It’s hard to know whom to root for here
Kasia October 29th, 2007
FYI, State of Mississippi and wronged ex-husband: women aren’t property. ‘Nuff said.
FYI, Mr. and Mrs. “We didn’t do anything wrong”: you don’t exactly have the moral high ground here. And complaining about how the publicity is adversely affecting your children is pretty weak, seeing as you’re the ones appealing. Man up, for lack of a better term, and accept the consequences of your actions. If you think the law is unjust, then fine. Appeal. It’s your right. But then don’t complain about the publicity.
I think it’s a gross misrepresentation of the law to say that it stems from a time when women were considered property. Rather, it stems from a time when legal contracts were considered binding. The marriage contract is a contract and our courts should (and used to) work to punish those who do not fulfill their end of the bargain, which, clearly, this woman did.
Besides, if couples can sue for “lack of service” when someone’s negligence results in an injury that messes up their sex life, then a spouse should be able to sue someone for stealing his/her spouse.
I say, Go Mr. Plumber!
Adultery is a pet peeve of mine. If you really hate your husband, get a divorce and then find another sugar daddy. It’s much more honorable than sticking with a guy until something better comes along.
Hi Michelle,
I share your disdain for adultery. And I see your points. But…
1) I don’t think one SHOULD be able to sue for “lack of service” – sexual intimacy is not and should not be a contractual obligation.
2) Yes, the marriage contract is a contract. But building off of Point 1, it is not merely a contract, and shouldn’t be reduced to one IMHO. Otherwise the twerps who call marriage “legalized prostitution” are on to something. It’s more than just sexual service and a joint checking account.
I know you know that, but that sort of idea seems to me to undergird this sort of law.