Procreative Propositions

Pranking the system:

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court's ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a "legitimate state interest" allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this "legitimate state interest," it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court's ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Andersen may make the satire timely, but the man behind the proposals, Gregory Gadow, has been kicking the ideas around for at least a decade. He is now at work on the first initiative, with a measure to annull any marriage that doesn't produce a child within three years. (Gadow told CBS that he considered requiring procreation before marriage, but "we didn't want to piss off the fundamentalists too much.")

When I lived in Washington state in the mid-'90s, a drive to ban gay adoptions prompted some activists on the other side to propose the "Responsibility in Adoptions Act," a initiative to bar any "person who practices right-wing fundamentalist Christianity" from adopting children or serving as foster parents. (No, it didn't make it onto the ballot.) I emailed Gadow to ask if he was involved with the earlier effort too; he says he wasn't, though it did "provide some of the inspiration" for his own mock proposals. I'm not surprised it was someone else: Despite the superficial similarity, Gadow's gag is a lot funnier.

Comments

Kwix | February 9, 2007, 1:06pm | #

I would so vote for this, but only if the law included language that would punish the gatekeepers. You know, fine or jail doctors who allow "non-married" spouses into rooms that only "family" is allowed, CPAs who give "non-married" couples the Federal tax break, stuff like that. I figure that the easiest way to show the absurdity of the law is to inconvienence as many people as possible.

Bee | February 9, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Would this mean post-menopausal women would no longer be able to marry? Or infertile people?

Cheeky. Funny.

ellipsis | February 9, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Funny it may be, but it's a good way to create a backlash against same sex marriage.

This is basically a middle finger at the state courts that didn't overturn the state DOMA. Public support can be your greatest ally, or deepest foe. There was a decent amount of support for the Alliance in the past, but if they're looking to piss off even their hetero supporters, they're going to find their cause stalled. I suppose they're counting on it failing miserably. But it just doesn't seem like a good way to garner public support.

Kwix | February 9, 2007, 1:18pm | #

ellipsis,
What are they going to do, ban same sex marriage further? Middle finger or not, the state has declared that it is a "legitimate state interest" to restrict marriages to child bearing couples. Fine, then enforce that ruling to a 'T'.

Guy Montag | February 9, 2007, 1:18pm | #

Wow, these guys make my case for getting the government out of 'marriage' better than I do!

joe | February 9, 2007, 1:32pm | #

"This is basically a middle finger at the state courts that didn't overturn the state DOMA."

DOMA doesn't apply to state laws.

joshua corning | February 9, 2007, 1:37pm | #

same state where it is illegal to fuck a horse and smoke in a bar....I need to move back to Oregon.

ellipsis | February 9, 2007, 1:39pm | #

Kwix,

As a resident of WA, I've supported their effort in the past. But what they're talking about will negatively affect the lives of a lot of their married, childless supporters.

Martin Luther King didn't try to gain awareness of his cause by proposing legislated racism against white people. I want the gubmit out of the process for who can and can't marry. I don't want my rights taken away for symbolism. (I'm not that commited to their cause. I'm just a libertarian.)

ellipsis | February 9, 2007, 1:40pm | #

I said the state DOMA act Joe. WA state has their own.

GILMORE | February 9, 2007, 1:46pm | #

I actually dont think it's as funny as it is Good Tactics for undoing bad law. Sometimes the best way to beat something stupid/banal is to Agree with it, and extend the faulty logic to its extremes, revealing to all the inconsistent and impractical nature of the reasoning, and the way it would harm and restrict more people than just the 'gays'.

Why not try and get the thing passed so that the state supreme courts would be forced to examine the whole law and undermine the basic premise of it, opening the door for equal treatment under the law for same-sex unions. I think the idea of loudly endorsing bad ideas that extend from currently-accepted reasons is a great way to undermine the conventional wisdom.

For instance, I've insisted that the fence between Mexico and US involve laserbeams. I will not accept a mere chain link, weak willed Liberal Fence. We must have a robust, impregnible, Solid Steel fence. As mentioned, with Laser Beams. Anything less is appeasement.

highnumber | February 9, 2007, 1:48pm | #

Wow, these guys make my case for getting the government out of 'marriage' better than I do!

No f***in' way! That cannot be true. My whole worldview is altered. Somebody somewhere can do something better than Reason blog commenter Guy Montag. Will wonders never cease?

Guy Montag | February 9, 2007, 1:50pm | #

For instance, I've insisted that the fence between Mexico and US involve laserbeams.

That is silly. How would the dolphins survive in a desert?

B.D. | February 9, 2007, 1:50pm | #

ellipsis is correct - it is the state DOMA, passed in 1996, that was/is being challenged.

My only problem is that this doesn't go far enough. Perhaps if it passes, later court cases will decide, for instance, that a couple not producing a child within 3 years also doesn't qualify for joint benefits. Or maybe the benefits don't kick in until a child has been born? DNA tests must be given to prove paternity, of course. I wonder how the marriage will be dissolved by the state after 3 years?

And that's the beauty of the bill because it points out that marriages may not be recognized by the state even if religious institutions recognize them. If the bill passes, childless couples such as my wife and I will be on par with gay couples who have chosen to marry within religious institutions that respect their rights, even if the state does not.

I think it's a lovely/amusing proposal.

Guy Montag | February 9, 2007, 1:50pm | #

er, sharks, I meant sharks

joshua corning | February 9, 2007, 2:05pm | #

That is silly. How would the sharks (dolphins) survive in a desert?

Genetically modified and enhanced super intelligence...but then we might come to a point and question if it was a good idea to construct genetically modified super intelligent sharks and equip them with laser beams.

Guy Montag | February 9, 2007, 2:10pm | #

...but then we might come to a point and question if it was a good idea to construct genetically modified super intelligent sharks and equip them with laser beams.

No question, it is a fantastic idea! Let's write it up and submit it to the powers that be.

Guy Montag | February 9, 2007, 2:16pm | #

No f***in' way! That cannot be true. My whole worldview is altered. Somebody somewhere can do something better than Reason blog commenter Guy Montag. Will wonders never cease?

Probably, or not.

downstater | February 9, 2007, 2:28pm | #

this sounds a lot like coordinating a bunch of cars to drive at the speed limit and obeying traffic laws to the letter to snarl traffic.

didn't some guys do something like that recently. i like ideas like this.

Robert | February 9, 2007, 2:41pm | #

Infertility was traditionally a cause to invalidate marriages. The Canadian court that researched the whole same sex marriage thing a few years ago did determine that inability to have children was a precedented reason to forbid a couple to marry or to annul an existing marriage.

There is, however, a legal reason to disallow same sex mariage without requiring fertility as a condition of marriage. The distinction is privacy. It would be an invasion of privacy to require an investigation into the fertility of one or both of a couple; in the case of same sex marriage, no such investigation is needed.

Bee | February 9, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Infertility was traditionally a cause to invalidate marriages.

Yes, it was. Adultery has traditionally been punishable by death. Working on Sundays could, traditionally, get you time in the stocks. There is a tradition of impromptu lynchings for suspected cattle rustlers, or even for being Black in Public. Let's hear it for tradition!

Um, how about the government just stays the heck out of who I live with, hmmm?

R C Dean | February 9, 2007, 3:30pm | #

Um, how about the government just stays the heck out of who I live with, hmmm?

Of course, Bee, that is also a very traditional view of the role of government. Yay tradition!

Actually, practically no one advocates having the state control who you live with. What people are arguing about isn't who you live with, but who you marry.

Robert | February 9, 2007, 3:45pm | #

Exactly. The only reason people marry legally is to get government involved in it.

Bee | February 9, 2007, 3:48pm | #

Well, being married...living together...kind of the same to me.

Unless you formalize the relationship with some sort of contract. And the role of the state at that point would be to aid me in the validation or enforcement of it, as needed. And...that would pretty much be it. No need to regulate who I could enter into contract with.

Grotius | February 9, 2007, 4:18pm | #

joe,

A number of states have their own DOMAs. A number of states also have constitutional amendments which speak to the subject.

Grotius | February 9, 2007, 4:19pm | #

ellipsis,

Sorry, I should have read on instead of immediately responding to joe's comment. :)

Lazlo Nibble | February 9, 2007, 4:58pm | #

we might come to a point and question if it was a good idea to construct genetically modified super intelligent sharks and equip them with laser beams.

You people are insane. Sometimes sharks' brains and sexual organs are made of M-80s. Add laser beams to the mix and the carnage would be unmeasurable. Plus you'd have the giant killer bees to deal with.

There's got to be a better way!

Guy Montag | February 9, 2007, 5:23pm | #

Infertility was traditionally a cause to invalidate marriages.

Infertility is not required ref. first marriage annulment of Lee Iacocca by the Catholic Church.

Let the preachers rule as they will and keep the government out of it.

Jennifer | February 9, 2007, 5:33pm | #

There is, however, a legal reason to disallow same sex mariage without requiring fertility as a condition of marriage. The distinction is privacy. It would be an invasion of privacy to require an investigation into the fertility of one or both of a couple; in the case of same sex marriage, no such investigation is needed.

But it doesn't require any invasive testing to determine whether or not a couple has had a child after three years. Nor is it a stretch to figure out that a 65-year-old woman's childbearing ability likely withered away decades ago, yet she's still allowed to marry a man.

Kwix | February 9, 2007, 6:23pm | #

This would also preclude couples that have had some demonstrable affliction such as testicular cancers or hysterectomies. Why not ask for a full medical checkup prior to issuing a marriage license? That way the state can ensure that it's interests are best being served by your marriage.

Guy Montag | February 9, 2007, 6:25pm | #

Kwix and the lovely Jennifer,

How about just keepign the government out of the bedroom, like the gay people keep pretending that they want?

Guy Montag | February 9, 2007, 6:32pm | #

Correction: 'gay' as in homosexual, not necessarily happy or drag queens on parade.

highnumber | February 9, 2007, 6:53pm | #

...like the gay people keep pretending that they want?

What do you think they really want?
I think they want me to wear buttless chaps, shave my head, and grow a mustache.
Well, gay people, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Jennifer | February 9, 2007, 8:16pm | #

Guy, if the government is going to take the official stance that marriage is for procreative purposes only, then let's make the government take that principle to its logical conclusion. If nothing else, it'll force the bigots to come up with a more creative anti-gay-marriage stance than "marriage is only for making babies."

Robert | February 9, 2007, 9:37pm | #

"Well, being married...living together...kind of the same to me."

Looks like you just married your parents, your brother, your sister....

"Unless you formalize the relationship with some sort of contract. And the role of the state at that point would be to aid me in the validation or enforcement of it, as needed. And...that would pretty much be it. No need to regulate who I could enter into contract with."

And when you insist on your rights to a 3rd party who treats married persons differently from the unmarried, and spouses differently from strangers?

"But it doesn't require any invasive testing to determine whether or not a couple has had a child after three years. Nor is it a stretch to figure out that a 65-year-old woman's childbearing ability likely withered away decades ago, yet she's still allowed to marry a man."

But it does involve an invasion of privacy to prove that someone is infertile.

The law got involved with marriage for two reasons. The first was inheritance; who was whose child? The second was when spouses insisted on exclusivity; how does s/he know you're not already married? Recording of marriages took care of both. In neither case was contracting between the parties to the marriage sufficient; rather, the world had to know person A was married to person B.

Same sex marriage never came up because there was no need for it. There were no children, so no inheritance problem, and apparently nobody insisted on exclusivity with a partner of the same sex.

Part of the drive for exclusivity was valuation of women. Numbers of men & women were approximately equal, and nobody wanted a few men tying up all the women. Men marrying men or women marrying women just messed up the math.

Mr. Ed | February 9, 2007, 10:00pm | #

joshua corning | February 9, 2007, 1:37pm | #

same state where it is illegal to fuck a horse and smoke in a bar....I need to move back to Oregon.

Oh, neigh! Joshua's coming back! I need to move out of Oregon!

Snidely Whiplash, bondage pervert | February 9, 2007, 10:02pm | #

and nobody wanted a few men tying up all the women

Speak for yourself!

Guy Montag | February 9, 2007, 10:20pm | #

What do you think they really want?
I think they want me to wear buttless chaps, shave my head, and grow a mustache.
Well, gay people, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Wow, you are one strange bird.

What they want, that is completly baffling to me, is to be on a State maintained list of who can screw who, for starters. Perhaps this is different in San Francisco, but in the USA that is what a marriage record is.

The not-so-baffling part is that being on that list allows the list members to confir government benifits, if available, onto people who earned them soly through their who-they-are-supposed-to-screw status.

Additionally, they are giving the State the power to redistribute their property after their death in whatever willy-nilly manner the State has decided up to or after their death.

Perhaps you should learn what that big m word means before saying silly things about it?

kevrob | February 10, 2007, 8:42am | #

There's no need to genetically modify any dolphins or sharks. Just add a moat to the fence project. If we connect it to the Rio Grande, and do a bunch of dredging, we won't have to worry about the Chinese running the Panama Canal anymore!

Kevin

Robert | February 10, 2007, 9:10am | #

"What they want, that is completly baffling to me, is to be on a State maintained list of who can screw who, for starters. Perhaps this is different in San Francisco, but in the USA that is what a marriage record is."

No, it's not. At this point all marriage is is a status whose privileges are subject to change at any time, but have nothing to do with who can screw whom. The privileges are partly bestowed by private parties, and partly by gov't, by enacted or judge-made law.

The only criterion currently used to determine the legitimacy of a marriage (beyond the basics of sex & age) is whether the parties live together. That's how INS judges the facts. They definitely do not impose a requirement of sexual intercourse, nor exclusivity of same. Togetherness is all they ask. You don't even have to be friendly to each other, just together. You can marry out of hate as much as love.

Burr | February 10, 2007, 9:46am | #

What we want is the rights that have been inexplicably tied into being on the state list of who fucks who, like heaven forbid visiting each other in the hospital without having to carry around power of attorney papers 24/7. Then there's those of us who actually have children to take care of, as well other inheritance issues with abusive relatives who want to steal our wealth and livelihood from under our noses when tragedy strikes and can do so thanks to the power of the government to invalidate our relationships and contracts.

Yes we know the classic libertarian response "get government out of marriage" but since that wont happen until years after we're forced to die in the hospital alone without our loved ones besides us you can't blame us for being a little impatient about that.

We're tired of the rest of America having to "catch up" to us in order for us to live our lives in freedom. Letting us in on your broken little game will get us there faster. Then we can worry about the more principled stance. Sorry for being a little selfish.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 10:32am | #

Robert,

No, it's not. At this point all marriage is is a status whose privileges are subject to change at any time, but have nothing to do with who can screw whom.

When did adultry become irrelevant in divorce proceedings, especially in relation to property division, anyplace in the USA?

Marriage is most definatly a "who can screw who" status as in you only get to play with the one on the certificate or risk losing property.

The only criterion currently used to determine the legitimacy of a marriage (beyond the basics of sex & age) is whether the parties live together. That's how INS judges the facts.

The INS never showd up at my divorce, nor of any of the people waiting in line during the many hearings. No, adultry was not an issue in my divorce.

Really not sure why you are using as an example some federal arbitrary rules, but then again, those rules go to what I was saying about conferring benifits onto others and the feds have taken this to a dizzying level.

Sounds like a good argument for letting people immigrate on their own merits rather by who they are allowed to screw.

Burr,

Did you know that you can visit total strangers in most hospitals?

Your complaint is against a hospital policy, not a law or status.

Then there's those of us who actually have children to take care of, as well other inheritance issues with abusive relatives who want to steal our wealth and livelihood from under our noses when tragedy strikes and can do so thanks to the power of the government to invalidate our relationships and contracts.

Abusive relatives who want to 'steal' your wealth? If it is your property then stealing it is already against the law. However, in that passage you make a great argument that the government should stay out of this while advocating the opposite.

Can you expand on this theft of wealth? The only thing that comes to mind, with the limited info provided, is someone does not want you in their will for some reason that you do not agree with and you want the government to force you into the will. I hope you have a different example or something.

Burr | February 10, 2007, 11:31am | #

I'm sorry to break it to you, but it doesn't work as you say. I'm not making this up. Read up on these well documented cases of same sex couples not being allowed to be there for each other or inherit each other's wealth despite taking the supposed appropriate measures to prevent it.

http://www.republicoft.com/2006/06/21/not-next-of-kin/

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record2.html?record=1104

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/23927res20060125.html

As you can see, the status quo decidedly NOT alright and blissful. People's lives are being ruined as we speak, and something NEEDS to be done about it.

Burr | February 10, 2007, 11:47am | #

Anyway I'm tired of the burden being placed on those wanting to exercise their rights and freedoms to prove why they should have them instead of being placed on those who want to destroy or restrict them. Why are you dancing around and looking for any excuse to say things are fair when they're clearly not? When some people can go get plastered in Vegas and get married for a fistful of dollars and have more rights (as well as undeserved privileges which I'm sure we agree on) than people who have lived together for decades and have spent thousands on legal bills to write up contracts that are summarily tossed in the trash anyway just because they aren't the right gender, well what do you call it? Justice? Or "Just Us"?

parse | February 10, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Highnumber, the two out of three--do you wear buttless chaps?

Burr | February 10, 2007, 12:34pm | #

One last thing because this always bugs me. If gays don't need marriage or any government recognition because everything is so hunky dory without it, then why don't all hetero libertarians put their money (and their lives) where their mouths are and not marry their spouses ever? No excuses please. No reason to bring the government into it after all, right? I'm sure you'll feel plenty secure in your families without that meddling government in the way.

Heck, you even have the privilege of some states recognizing you as married by common law just for living together long enough. Gays don't even get that break.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 1:28pm | #

Burr,

You would be easier to follow if you did not make so many things up. Just quoting your most recent post and will cover, yet again, all of the other nonsense that you wish to project on those who disagree with your National Socialist viewpoint.

One last thing because this always bugs me. If gays don't need marriage or any government recognition because everything is so hunky dory without it, then why don't all hetero libertarians put their money (and their lives) where their mouths are and not marry their spouses ever? No excuses please. No reason to bring the government into it after all, right?

Exactly why I am not shy about telling people, especially the women I date or might date, that I am never telling the government that I am 'married' again. Now, please see if you can objest to something I have written, rather than something you dreamed up for me to think.

I'm sure you'll feel plenty secure in your families without that meddling government in the way.

Yes, so why must you say this as if it is bad?

Heck, you even have the privilege of some states recognizing you as married by common law just for living together long enough. Gays don't even get that break.

PRIVILIGE? That is not a PRIVILAGE it is meddling from a State in someone's private life! You truly have a twisted view of things. Just because the State does something to you without request or invitation does not make it a privilege unless your idea of privilege is nanny-statism.

Your first URL:
http://www.republicoft.com/2006/06/21/not-next-of-kin/

Only backs up what I said before, it is a stupid hospital policy. Where is the law that says my girlfriend can show up to my hospital room but your boyfriend/husband can not?

The last person I wanted making any decisions with my life was my soon-to-be-ex-wife while I was getting divorced. In your world would she have gotten automatic access to me even though I documented with my lawyer and the judge that did not want her around me ever?

Guess what? The same incompetant staff that ignored the players in your sad story would probably let my ex right into the room. How the hell does marriage change any of that?

No, I did not bother looking at your other items due to the 'value' of the first. I fail to see how leaving my property to my son would be overturned if he was not married to anybody no matter who he lives with. Can you actually type that out how that could be?

If i wanted to leave everything to my girlfriend but not to my son the State might interfear IN AN UNWELCOME MATTER to overrule what I wanted. How about sticking to what i am saying here? THE STATE IS NOT WELCOME, GO AWAY, I MADE MY DECISION AND I DON'T CARE WHO THINKS IT IS FAIR.

Before you come back with some marriage nonsense, what if I got married again and still wanted everything I bought to go to my son? Almost every State would intefear with that too. Just because YOU welcome this does not make it right. You are one step away from those Socialists who believe all inheratance should go to the State so nobody has a 'head start' over anybody else.

People leave all of their belongings to cats and dogs too. How on earth can they not leave them to another human?

If you folks would bring up some concrete examples, beyond incompetant staff or bad hospital policy, that would be real nice. Until then, you sure as hell are not going to fool those of us who have actually worked in hospitals that never did anything of the sort that you want people to believe that they all do.

While working at the University of Tennessee hospital (oooo, in that evil rednecky part of the country, ooooooo) they let gay couples see each other all of the time, had no shortage of openly gay staff and the only time I ever heard of them doing anything remotly like the fantasies you are spreading is when they told an LPN that he could no longer pick up his checks in drag. No firing, no suspension, no nothing. Just told him not to wear a dress to pick up his check.

So, please, label your nonsense for the fiction that it is, or overtly admit that your motovation is getting your buddies onto the gravy train rather than trying to disguise it.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Anyway I'm tired of the burden being placed on those wanting to exercise their rights and freedoms to prove why they should have them instead of being placed on those who want to destroy or restrict them. Why are you dancing around and looking for any excuse to say things are fair when they're clearly not?

Where did you imagine that I ever said things are fair? Kind of funny that you are advocating less fairness and complaining about fairness at the same time.

Burr | February 10, 2007, 1:43pm | #

"Now, please see if you can objest to something I have written, rather than something you dreamed up for me to think."

That's what you're doing with your last piece of drivel, you overly indignant little fool. Then you admit that you didn't even read my other links, reveling in your ignorance.

This conversation is over.

Burr | February 10, 2007, 1:59pm | #

When things start to get into a "I'm more libertarian than you, gay Nazi" pissfest where documented injustice starts getting cast aside in favor of quaint little personal anecdotes instead of trying to find common ground and understanding so we can both learn something here, commenting starts to get counterproductive. I shouldn't have to defend my interests when I have never even alluded to any sort of gravy train or freebies. Maybe some of my thoughts don't fit your perfectly coherent libertopia and err here or there, but then again that libertopia doesn't exist yet or ever will. I still think you are taking way too much insult at my wanting to do some very simple things with MY life without fuss, and extrapolating all sort of ridiculous outcomes of me finally being allowed to do so.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 2:21pm | #

Excuse me, I never called you a brown shirt*.

Never called you gay and never restricted your National Socialist viewpoint to any particular national party.

*"gay Nazi"

Robert | February 10, 2007, 6:35pm | #

"When did adultery become irrelevant in divorce proceedings, especially in relation to property division, anyplace in the USA?"

Years ago, with no-fault. Marriage went from a kind of contract you couldn't get out of without state-approved reasons to one that cost the party that wanted out (or acted that way) no more than the party that didn't.

Rick H. | February 11, 2007, 8:35pm | #

Hey, Guy Montag's never getting married again... and therefore the subject is moot, you gay National Socialists.

Look, society has evolved past marriage, and once everyone understands that - problem solved. Sort of like if only white people were eligible for welfare: "What, you want there to be even more government handouts? What a totalitarian!"

I look forward to a rash of State initiatives banning hetero government-recognized marriage. Should pass in a landslide, what with the diehard support of the situational conservatopians.

Guy Montag | February 12, 2007, 8:04am | #

Years ago, with no-fault. Marriage went from a kind of contract you couldn't get out of without state-approved reasons to one that cost the party that wanted out (or acted that way) no more than the party that didn't.

Wow, you are really ignorant of this system aren't you?

Adultry is a State approved reason in every State that will cost you your house!

All "no fault" adds is being able to get divorced absent the previously approved reasons.

Robert | February 12, 2007, 10:43am | #

"Adultery is a State approved reason in every State that will cost you your house!"

Then why, after my friend Ron's divorce following his affair with an au pair, did he wind up with the house here in NY?

The only thing it seems prior behavior is now a factor in in divorce proceedings is child custody.

Guy Montag | February 12, 2007, 11:09am | #

Robert,

Perhaps, and this is just a hunch, there was some other factor in that divorce?

Are you trying to tell us that the house was awarded directly to your friend without him having to buy out the wife's interest?

Or are you trying to tell us that none of these *current* defenses to audultery were a factor?

Section 171 of the Domestic Relations Law provides for 4 affirmative defenses to a divorce action based on adultery. An affirmative defense is one that must be pleaded. If proved, an affirmative defense results in the dismissal of the divorce action. The 4 affirmative defenses are:

1. Procurement or connivance. Procurement is the encouragement of adultery. Connivance is the consent to the adultery.
2. Forgiveness. A resumption of sexual relations after discovery of the adultery results in forgiveness (condonation).
3. Statute of limitations. A divorce action founded on adultery must be brought within 5 years of the discovery of the adultery.
4. Recrimination. This defense means that if the plaintiff is also guilty of adultery, he/she will not be granted a divorce.

Now, it seems more like you need to hit the books before you start getting people into trouble with your fictions about marriage and divorce.

ihatefamilylaw | February 12, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Used to work in family law. In the state I worked in, if you wanted to assert adultery as a reason for the divorce, you had to actually PROVE it (i.e. photographs, witnesses, etc.) to be granted a divorce. People no longer want to go through the circus of proving that, so hence "no-fault" divorce came to be. It just means they don't want to explain on paper why they're getting a divorce.

Legally speaking, adultery cannot cause you to lose your home. Most courts attempt to split the total wealth 50-50. You may not get the home, but you most likely will be compensated for your half (excluding deductions or additions for child support, debt payment, etc.) If you don't get your share, then you have a shitty lawyer.

Also, lots of people feel guilty about the adultery thing and give up the house to the ex as penance for misdeeds. Saw it all the time in the world of divorces.

Robert | February 12, 2007, 4:21pm | #

The 50-50 split was how it was in Ron & Gale's case and every other one of my friends' I know of. Are either of you saying that divorce "for cause" is still available in states that have no-fault? My understanding was that it no longer was, or that if it was still on the books, judges treated it as a dead letter.

ihatefamilylaw | February 12, 2007, 7:34pm | #

Yes, it is still available. It's just that no one uses "for cause" anymore 'cause it's a lot more expensive and a pain in the ass.

Guy Montag | February 12, 2007, 8:53pm | #

Tennessee uses "equitible division" which I believe is more fair on paper. However, the judge has so much leeway that it is almost meaningless, i.e., some judges don't bother calculating contributions, the wife gets everything.

Now, if the guy whining about his will not being honored would concentrate on that misjustice rather than creating more distractors, maybe this would not be such an issue.

Guy Montag | February 12, 2007, 9:08pm | #

Oh, and like I have been saying this whole time, the property is going to be given away by a judge under this 'marriage' scheme even with that 50/50 split business, unless it is some accident that both people actually owned exactly 50% of the property.

So, back to my position that marriage status should not be used for that. More clearly, if I own 90% of the property then I should be able to distribute 90% of the value of the property in my will however I want to distribute it. If I feel like leaving all of it to a girlfriend, my son or the neighbors cat the only thing the government should be doing about it is enforcing my will.

Same for Burr, no matter how he wants to convolute what I said for his political agenda.