July 24, 2005

Go To The Source

Well this post at Ogre's got the thoughts a flowin'.

There's a woman in North Carolina that is suing her gay husband's gay partner for alienation of affection. They can still do that in North Carolina.

Orge supports that law. I know a lot of people that like that idea.

Personally I don't. Let me see if I can explain. Work with me here - it's kinda of a twisty path to my point.

I'm not a jealous person at all. Never have been. I believe that promises and vows are exchanged willingly. If someone willingly and openly says "I love you. I'm committed to you." I'm gonna trust them. If I don't then there really isn't a relationship.

I don't sit and fret when they are out and about. I don't go crazy if I see them talkin' to another woman. Hell - I have guy friends and in all the time I was married the thought never ever crossed my mind. Honest. To me - when someone is married they are no longer male/female. They are simply Themselves. That goes for me too.

So in my mind it's about trust. Plain and simple. Well, that and confidence - in yourself, your partner and your relationship.

HOWEVER - if my partner strays (which has happened to me) it's my PARTNER who strayed. They didn't keep their side of the bargin. It's not the other party's fault. My relationship is NOT with this third party. Most times you don't even know them. In my case I did. Hell - I served her dinner in my home. BUT she never made me the promise to love and honor. She never promised to be true to me.

I'm embarrassed to say I've been on the other side of it too. I was the third party. I didn't know the bastard was married and as soon as I found out it was over. BUT.......I wasn't the reason he strayed. If not me, it would have been (and was) another woman. HE BROKE THE TRUST.

So......I don't think the third party - the other woman/man - is responsible. My anger is firmly focused on the partner that screwed up. The person that lied. The one that cheated.

I believe in accountability and taking responsibility for your actions. But that's just my take on it.

Posted by Tammi at July 24, 2005 06:55 AM
Comments

I 100% agree with you. And I know what if feels like to unknowingly be the 3rd party. It sucks!

Posted by: Sissy at July 24, 2005 07:13 AM

I can see where you're coming from and that makes sense -- but let me explain why I like the NC law.

The state has a primary interest in couples being married. The state needs married couples. This law helps to ensure that couple stay married -- if you knew that you could be sued for large piles of money for breaking up a marriage, you might think twice before you broke the marriage up.

I think the law helps people honor their vows, and it assists them in not cheating and not lying. What's wrong with a law that simply helps one trust another?

Posted by: Ogre at July 24, 2005 07:27 AM

Ogre - the problem could (and very likely has arisen) when the third party doesn't have a clue that the other person is married. Yes, it does happen, I'm sure to both men and women. And I know 2 women in particular that this has happened to.

Now follow me through this... Let's take the husband in this case (because this is the scenario in the original cited by Tammi). Husband takes up with unsuspecting woman. Wife finds out and confronts husband. Husband (for whatever reason) now decides to divorce wife. Wife sues other woman for alienation of affection.

The problem now - the woman being sued had nothing to do with the breakup of the marriage. She may be able to convince a jury of this - but think of the tremendous time and expense to her in order to do it. Also, how is it right, if the decision goes against her and she has to pay?

As Tammi says - it's all about the trust. Period. If you have to have a person investigated to be sure they aren't married when you first meet them - there is no trust and there never will be.

Also, this law is all about blackmail by one person in the marriage. If you have to blackmail someone to stay "legally" tied together - there is no marriage it's a piece of paper. And when you only have a piece of paper holding you together - then you have pure hatred inspired... I've seen it - it's about the ugliest thing there is to see - ever.

Posted by: Teresa at July 24, 2005 07:58 AM

I don't think it's the state's business to get involved in people's private lives. I'm against the law. Keep the government out of my life.

Posted by: Bou at July 24, 2005 08:02 AM

I'm against this law, too. And do they really think someone who ignores the VOWS of their marriage is going to pay any more attention to a law about it?

Posted by: dustbunny101 at July 24, 2005 08:55 AM

I'm with Bou. Private life is not the government's concern.

The person who made the vow is the "guilty" party, morally speaking.

Posted by: Sally at July 24, 2005 04:35 PM

Teresa, the burden of proof is on the accuser -- so if a person honestly did not know the other person were married, they would not be liable in that case at all. You don't have to prove you didn't know, the other person has to prove you DID.

In general, I'm a big proponent of keeping government out of my life. However, in this case, marriage IS a vested interest of the state -- the state NEEDS married people. So this is something they do to help keep people married.

I can also see the points about blackmail -- but taken another way, this is the state helping someone support a contract. If you agreed to be married, and you break that contract, the state is trying to help you.

I don't see any harm that this law does -- if it helps one couple stay together as one person considers straying, how is that a bad thing?

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 05:55 AM

A marriage should be built on trust and a mutal commitment.

There should be no law that helps people honor that commitment or trust.

Either you have it or you don't, just because there is a law isn't going to force it upon you.

Posted by: Machelle at July 25, 2005 07:00 AM

I don't think states need married people. They need marriages with children to stay healthy. That's the extent of it in my eyes and the state. The state needs to stay out of my business, including my marriage.

Posted by: Bou at July 25, 2005 07:36 AM

What if you look at it in terms of a contract enforcement? If someone agrees to be married to you, they have signed a contract. If someone violates that contract, shouldn't you have a right to file claims against the person who broke the contract?

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 03:59 AM

The person who should be sued is the person who broke the contract. Take "marriage" out of it.
Person A agrees to work exclusively with Person B.
Person B then works with Person C. Person B is in violation of the contract. The only way that Person C could be held liable is if Person A can show that Person C knowingly and willfully worked with Person B to violate the contract between A & B. That would be "collusion" and is already illegal under other laws.

Therefore, the law is unnecessary as it is redundant. It was probably passed as a "feel-good" law to allow a politician to crow about how s/he is doing something to protect the "institution of marriage" or some such crap.

---
I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. With my best friend's wife. (That part's a joke.) (she left about 10:30pm.) (no, really, it's a joke.) (well, not the top part. But the part about me being a lawyer, and sleeping at a hotel, and with someone else - those are all jokes.) (really)

:)

Posted by: _Jon at July 26, 2005 10:29 AM