SC Governor reappears...after going to Argentina?

[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. )

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

With respect to my statement about his wife, my statement was not intended to imply that she may not be hurt or that she isn't affected by the problems in her marriage. My point was that I couldn't likely see her being interested in suing his mistress.

Fair enough, I'd buy that.

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.

Exactly what I was referring to in my previous posts about Constitutionality, and probably shorter than what I would have posted. Thank you.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

How would it violate the legal contract of marriage, though?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

How would it violate the legal contract of marriage, though?

Isn't adultery still grounds for divorce in most states, or have we gone entirely no-fault in how we award divorces?

Sexual fidelity, it would seem to me, to be a default part of what you were agreeing to when you got married.

Marriage is weird when you start to think about it. What does it really mean these days other than receiving the state's blessing on your union, compelling your employer to offer whatever benefits it might offer, and filing taxes together?

How romantic.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

True, but I can't think of any other instance where breach (violation) of a contract is a criminal offense.

That's sort of where the rubber would hit the road: What is the state's legitimate interest in criminalizing conduct that otherwise may be protected by constitutional privacy rights? If a contract analysis is being applied, it is the non-breaching party who has the legitimate interest in seeking redress for the breach, not the government.

As for adultery vs. no-fault, in some states, you can't get alimony under no-fault. Adultery or some other fault will have to be shown if you're looking for anything beyond division of property or child support.

[UGAalum94]

Thanks for your answers, guys!