have sex go to prison

[ScreamingEagle]

jillian: obviously being a divorce lawyer, you have summed things up quite well as to how the courts treat adultery today, meaning they basically ignore it. However, I don't see bringing in the issue of adultery as necessarily being a "vengence" thing. Instead, it is proof that the cheating spouse has spurned the marriage and one-sidedly broken the marriage "contract". It also is indicative of bad character which must have some impact upon the children and their welfare.

Dr Grump: no, I am not saying a marriage should continue if it is not working and is detrimental to the kids. However, when adultery occurs, the sham marriage is still left in place and nothing is being done to resolve the problems one way or another. The cheating spouse is running from his/her responsibilities and his/her promises and marriage "contract" and hurting others in the process, including the kids. Instead of cheating and making matters worse, they should either file for divorce or seek counseling.



Has anyone watched the TV show "Cheaters" ? Seems to me that the cheaters are mostly people who don't show too much concern for the pain they cause others. They lie to their spouses and go behind their backs. Obviously their selfish wants come first. They keep their spouses suffering in a suspicious limbo. I'm sure if any children are in the picture, that the children are suffering too. Kids always can sense when something is wrong. The cheater is stealing time and affection and money from the family. What is really telling is when these cheaters are caught, they typically show no remorse. I'm sure that if they could have still gotten away with it, they would have continued with their adulterous behavior.

Why should adultery be treated as "nothing" in a divorce settlement? The cheater has broken the marriage "contract". He/she is causing pain and suffering to the family. He/she is demonstrating a lack of character. He/she is stealing time and money from the family. He/she is not attempting to resolve the problems via other methods (up to and including divorce). Why should the cheating spouse be treated in court as an "equal" when dividing up the property and the kids? Why should cheating not be considered a crime of sorts? Seems to me that people have sued for less and won large settlements for their "pain and suffering". The cheater is causing all sorts of "pain and suffering" that could have been avoided.

Looking at this from a greater societal viewpoint, if courts went back to the days where adultery was treated as a crime, the message would be sent to the public that people need to work out their problems, not run from them. This could prove to save many marriages and many families from much suffering. Divorce can still be an option if things don't work out but adultery does nothing but escalate the problems, sometimes to the point of murder. IMO it is time that, as a society, we stop treating divorce as lightly as we do.

 

[jillian]

jillian: obviously being a divorce lawyer, you have summed things up quite well as to how the courts treat adultery today, meaning they basically ignore it. However, I don't see bringing in the issue of adultery as necessarily being a "vengence" thing. Instead, it is proof that the cheating spouse has spurned the marriage and one-sidedly broken the marriage "contract". It also is indicative of bad character which must have some impact upon the children and their welfare.

Let me clarify something. I don't do divorce work any more. Got a nice job (in law) that lets me see my kid some. (something that doesn't always happen when matrimonial clients are calling at 8 in the morning or 10 at night or on weekends, yadda, yadda).

Cheating isn't necessarily indicative of bad character... just of a relationship that isn't meeting the needs of the parties. Stuff happens.

Dr Grump: no, I am not saying a marriage should continue if it is not working and is detrimental to the kids. However, when adultery occurs, the sham marriage is still left in place and nothing is being done to resolve the problems one way or another. The cheating spouse is running from his/her responsibilities and his/her promises and marriage "contract" and hurting others in the process, including the kids. Instead of cheating and making matters worse, they should either file for divorce or seek counseling.

Interestingly, I don't *necessarily* disagree with you. But truth is there are some issues in relationships which can't be resolved and choosing to divorce someone is a very difficult decision. For example, look at the financial hardship your friend is going through. Look at the loss of his being able to live with his child. Sometimes people cheat so that they aren't broke and don't lose their kids yet are still able to have a modicum of happiness in their lives. And you know what, I don't judge people for that. Happens all the time.

Has anyone watched the TV show "Cheaters" ? Seems to me that the cheaters are mostly people who don't show too much concern for the pain they cause others. They lie to their spouses and go behind their backs. Obviously their selfish wants come first. They keep their spouses suffering in a suspicious limbo. I'm sure if any children are in the picture, that the children are suffering too. Kids always can sense when something is wrong. The cheater is stealing time and affection and money from the family. What is really telling is when these cheaters are caught, they typically show no remorse. I'm sure that if they could have still gotten away with it, they would have continued with their adulterous behavior.

The people they focus on in Cheaters are the lowest of the low... .total trash. Like any other reality show, they pick the most extreme examples because it gets people watching and talking.

Why should adultery be treated as "nothing" in a divorce settlement? The cheater has broken the marriage "contract". He/she is causing pain and suffering to the family. He/she is demonstrating a lack of character. He/she is stealing time and money from the family. He/she is not attempting to resolve the problems via other methods (up to and including divorce). Why should the cheating spouse be treated in court as an "equal" when dividing up the property and the kids? Why should cheating not be considered a crime of sorts? Seems to me that people have sued for less and won large settlements for their "pain and suffering". The cheater is causing all sorts of "pain and suffering" that could have been avoided.

Looking at this from a greater societal viewpoint, if courts went back to the days where adultery was treated as a crime, the message would be sent to the public that people need to work out their problems, not run from them. This could prove to save many marriages and many families from much suffering. Divorce can still be an option if things don't work out but adultery does nothing but escalate the problems, sometimes to the point of murder. IMO it is time that, as a society, we stop treating divorce as lightly as we do.

First, I think in terms of an overall societal viewpoint, the law is correct in focusing on the well-being of the children as opposed to sticking it to an adulterous parent. I know you talk about a time when adultery was illegal, but, personally, I think that's pretty bizarre... not your talking about it, the fact that it was the case. I think attitudes are much healthier now in terms of making sure the kids have continuity and their lives are rocked at little as possible.

Besides, go look at your bible... even the patriarchs didn't always exercise restraint, did they? Was Abraham punished for Hagar?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Let me clarify something. I don't do divorce work any more. Got a nice job (in law) that lets me see my kid some. (something that doesn't always happen when matrimonial clients are calling at 8 in the morning or 10 at night or on weekends, yadda, yadda).

That's good for you. Divorce cases must be a real pain. I'm sure they are very painful for the matrimonial clients. That is why I believe we as a society should attempt to discourage easy divorce.

Cheating isn't necessarily indicative of bad character... just of a relationship that isn't meeting the needs of the parties. Stuff happens.

Oh, really? Cheating is OK in your book? Just because someone's "needs" aren't being met or because "stuff happens"? Those sound like just excuses to me.

Interestingly, I don't *necessarily* disagree with you. But truth is there are some issues in relationships which can't be resolved and choosing to divorce someone is a very difficult decision. For example, look at the financial hardship your friend is going through. Look at the loss of his being able to live with his child. Sometimes people cheat so that they aren't broke and don't lose their kids yet are still able to have a modicum of happiness in their lives. And you know what, I don't judge people for that. Happens all the time.

You make a good point. Men will cheat because if they get a divorce from a non-working marriage they will lose their children and their paychecks. Does this perhaps indicate the system is biased against them?

The people they focus on in Cheaters are the lowest of the low... .total trash. Like any other reality show, they pick the most extreme examples because it gets people watching and talking.

That's quite an elitist statement. Why are these people "total trash" in your mind and not others who also cheat? Although some people would not act out in public like these "trashy" people do when confronting their cheating spouses, that does not mean it doesn't happen behind closed doors. And just because some people may be too "sophisticated" to allow themselves on such a TV show, that does not mean their cheating isn't any less "trashy".

First, I think in terms of an overall societal viewpoint, the law is correct in focusing on the well-being of the children as opposed to sticking it to an adulterous parent. I know you talk about a time when adultery was illegal, but, personally, I think that's pretty bizarre... not your talking about it, the fact that it was the case. I think attitudes are much healthier now in terms of making sure the kids have continuity and their lives are rocked at little as possible.

But isn't the adulterous parent the one who is usually at fault for essentially destroying the marriage contract and the family bonds which are so important to a child's well being? How would placing a child with the adulterous, lying, cheating parent be a form of well-being? If the wife was the cheater, why should she get the children? Seems to me she's demonstrated a definite lack of character that would most likely have an adverse effect upon the children.

Besides, go look at your bible... even the patriarchs didn't always exercise restraint, did they? Was Abraham punished for Hagar?

Perhaps this may help answer your question about Abraham: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb34.htm

 

[jillian]

That's good for you. Divorce cases must be a real pain. I'm sure they are very painful for the matrimonial clients. That is why I believe we as a society should attempt to discourage easy divorce.

It is way way better. Thanks. Matrimonial clients are in a lot of pain and at their worst. They're angry, sad, scared about their financial future, etc. And rightfully so. It's just very intense work. See... I have the opposite view as you do, though. Where you think these problems are solved by making divorce harder, I think it's better for all concerned if divorce is easier. If divorce is "no-fault" or based on "irreconcileable differences", then people don't have to say terrible things about each other to get out of the marriage. They can just make practical decisions about their future since ultimately that's what it's going to come down to anyway. Besides, why would you, if you were a judge, want to keep someone in a marriage that he/she is clearly unhappy with? That's not our job as a society, at least not in my estimation.

Oh, really? Cheating is OK in your book? Just because someone's "needs" aren't being met or because "stuff happens"? Those sound like just excuses to me.

It's not that I think it's ok. It's that I think it isn't our place to interfere in people's lives or mess up their kids in order to "punish" someone. And, ultimately, that's what you're talking about.

You make a good point. Men will cheat because if they get a divorce from a non-working marriage they will lose their children and their paychecks. Does this perhaps indicate the system is biased against them?

Not really... the same thing could happen to a woman with a husband who hasn't been a good provider and who's sat around being a bum but has been the primary caregiver to the kids.

That's quite an elitist statement. Why are these people "total trash" in your mind and not others who also cheat? Although some people would not act out in public like these "trashy" people do when confronting their cheating spouses, that does not mean it doesn't happen behind closed doors. And just because some people may be too "sophisticated" to allow themselves on such a TV show, that does not mean their cheating isn't any less "trashy".

Elitest? No. I think it's trashy to air one's dirty laundry on television.

But isn't the adulterous parent the one who is usually at fault for essentially destroying the marriage contract and the family bonds which are so important to a child's well being? How would placing a child with the adulterous, lying, cheating parent be a form of well-being? If the wife was the cheater, why should she get the children? Seems to me she's demonstrated a definite lack of character that would most likely have an adverse effect upon the children.

Again... we've been over this. If the kids are unaware that either their father or mother has cheated, and haven't been exposed to their sexual activity, then there IS no adverse affect on the kids. Ultimately, all studies show that kids do fine after a divorce if the parents can work together after for their benefit. You think one parent being held up to ridicule, judgement, scrutiny and attack by the other in Court (not to mention the absolutely bankrupting effect of a long, drawn-out litigation) is going to enable them to work together? Sorry... you still want judgment and retribution. That's not the place of our court system. It just isn't.

Perhaps this may help answer your question about Abraham: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb34.htm

I appreciate the link, but sorry... you know I have no belief in Christianity, so that type of analysis, while interesting to me, isn't very compelling. The fact of the matter is that the patriarchs were often a bunch of wilful, bawdy, sexual folk. And that included "cheating" at times. My example of Abraham and Hagar was a pretty good one I think.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It is way way better. Thanks. Matrimonial clients are in a lot of pain and at their worst. They're angry, sad, scared about their financial future, etc. And rightfully so. It's just very intense work. See... I have the opposite view as you do, though. Where you think these problems are solved by making divorce harder, I think it's better for all concerned if divorce is easier. If divorce is "no-fault" or based on "irreconcileable differences", then people don't have to say terrible things about each other to get out of the marriage. They can just make practical decisions about their future since ultimately that's what it's going to come down to anyway. Besides, why would you, if you were a judge, want to keep someone in a marriage that he/she is clearly unhappy with? That's not our job as a society, at least not in my estimation.

If divorce is "no fault" (as it has become these days) people may not have to say terrible things about each other but they can basically just abandon their families at will. Easy divorce has just become a form of legalized abandonment. Do you think it is the job of society to encourage that?

It's not that I think it's ok. It's that I think it isn't our place to interfere in people's lives or mess up their kids in order to "punish" someone. And, ultimately, that's what you're talking about.

Well, if you don't think cheating is OK, then why encourage its existence by allowing for easy divorce and not addressing it in court? Why not punish the cheater for breaking up a marriage? Breaking other legal contracts have consequences, why not breaking a marriage contract? That should be a helpful deterrent that would make people work harder on improving the marriage. Marriage is more than just the "feelings" between two people.

Again... we've been over this. If the kids are unaware that either their father or mother has cheated, and haven't been exposed to their sexual activity, then there IS no adverse affect on the kids. Ultimately, all studies show that kids do fine after a divorce if the parents can work together after for their benefit. You think one parent being held up to ridicule, judgement, scrutiny and attack by the other in Court (not to mention the absolutely bankrupting effect of a long, drawn-out litigation) is going to enable them to work together? Sorry... you still want judgment and retribution. That's not the place of our court system. It just isn't.

That is quite a pollyanna attitude you got there. If a marriage breaks up due to cheating you think parents can easily "work together"? Sure, many may try and put on a happy face for the sake of the children, but in reality we all know it falls short of the ideal. Like here's one simple example how it works negatively on children: Dad picks up the kids for the weekend with his new girlfriend in tow…this not only angers Mom which the kids of course pick up on but it also confuses them and also teaches them that unmarried sex is acceptable.

Divorce has many negative affects on children:

a lack of role models
a longer adolescence
less chance at college
difficult stepfamily situations
greater substance abuse
less social competence
broken relationships
unstable homes
at-risk children
domestic violence
poverty

Why NOT have a little judgement and retribution in the courts re adultery? Why not make it harder to get a divorce? Why not make them go through marital counseling first? We need to encourage marriage, to make it a valuable goal. So many people hit a rocky patch and quickly fall apart instead of sticking it out. Easy "no fault" divorce just paves the way for creating more problems for children and for society as well.

Society eventually winds up paying for it in the long run. As our family structure disintegrates, women and children are the ones who wind up suffering the most. The government winds up having to step in. Libertarians (if you are one) should pay heed to this as your "freedom" is at risk. Liberals don't think marriage is needed as a foundation for society. They are fine with the death of marriage and they believe the State should step in to manage children and families.

I know you don't particularly like Christians (what is your belief?) but Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Scotland has got it right: “Sadly, we live at a time when the truth of marriage and family is obscured and distorted,” he said. “Human societies throughout history and across cultures have flourished only when they have built their human relationships on the rock of marriage."

 

[jillian]

If divorce is "no fault" (as it has become these days) people may not have to say terrible things about each other but they can basically just abandon their families at will. Easy divorce has just become a form of legalized abandonment. Do you think it is the job of society to encourage that?

Well, if you don't think cheating is OK, then why encourage its existence by allowing for easy divorce and not addressing it in court? Why not punish the cheater for breaking up a marriage? Breaking other legal contracts have consequences, why not breaking a marriage contract? That should be a helpful deterrent that would make people work harder on improving the marriage. Marriage is more than just the "feelings" between two people.



That is quite a pollyanna attitude you got there. If a marriage breaks up due to cheating you think parents can easily "work together"? Sure, many may try and put on a happy face for the sake of the children, but in reality we all know it falls short of the ideal. Like here's one simple example how it works negatively on children: Dad picks up the kids for the weekend with his new girlfriend in tow…this not only angers Mom which the kids of course pick up on but it also confuses them and also teaches them that unmarried sex is acceptable.

Divorce has many negative affects on children:

a lack of role models
a longer adolescence
less chance at college
difficult stepfamily situations
greater substance abuse
less social competence
broken relationships
unstable homes
at-risk children
domestic violence
poverty

Why NOT have a little judgement and retribution in the courts re adultery? Why not make it harder to get a divorce? Why not make them go through marital counseling first? We need to encourage marriage, to make it a valuable goal. So many people hit a rocky patch and quickly fall apart instead of sticking it out. Easy "no fault" divorce just paves the way for creating more problems for children and for society as well.

Society eventually winds up paying for it in the long run. As our family structure disintegrates, women and children are the ones who wind up suffering the most. The government winds up having to step in. Libertarians (if you are one) should pay heed to this as your "freedom" is at risk. Liberals don't think marriage is needed as a foundation for society. They are fine with the death of marriage and they believe the State should step in to manage children and families.

I know you don't particularly like Christians (what is your belief?) but Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Scotland has got it right: “Sadly, we live at a time when the truth of marriage and family is obscured and distorted,” he said. “Human societies throughout history and across cultures have flourished only when they have built their human relationships on the rock of marriage."

I've already told you my feelings on the subject. Seems I'd just be repeating myself at this point.

I don't dislike Christians at all. I've grown up around all kinds of people and my former sister-in-law was Protestant and my favorite cousin married a Catholic guy and raised her 3 kids to be Catholic. My only issue with evangelicals, in particular, is what I see as their need to impose their beliefs on others. As for my own beliefs, I thought I was pretty out in the open about that.... Jewish.

I don't think Keith O'Brien has it right at all and history has shown that society advances when government and science are freed of the yolk of religion. That's why the Dark Ages were dark and the Enlightenment a time of growth. In any event, I've given you my opinions which are based on my work experience and on the conclusions I've drawn through observation. Nothing Pollyanna-ish about it... just the facts.

You claim that "liberals" think the State should step in to manage the lives of children and families. But what I see in everything you've written is that it's YOU who want the State to do that... to punish the adulterers and divest them of their rights so as to enforce some religious compact. I think the State should stay out of the way and let people live their lives. The Court's job is nothing more than to divide the property and assure that the kids best interests are enforced. The rest is between people and their G-d.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I've already told you my feelings on the subject. Seems I'd just be repeating myself at this point.

I don't dislike Christians at all. I've grown up around all kinds of people and my former sister-in-law was Protestant and my favorite cousin married a Catholic guy and raised her 3 kids to be Catholic. My only issue with evangelicals, in particular, is what I see as their need to impose their beliefs on others. As for my own beliefs, I thought I was pretty out in the open about that.... Jewish.

I don't think Keith O'Brien has it right at all and history has shown that society advances when government and science are freed of the yolk of religion. That's why the Dark Ages were dark and the Enlightenment a time of growth. In any event, I've given you my opinions which are based on my work experience and on the conclusions I've drawn through observation. Nothing Pollyanna-ish about it... just the facts.

You claim that "liberals" think the State should step in to manage the lives of children and families. But what I see in everything you've written is that it's YOU who want the State to do that... to punish the adulterers and divest them of their rights so as to enforce some religious compact. I think the State should stay out of the way and let people live their lives. The Court's job is nothing more than to divide the property and assure that the kids best interests are enforced. The rest is between people and their G-d.

No, I do not want the State to control people. I want people to honor their commitments - like their marriage contracts and taking care of their children. Custody of children should not be a power play for women over husbands they don't want any more. I want the government to provide legal support for the family unit (including fathers) and not enable easy, unilateral divorce which destroys families and creates Socialism. The current divorce industry and child support industry are doing just that and are destroying America. It's been a thirty year assault on marriage and family and this is unprecedented in history. You obviously subscribe to the current system, but yet you say you value your freedom. You probably don't even realize how your freedom is being taken away from you when we allow the state to do what it is currently doing. Civilized society is crumbling as more fathers become absent fathers.