of affection and divorce would presumably provide adequate recourse for the "non-offending" spouse without the need for the government to impose criminal punishment.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

i think that may be generally true, but this case is a little different, I think. Sanford basically set up the media response by going AWOL. It was a story before the adultery part came out -- though as has been said, many of us guessed that it was coming. I still think the AWOL aspect is still the real public story, although it's not a juicy.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Wow. Stereotype much?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Short version: Since Lawrence v Texas, in which the US Supreme Court struck down Texas's law criminalizing sodomy on the grounds that it violated constitutional privacy protections (ie, criminalizing acts of sexual intimacy between consenting adults), there has been speculation that a similar reasoning would invalidate laws criminalizing adultery. Civil laws of alienation of affection and divorce would presumably provide adequate recourse for the "non-offending" spouse without the need for the government to impose criminal punishment.

i think that may be generally true, but this case is a little different, I think. Sanford basically set up the media response by going AWOL. It was a story before the adultery part came out -- though as has been said, many of us guessed that it was coming. I still think the AWOL aspect is still the real public story, although it's not a juicy.

The issue seems different to me because of the assumptions involved in legal marriage. In Lawrence, you have only the issue of private sexual behavior. In adultery cases, you have behavior which, likely, violates a legal contract, depending on what we assume that marriage means.

(If adultery has long been a reason to file for divorce, it would seem to violate the idea of marriage. Even if the spouse engaging in the adultery consents, it would seem that the other spouse would have to as well for the issue to boil down to the same thing as Lawrence vs. Texas. )

[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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

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.

My guess would be because spouses are granted rights that non-spouses aren't. Similar rights don't apply to adulterers and adulteresses.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

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."

I did indeed. Thanks for catching that.

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.

As much as anything, it's a matter of resources. District Attorneys (or whatever they are called in SC) have too much on their plates as it is. They're not likely to use their resources prosecuting adultery cases if there is a reasonable likelihood that a conviction would fall as unconstitutional. Plus, if the governor is the only person whose been charged with adultery in as long as anyone can remember, if I were his lawyer I'd argue selective prosecution. DAs have enough to do with serious crimes without messing with it.

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.

But it does. What constitutes the crime of adultery is sexual intercourse with someone other than your own spouse or with the spouse of someone else. If the intercourse doesn't happen in South Carolina, then no South Carolina law has been broken. No state can criminalize something that happens outside that state's jurisdiction.

Bigamy would work similarly. If the first marriage was entered into in South Carolina, and the second one in Georgia, then it is Georgia where the crime of bigamy would have been committed. What happens in SC or elsewhere is simply that the second "marriage" is not recognized. That is unless the bigamist comes back to SC and holds himself out as married to spouse number two there. I'm not sure, but that might create a situation where SC would have jurisdiction.

[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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

Is she really standing there? I didn't know that. One article I read said that she had asked him to leave and stop speaking to her two weeks ago. I got the impression that she was politely telling him to kick rocks.