Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Marriage

Kyrsten Sinema Headed to Home-Wrecker Court After Judge Says Texts to Married Lover Could Leave Her Liable

"Alienation of affection" actions like the one Sinema is facing undermine the idea that adults have agency in their romantic and sexual choices.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 9.9.2026 1:00 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Krysten Sinema | Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom
(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

Here's a bonkers story that sits squarely at the intersection of sex and tech. Former U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat-turned-Independent from Arizona, is headed to home-wrecker court in North Carolina due to some Signal messages she sent to a North Carolina man while he was married.

In North Carolina—and several other states, including Mississippi and South Dakota—coming between a married couple can still land you in civil court.

You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

"Alienation of affection" claims can be brought by a spurned spouse against a third party that they blame for the dissolution of their marriage. To be found liable in North Carolina, a person must be shown to have "maliciously and wrongfully cause[d] alienation of a genuine marital relationship."

In this case, Sinema is being sued by the ex-wife of Matthew Ammel, a man whom Sinema has admitted to having an affair with while he was her security guard.

The Ammels lived in North Carolina—but Sinema's affair with Matthew Ammel did not take place in North Carolina, she told the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. (The case was moved to federal court at Sinema's request, but still concerns a North Carolina tort claim.) Because the affair did not take place in North Carolina, she can't be sued there and the court should dismiss the case, Sinema argued.

In a Friday ruling, U.S. District Judge David A. Bragdon rejected Sinema's motion to dismiss, holding that Sinema can be sued in North Carolin because Sinema sent Signal messages to Ammel while he was physically there. Some of these messages were sexual, while others were about politics, psychedelics, mental health, or going to a Depeche Mode concert.

For this, Sinema may be legally liable as a home-wrecker under North Carolina common law.

"The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Sinema purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in North Carolina by sending nine messages to Mr. Sinema, a married man, while he was in North Carolina," wrote Bragdon in his ruling. "These messages, considered together, show Ms. Sinema building and furthering a romantic relationship with Mr. Ammel—invading the marriage not just while he was away on trips with her but while he was home with his family in North Carolina."

So what can we take from this? Well, first, that if you must have an affair with someone from the Carolinas, try to stick to the southern one. Or at least make them prove they've crossed state lines before you text them about your concert plans and send them a picture of your bare back (another text for which Sinema is on the hook).

Kidding, of course. The real issues here are autonomy and state intrusion in personal matters.

In North Carolina, "it isn't just illicit lovers who might find themselves in the crosshairs," as The Wall Street Journal pointed out in April. "Meddling in-laws, persuasive friends, even a therapist or clergy member are all fair game." So, not only do alienation of affection and criminal conversation potentially punish people for consensual romantic or sexual relationships, but they could also wind up punishing people for speech.

No sexual activity need have taken place or be proven in court for an alienation of affection claim like the one filed by Heather Ammel in this case to succeed. "A sexual affair is covered by another homewrecker charge—called 'criminal conversation'—that many spurned spouses file simultaneously," the Journal points out.

There's been recent movement to end alienation of affection actions.

In January, New Mexico's Supreme Court abolished alienation of affection torts. "The inherently dehumanizing nature of the tort is reflected in the fact that, regardless of gender, it treats affections as property and presumes that a spouse has no agency regarding to whom they give their affections," the justices wrote.

A law passed this year in Utah ended the right of action for alienation of affections.

And a bill introduced in North Carolina last year would "abolish the common law civil actions of alienation of affection and criminal conversation." But that one hasn't gone anywhere since being referred to the state Senate's Committee on Rules and Operations in March of 2025.

In the meantime, people in North Carolina or involved with someone there can still find themselves on the hook for hefty sums for home-wrecking. "In November, a North Carolina jury ordered a TikTok influencer accused of seducing a woman's husband to pay $1.75 million in damages," Reason's Meagan O'Rourke wrote in April.

Alienation of affection actions like that one and the one Sinema is facing are a slap in the face to the idea that adults have agency in their romantic and sexual choices. They suggest that a straying spouse isn't responsible for their own actions; some third party is. They smack of old-fashioned tropes about married women only cheating because men were manipulative cads and married men only cheating because conniving temptresses seduced them.

In fact, claims like these are rooted in even older—and more patriarchal—notions. "Homewrecker claims—also dubbed heart-balm actions—are rooted in English common law, dating back to a time when a wife was considered 'chattel,' or the legal property of her husband," the Journal noted. "He could sue if she was stolen or enticed away. North Carolina adopted this common-law concept. Then, as women gained their legal independence, the state created a new rationale for the law—the preservation of marriage—and allowed women to sue, too."

But the opening up of this concept doesn't change the creepy and paternalistic premises undergirding it: that your spouse is like your property and you're owed compensation by any third party that sullies them or steals them away. That married adults are not responsible for their own actions. That the state should be invested in saving relationships or punishing people who act unkindly or unethically within them.

I have sympathy for Heather Ammel here, but I don't think she's entitled to a legal ruling against her ex-husband's mistress. It's not the state's place to condemn infidelity. And I also have sympathy for Sinema. Whatever judgment may have been lacking in her personal romantic choices, she doesn't deserve to be dragged into court over it and have her private texts with her former lover made public record. Here's hoping that the widespread attention to this case will at least prompt North Carolina to abolish alienation of affection actions like these.


Read This Thread 

A memorial for Gloria SteinemIn 1963, Gloria Steinem put on a fake name, a fake age, a satin corset, and took a job as a Playboy Bunny.Then she took the ears off, went home, and spent the next sixty years telling the world what it means to work in the sex industry.

— SWOP Behind Bars (@swopbehindbars.bsky.social) 2026-09-06T22:13:33.362Z


In the News

Utah anti-VPN rule on pause: "The Utah Department of Commerce has agreed not to enforce a controversial law demanding age-verification on adult content websites and cracking down on VPNs that seek to get around it — at least until a federal judge rules in the case," reports Fox 13 News:

Aylo Freesites, the owner of some of the largest adult websites in the world including Pornhub, is suing Utah over the law. They have asked a federal judge for an injunction that would block the law from going into effect, arguing it subjects any website that hosts adult content to potential civil or criminal liability.

So far, U.S. District Court Judge David Barlow has yet to issue a ruling on Aylo's injunction request.

But in a recent court filing obtained by FOX 13 News, the Utah Department of Commerce and Aylo entered into a joint stipulation. The agency would not enforce the new law pending Judge Barlow's ruling or until after administrative rules setting the specific terms that adult sites would have to follow to comply with the law are hammered out. In exchange, Aylo agreed to keep its current "geofencing practices" in place (Pornhub and other sites have blocked Utah IP addresses as a political protest of the Utah State Legislature's bills).


On Substack

Lots of interesting research in Christopher Ferguson's newsletter this week, but this especially caught my eye:

Bonus: New Study Finds Mood Causes Social Media Use, Not the Inverse.

Another new study has come to light challenging the "smartphones made them do it" hypothesis. As the title puts it: "Adolescents' daily affect predicts their mobile phone use (not the other way around)." The study used objective tracking data for phone use over 90 days for 40 youth. Phone use did not predict either their mental health or sleep (see earlier point above). However, feeling blue in the morning did lead to more passive smartphone use during the day. This is an important "chicken and egg" left out of much of the conversation. Small sample size though, so confirmation from other studies would be good.


More Sex & Tech News

• More than 153 million drivers' licenses are being sold on the dark web, investigative journalist Brian Krebs reported last week. "Based on interviews with individuals whose licenses are available for purchase on this service, it appears to be siphoning images collected by a widely-used identity verification company based in Louisiana."

• The trial of Luis Uribe, a Customs and Border Patrol agent accused of serial rape and robberies against sex workers, gets underway this week.

• On November 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in Phoenix, will hear appeals from Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey and former executives Jed Brunst and Scott Spear, who were convicted of various offenses related to running a platform where sex workers advertised.

• Jacob Coxon, an AI researcher who has worked for OpenAI and was recently employed by Anthropic, quit his job with some dramatic flourish, warning on X that AI companies "are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives." The response from Anthropic's lead alignment scientist Evan Hubinger isn't reassuring:

Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to. https://t.co/QAIHiFP3QZ

— Evan Hubinger (@EvanHub) September 9, 2026

• If you didn't think it was possible for online dating to get worse, think again: "The spread of AI-generated fake accounts has become a rising concern for dating apps," notes Wired, and as a result, "more and more, apps are asking that you surrender your most unique attribute in order to ensure that you're a real person: your face."

• An Arkansas library law targeting material harmful to minors is—to presumably no one's surprise—ensnaring way more than material harmful to minors:

Jesus Christ: after a recent ruling by the Eighth Circuit that allowed Act 372 to take effect, an Arkansas county has banned all children from checking out any books in the adult section, bringing home any DVDs, or using the self-checkout kiosk in its public libraries.

— Alex Ip 葉清霖 (@alexip718.com) 2026-09-07T08:02:48.458Z

• "Did an identity thief write this?"

Setting aside all the civil liberties, privacy, and free expression concerns, online ID checks / "age verification" laws are just a massive massive security risk. Every time I read one of these bills I ask "did an identity thief write this?!"

— Evan Greer (@evangreer.bsky.social) 2026-09-02T20:07:03.063Z

• Already under fire in South Dakota, Mayday Health—a website that provides information about abortion-pill providers but does not provide pills or facilitate appointments—is now being sued by the state of Kentucky over ads at gas stations and the Kentucky State Fair.

• Libel laws often take the intent of the speaker into context. But how does that work when the speaker is an artificial intelligence chatbot?

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Should the State Pay Stay-at-Home Moms?

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

MarriageMoralityLawsuitsNorth CarolinaSex
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (33)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. mad.casual   2 months ago

    Every time I read one of these bills I ask “did an identity thief write this?!”

    Evan Greer (she/her), Director of Fight For The Future was born in 1985 and is, thus, 41 yrs. old.

    Friends, followers, and fans of his work and general retardation are widely reported to have fallen off the turnip truck yesterday.

  2. See.More   2 months ago

    [...] Kidding, of course. The real issues here are autonomy and state intrusion in personal matters[...]

    Did the state bring the suit? No?

    This isn't a state intrusion. This is a spouse pursuing a tort charge.

    [...] Alienation of affection actions like that one and the one Sinema is facing are a slap in the face to the idea that adults have agency in their romantic and sexual choices[...]

    Choices have consequences. Marriage is a contract. Violating that contract has consequences.

    1. Agammamon   2 months ago

      The state created the tort. The state specifically created the 'alienation of affection tort'. This is the state intruding.

      1. See.More   2 months ago

        The state created the tort. The state specifically created the 'alienation of affection tort'. This is the state intruding.

        "That is the state intruding." Bullshit.

        What state agent brought action against Sinema? Answer: none.

        Creating the tort is not, in and of itself, interference. Criminalizing adultery is state interference.

      2. Rick James   2 months ago

        The state created the tort. The state specifically created the 'alienation of affection tort'. This is the state intruding.

        Kind of. All 'torts' are creations (fictions) of the state. The concept of identifying a grievance, filing suit, compelling named persons to appear in a court with a government judge, abide by the rules of the proceeding and then paying (or being absolved of paying) restitution(s) is 100% a creation of a state. Sure, you may not believe it, I may not believe it but... (to some people) by God, it's a useful fiction.

    2. Zeb   2 months ago

      Marriage is a contract. Violating that contract has consequences.


      Generally, the consequences for violating a contract only fall on the parties to that contract.

      1. mad.casual   2 months ago

        I know I'm old, but if Elon Musk showed up at the Tesla factory, slept with a woman from the security detail, and she got fired, there'd be a solid case that Elon was liable.

        It's not like the guy was guarding the ladies' unmentionables counter at Bergdorf Goodman when, all of a sudden, Donald J. Trump Kyrsten Sinema walked in.

        1. Zeb   2 months ago

          Liable for what?
          In any case, it's probably generally a good policy not to fuck your employees.
          But I still say, it's the married person who is responsible for being faithful and maintaining the marriage. Sinema may be morally wrong here, but the cheating husband is the only one who made a promise and legal commitment to his wife.

          1. mad.casual   2 months ago

            I don't know the details of their commitment. I agree he's primarily responsible, but that doesn't leave her at 0% responsible either. Especially if she knew he was married. Doubly so if he made it clear and then she pursued it further.

            Again, as indicated, if he were working security at Bergdorf Goodman and she were just a patron, I'd agree with you, but this wasn't that. Can't have "'No' means 'No.'" and "Sorta..." or "Except...".

            She's a Senator, it's a conflict of interest. How far back do we push that line (selectively)?

          2. See.More   2 months ago

            [...] Sinema may be morally wrong here, but the cheating husband is the only one who made a promise and legal commitment to his wife.

            This, I completely agree with.

      2. See.More   2 months ago

        [...] Generally, the consequences for violating a contract only fall on the parties to that contract.Generally, the consequences for violating a contract only fall on the parties to that contract[...]

        Agreed. I'm not arguing that Sinema should be sued for this. I am pointing out that it is not "a slap in the face to the idea that adults have agency in their romantic and sexual choices." That sentiment is rooted in "libertinism;" people can do whatever they want, consequences be damned, because we have agency.

    3. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Notable that her defense isn't "We didn't have an affair." or "I didn't know he was married." it's "It didn't happen in NC."

      So, she had all the awareness and agency to know she was mucking around in someone else's marriage and thinks she shouldn't be liable because it happened in AZ.

      Also of note: he was an employee of her security detail. Trump pays a porn star who is free to refuse and it's an impeachment-worthy scandal. #MeToo. The leader of the free world makes an intern spit polish his member and, rightfully, there's a question of exactly how much agency she truly had. Clarence Thomas finds a pubic hair on a Coke can (which, at the time, wasn't exactly or necessarily sexual) and poor Anita Hill has to carry the burden of The Patriarchy on her shoulders. #BelieveAllWomen. But a man assigned a security detail gets plied by the asset he's supposed to be accommodating and protecting? That rat bastard could've exercised a little more of his own agency on behalf of a Senator.

      1. Agammamon   2 months ago

        She shouldn't. Or are you going to say we should allow British libel suits to go forward in America? That Saudi morality laws should be upheld in the US?

        If I don't enter your jurisdiction I am not subject to your laws.

      2. Rick James   2 months ago

        So, she had all the awareness and agency to know she was mucking around in someone else's marriage and thinks she shouldn't be liable because it happened in AZ.

        I'm just pleased that someone on the Democratic side of the aisle has re-committed themselves to borders.

  3. mad.casual   2 months ago

    Jesus Christ: after a recent ruling by the Eighth Circuit that allowed Act 372 to take effect, an Arkansas county has banned all children from checking out any books in the adult section, bringing home any DVDs, or using the self-checkout kiosk in its public libraries.

    For the yutes, this was pretty much SOP in any/all mainstream video stores until Family Video closed its last location in 2021.

    The rental card holder had to be 18 and/or legal guardian. R-rated movies and higher required adult consent, if not F2F transfer, in order to rent. This is in line with R-rate movie enforcement going back 40+ yrs. Private enforcement may have been more or less lax but parents and/or the state had a viable interest in making sure their kids didn't sneak in to skin flicks (without having to follow them around incessantly). The idea that it is somehow novel for *public* libraries to use and enforce these policies is carefully practiced, intentional retardation.

    Video Stores Raided

    The Movie Gallery and Priscilla's Adult store just off Pine Street and Pick-A-Flick in Greer, a partner of Movie Gallery...

    Turned away customers we spoke with don't really have a problem with who sells porn as long as it's out of reach for children.

    Customer: "I'd hate for my kids to run in there or something".

    Customer: "I don't like it, I mean it's wrong; they shouldn't have it in a public place".

    Four people, total, charged in Friday's raid. The clerk who allegeldy sold porn to a minor could face up to 10 years in prison.

    Go ahead, tell me the quotes from customers are made up or cherrypicked.

    1. Zeb   2 months ago

      Well, if "adult section" means what it meant in the library I grew up going to (i.e. everything but the children's section, not material unsuitable for children), this would have meant a major limitation on my intellectual development. If there's a special section for sex books and erotic literature, then fine.

      1. mad.casual   2 months ago

        I've said this before, this is exactly how my library worked as a kid. For the most part, it didn't even have an adult or kid section. If you wanted to checkout The Terminator or The Cider House Rules, it was labeled or otherwise identified as restricted. Mom or Dad had to check it out for us.

        Which is the case here; there's a children's section, a teen's section, presumably the rest of the library that's irrelevant non-fiction stuff, and, again presumably, an adults section. Parents can check out anything they like from any section, even on behalf of their kids.

        Moreover, it's not 1984 anymore and SSDD with "book bans", even if the library won't lend them restricted material, it's not like they can't ask their parents to stream whatever it is at home or ask if they can go over to their friend's house and stream it there.

        1. Zeb   2 months ago

          I do miss 1984 where to get some thrills you had to find a proper book with some sex scenes, or look up swear words in the dictionary.

          1. mad.casual   2 months ago

            Cosmo, Sears catalog, National Geographic, Swimsuit Issues... I certainly don't pine for that level of insulation but, at the same time, if all public libraries completely disappeared tomorrow, vast swaths of society have suffered some other mysteriously catastrophic collapse if we return to that level of insulation. While I'm sure there were Halloween parties where women dressed sexy, there were no designated "sexy Halloween costumes", let alone entire sections or stores of them.

            Even then, it wasn't exactly "Jesus Christ!" levels of difficult/impossible to come by lifted content or some neighborhood dad's porn stash. Plenty of Dad's and men in general had material hanging on the wall in their garages and workshops.

            1. Agammamon   2 months ago

              As feral pre-teens we learned the tricks and signs of how to hunt down discarded porn mags;)

              The good old days of having nothing better to do than dumpster dive, investigate back alleys, and finger pay phones for enough cash to buy a soda.

        2. Agammamon   2 months ago

          Except for a few brief months (when my public library, for some reason, had Playboy on the shelves) in the 1980's the library wasn't a place to go find sexually explicit materials, nor were there sexually explicit materials aimed at pre-teens and younger children.

          Granted, the fiction section, with all the sci-fi I read there were a lot of novels with 'spicy' sections.

          But I think this is the 'boiling the frog' and 'motte and bailey' thing. What is appearing in libraries, deliberately chosen by librarians, is more and more explicit materials (because of an insistence that children *need* to be exposed to the full gamut of human sexuality ESPECIALLY the nasty parts) as early as possible.

          But then they go 'oh, but the library didn't separate out an adult's only section in the past'. Yeah, because it didn't need to. Now you're bringing in stuff that is porn and porn-adjacent so it does.

  4. Rick James   2 months ago

    idea that adults have agency

    *ctrl-f clancy 0/0*

    Curious about your opinion on this one, ENB. I noticed that you specifically did NOT write the only article Reason's done on this and I have to admit, I was damn near 100% sure you'd be the one to write it.

  5. Agammamon   2 months ago

    >"Alienation of affection" actions like the one Sinema is facing undermine the idea that adults have agency in their romantic and sexual choices.

    No it doesn't. This is a stupid subhead. Look, I think 'alienation of affection' is a stupid tort. But that doesn't mean that because Sinema may have made some active moves on the husband that the husband is without agency.

    There simply is just not a similar tort created for the spouse, that is all. The law would have dealt with the spouse through adultery laws - far harsher than a tort - if they were still prosecuted.

    1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

      I guess ENB has never heard of "tortious interference with contractual relations" for business contracts.

      "Tortious interference happens when a third party—someone who is not part of your contract—deliberately disrupts or breaks that business agreement. Instead of suing the person who broke the deal with you, you sue the outsider who caused the breach.

      To win a civil claim for interference with a contract, you generally must prove four main things:

      A valid contract: A legal, enforceable agreement must exist between you and another party.

      The outsider's knowledge: The defendant knew about the contract.

      Intentional disruption: The defendant purposefully caused a breach or made it impossible to complete the contract without a valid justification.

      Financial harm: Your business suffered actual economic damage because of the interference."

      I suppose ENB's objection to applying this kind of tort to marriage is that she just does not believe marriage is an enforceable contract.

  6. Dillinger   2 months ago

    lol if they're going to make it a tort I'm going to argue Sinema can say whatever she wants to the man if he cheats on his wife he's the homewrecker

    >>coming between a married couple can still land you in civil court.

    this is why all my threesomes are consensual

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Sinema can say whatever she wants to the man if he cheats on his wife he's the homewrecker

      Except he's the employee and she's the asset protected by the security detail.

      Even in the Madmen-style 60s, this would've been seen as corruption and/or an abuse of power if a male did it, even if it was quietly dismissed or discreetly handled.

      It's been called shitting where you eat longer than I've been alive.

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        I'd argue the employment issue shouldn't come in to a marriage tort ... if they're gonna have marriage torts lol

      2. Agammamon   2 months ago

        You keep bringing that up but its irrelevant. 'Alienation of affection' torts are not sexual harassment or coercion torts. There is no requirement for any of that for the tort to go through. The guy could have been some rando she met on the street.

        If he felt 'coerced' by a 'power imbalance' that is a completely separate issue from what she's being sued for - and its not a tort *against the spouse* so she couldn't sue over it, only he could.

        1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

          It does show a circumstance where mutual consent is irrelevant to whether a sexual relationship is civilly actionable, that is, creating a "hostile work environment".

  7. JonFrum   2 months ago

    I see no big problem with the library restrictions on kids. They are kids. Who exactly is pushing back so hard on this, and why? I doubt it's adults who want young children to be able to read about the Roman Empire, or take out Thai cookbooks.

    Groomers.

  8. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

    Well, I’m sure we can all agree that they should both be mocked for attending a Depeche Mode concert at the very least. A monetary fine seems reasonable.

  9. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

    "In January, New Mexico's Supreme Court abolished alienation of affection torts. "The inherently dehumanizing nature of the tort is reflected in the fact that, regardless of gender, it treats affections as property and presumes that a spouse has no agency regarding to whom they give their affections," the justices wrote."

    No, it shows that a spouse has given up agency with regards to sexual matters in the marriage contract, and outside interference in that contract is an actionable civil offense. It also shows that Social Leftists despise marriage as a social institution for regulating sexual behavior with any moral thickness or societal respect to it.

  10. Krenn   2 months ago

    How is this not basically the same thing as tortious interference with contract ? She knew a contract existed between two other persons, and she took actions she knew were likely to cause at least one party to break the contract, and she did so for no good reason.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Milei Defused Argentina's Hyperinflation Bomb

Juan Ramón Rallo | From the December 2026 issue

Labor Unions Won Big on Election Day, With Ballot Initiatives and Friendly Politicians

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 11.7.2026 7:00 AM

A Major Reform of California's Environmental Regulations Looks Destined for Failure

Christian Britschgi | 11.6.2026 5:10 PM

As Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller Will Reinforce Trump's Worst Instincts

Jacob Sullum | 11.6.2026 4:55 PM

White House Warns Conservative Groups It Is 'Monitoring' What They Say Amid Discontent Over Midterm Results

Josh Pauzé | 11.6.2026 4:40 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Reason

The All-Argentina Issue is Here

New from Reason: a look into what Javier Milei has accomplished and what it will take to make the most of Argentina’s window for real change. Out now for subscribers.

Subscribe & Start Reading Learn More