🚀 go-pugleaf

On 8 Nov 2003 18:36:00 -0800, jackweso@email.msn.com
(brojack77@my-deja.com) wrote:

>By NANCY MEERSMAN
>Union Leader Staff
>
>CONCORD � If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
>adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
>
>In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
>cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
>
>Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
>outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.

This isn't considered sex by the esteemed elders of NH courts? .... lol

What an incredible joke ... once again proving what complete dolts we have
running our lives sometimes ... jeez! Eyah.

						--  billbo

>Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
>defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...

>(Snip)
>_______
>
>http://www.theunionleader.com/


                 ---------   <*{{{<><  -----------

             A closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose.

If I remember correctly, the bible stats that abultery is between a
man and a married women. As long as a man has sex with a unmarried
women it's OK. At least according to the bible.

Jeff

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 23:12:24 -0600, "|3ill|3o" <byte@moooooooooo.com>
wrote:

>On 8 Nov 2003 18:36:00 -0800, jackweso@email.msn.com
>(brojack77@my-deja.com) wrote:
>
>>By NANCY MEERSMAN
>>Union Leader Staff
>>
>>CONCORD � If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
>>adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
>>
>>In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
>>cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
>>
>>Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
>>outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
>
>This isn't considered sex by the esteemed elders of NH courts? .... lol
>
>What an incredible joke ... once again proving what complete dolts we have
>running our lives sometimes ... jeez! Eyah.
>
>						--  billbo
>
>>Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
>>defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
>
>>(Snip)
>>_______
>>
>>http://www.theunionleader.com/
>
>
>                 ---------   <*{{{<><  -----------
>
>             A closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose.

brojack77@my-deja.com wrote:
> By NANCY MEERSMAN
> Union Leader Staff
> 
> CONCORD � If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
> adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
> 
> In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
> cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
> 
> Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
> outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
> 
> Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
> defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...

That's the problem with feminist judges: they're happy to ignore law
in order to get the result they want, except when hiding behind the
law would serve them better (as here).

No doubt feminists would have complained that they "just want to
control women's sexuality" if the ruling had gone the other way.

Crossposted to 5 groups, eh?   Going for the gold, I guess?    Troll.

spammy wrote:
> brojack77@my-deja.com wrote:
>> By NANCY MEERSMAN
>> Union Leader Staff
>>
>> CONCORD � If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
>> adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
>>
>> In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
>> cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
>>
>> Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
>> outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
>>
>> Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
>> defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
>
> That's the problem with feminist judges: they're happy to ignore law
> in order to get the result they want, except when hiding behind the
> law would serve them better (as here).
>
> No doubt feminists would have complained that they "just want to
> control women's sexuality" if the ruling had gone the other way.

On 8 Nov 2003 18:36:00 -0800, jackweso@email.msn.com (brojack77@my-deja.com)
wrote:

>By NANCY MEERSMAN
>Union Leader Staff
>
>CONCORD � If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
>adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
>
>In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
>cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
>
>Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
>outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
>
>Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
>defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
>
>(Snip)
>_______
>
>http://www.theunionleader.com/

I guess farm animals dont count either.




Watch my mental breakdown as it happens.
http://mspoopiepants.blogspot.com/

I'm posting...be very afraid.

Tank goodness for usenet to keep track of my major life events.



I never learned how to socialize from my family. I might as well have been raised by a pack of wolves. 

In didn't know that Justice Joseph P. Nadeau was a female or a
feminist. Sounds more like a man.

Maybe they are just interrupting the laws most likely written by men
and based on the bible also written by men.

Jeff

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 07:09:53 GMT, spammy <spammy@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>brojack77@my-deja.com wrote:
>> By NANCY MEERSMAN
>> Union Leader Staff
>> 
>> CONCORD � If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
>> adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
>> 
>> In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
>> cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
>> 
>> Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
>> outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
>> 
>> Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
>> defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
>
>That's the problem with feminist judges: they're happy to ignore law
>in order to get the result they want, except when hiding behind the
>law would serve them better (as here).
>
>No doubt feminists would have complained that they "just want to
>control women's sexuality" if the ruling had gone the other way.

brojack77@my-deja.com wrote:

> By NANCY MEERSMAN
> Union Leader Staff
> 
> CONCORD � If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
> adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
> 
> In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
> cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
> 
> Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
> outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
> 
> Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
> defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...

What a load of crap, of course it is! imho... My God it's becoming Legal 
for gays and lesbians to be legally married, how on earth can this not 
be considered adultery!
peace
sharon
> 
> http://www.theunionleader.com/

jeff s wrote:
> In didn't know that Justice Joseph P. Nadeau was a female or a
> feminist. Sounds more like a man.

Since when did being a man prevent one from being a feminist?
Do you believe that the ruling would have been the same had the
husband been caught in a homosexual affair? I don't.

"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
news:a6jrqv4ao7jhb96bkadiriqeo8n2pc0eal@4ax.com...
> If I remember correctly, the bible stats that abultery is between a
> man and a married women. As long as a man has sex with a unmarried
> women it's OK. At least according to the bible.


You might wanna actually *read* the bible
before you start "quoting" it.
...and can you please figure out which NG you want
to post to and TRIM THE REST?

jackweso@email.msn.com (brojack77@my-deja.com) wrote:

>By NANCY MEERSMAN
>Union Leader Staff
>
>CONCORD � If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
>adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
>
>In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
>cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
>
>Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
>outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
>
>Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
>defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
>
>(Snip)
>_______
>
>http://www.theunionleader.com/

Was it *cheating*?  Yes!  Was it *adultery*?  No.

The issue here is that New Hampshire law does not define "adultery",
so the Court used dictionary definitions.

Reference http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary :

"Adultery : voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and
someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone
other than her husband" 

So then, what is "sexual intercourse"?

"Sexual Intercourse:
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by
the penis : COITUS
2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other
than penetration of the vagina by the penis "

Based on the first definition of "sexual intercourse", no, it was not
adultery.  Based on the second definition, it was adultery.  

A majority of the Court apparently relied on the first meaning.

"brojack77@my-deja.com" <jackweso@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:7cebf3d2.0311081836.65cc0061@posting.google.com...
> By NANCY MEERSMAN
> Union Leader Staff
>
> CONCORD - If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
> adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
>
> In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
> cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
>
> Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
> outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
>
> Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
> defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
>
> (Snip)
> _______
>
> http://www.theunionleader.com/


I say yes it's adultery.

*b

Sorry I was wrong in my definition of a feminist. According to
Merriam-Webster, this is the definition:

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the
sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

I know that this is anti  bible where women are considered second
class people and are not equal to men.

As for the second statement, I do think it would be different. I feel
that sociality as a whole has different feelings towards homosexual
affairs between men or women. I continually hear and see references to
female/female sex as being enjoyable to watch while there is always
disdain if the same acts were between two men.

Jeff


On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:52:05 GMT, spammy <spammy@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>jeff s wrote:
>> In didn't know that Justice Joseph P. Nadeau was a female or a
>> feminist. Sounds more like a man.
>
>Since when did being a man prevent one from being a feminist?
>Do you believe that the ruling would have been the same had the
>husband been caught in a homosexual affair? I don't.

jeff s wrote:
> 
> In didn't know that Justice Joseph P. Nadeau was a female or a
> feminist. Sounds more like a man.

Bingo! A male feminist...

<...>

Because the bible was originally written (both old & new testament) in
ancient Hebrew and Aramaic I know that I am unable to *read* the
bible, I am not sure about you. I do know I have read one of the many
translations of the text.

The reference to adultery that I was referring to came from Laviticus
20:10  "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife,
even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the
adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

If you have any other references to adultery, let me know.

As for posting, I posted to the same groups that the original poster
posted to. How should I figure out witch of the groups would be
interested in what I was saying.

Jeff


On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 20:47:57 GMT, "YooperBoyka" <cj.don'twant@no.spam>
wrote:

>
>"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
>news:a6jrqv4ao7jhb96bkadiriqeo8n2pc0eal@4ax.com...
>> If I remember correctly, the bible stats that abultery is between a
>> man and a married women. As long as a man has sex with a unmarried
>> women it's OK. At least according to the bible.
>
>
>You might wanna actually *read* the bible
>before you start "quoting" it.
>...and can you please figure out which NG you want
>to post to and TRIM THE REST?
>

jackweso@email.msn.com (brojack77@my-deja.com) wrote in message news:<7cebf3d2.0311081836.65cc0061@posting.google.com>...
> By NANCY MEERSMAN
> Union Leader Staff
> 
> CONCORD ? If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
> adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
> 
> In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
> cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
> 
> Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
> outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
> 
> Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
> defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
> 
> (Snip)
> _______
> 
> http://www.theunionleader.com/



            Ya gotta love New Hampshire - state motto, "We'll do
Anything For Attention".  It is like a desparate teenager trying to
prove to the gang that it is not only very mature, but also liberal to
the point of lunacy. One wonders if they have a clue as to what
homosexuality really means, given the decisions they've made regarding
it recently.

             Not long ago the Episcopal Church in that state elected a
gay man as their Bishop. He had divorced his wife and has been living
in a sexual relationship with his male partner for a number of years.
What the Bishop, Rev. Robinson, seems to be saying to his flock is
that there is nothing immoral or sinful about that union which exists
outside the sanctity of marriage.
  
            Perhaps the Justices had noticed this or were listening. 
After all, if they had found that Ms. Blanchflower (the women in the
divorce proceedings who had a sexual relationship with another woman
while married to Mr. Blanchflower) was guilty of adultery, then
clearly Rev. Robinson would have some more explaining to do.

             For what it's worth, I think if a partner engages in any
type of intimacy outside of the marriage it is adultery - no matter
who it is with - man, women, child, farm or domesticated animal - the
marriage is damaged, possibly irreparably.
             G2

jeff s wrote:
> Sorry I was wrong in my definition of a feminist. According to
> Merriam-Webster, this is the definition:
> 
> 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the
> sexes

Feminist Definition:  �Equal Rights�   -->  Every damn thing women want 
and to hell with men.

"Werebat" <rpoirier2@cox.net> wrote in message news:3FAF545D.1066@cox.net...


> >
> > I say yes it's adultery.
>
> What you say is of no consequence here.  The only thing that matters in
> the SANCTITY of MARRIAGE is what *GODD* says!
>
> The MORALLY RIGHTEOUS: Are you *FOR* us -- or *AGAINST* us?!?


I love it when someone posts on a Usenet discussion group that what someone
else says is of no consequence, especially when it's on a post which asks a
question and the original poster is answering that question.

AND especially when the person preaching the word of God can't even spell
it.

Sort of makes my internet bill worthwhile.




---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 6/11/2003

turtledove wrote:
> 
> "brojack77@my-deja.com" <jackweso@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:7cebf3d2.0311081836.65cc0061@posting.google.com..
> > By NANCY MEERSMAN
> > Union Leader Staff
> >
> > CONCORD - If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
> > adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
> >
> > In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
> > cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
> >
> > Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
> > outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
> >
> > Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
> > defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
> >
> > (Snip)
> > _______
> >
> > http://www.theunionleader.com/
> 
> I say yes it's adultery.

What you say is of no consequence here.  The only thing that matters in 
the SANCTITY of MARRIAGE is what *GODD* says!

The MORALLY RIGHTEOUS: Are you *FOR* us -- or *AGAINST* us?!?

geminii2 wrote:
>             Ya gotta love New Hampshire - state motto, "We'll do
> Anything For Attention".  It is like a desparate teenager trying to
> prove to the gang that it is not only very mature, but also liberal to
> the point of lunacy. One wonders if they have a clue as to what
> homosexuality really means, given the decisions they've made regarding
> it recently.

I think it's pretty clear they were looking for a particular result
(excuse the woman, as usual) and found the right weasel words to justify
it. I seriously doubt that any of those judges would tolerate a
homosexual affair by their spouse, much less tolerate the excuse
"it's not adultery".

jackweso@email.msn.com (brojack77@my-deja.com) wrote in message news:<7cebf3d2.0311081836.65cc0061@posting.google.com>...
> By NANCY MEERSMAN
> Union Leader Staff
> 
> CONCORD ? If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
> adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
> 
> In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
> cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
> 
> Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
> outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
> 
> Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
> defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...

I suggest he goes off and gets loads of women to wank him off. 
Since that's not sexual intercourse the wife has no comeback.

or alternatively, if he doesn't mind her doing it, get her to film 
them at it so he can make some money. If she refuses beat until she
leaves him.

> 
> (Snip)
> _______
> 
> http://www.theunionleader.com/

jeff s <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message news:<a6jrqv4ao7jhb96bkadiriqeo8n2pc0eal@4ax.com>...
> If I remember correctly, the bible stats that abultery is between a
> man and a married women. As long as a man has sex with a unmarried
> women it's OK. At least according to the bible.
> 

A married man can have sex with unmarried women too. The bible may 
criticise it but it's not like the bible isn't just a manual for
controlling the populus.

> Jeff
> 
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 23:12:24 -0600, "|3ill|3o" <byte@moooooooooo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 8 Nov 2003 18:36:00 -0800, jackweso@email.msn.com
> >(brojack77@my-deja.com) wrote:
> >
> >>By NANCY MEERSMAN
> >>Union Leader Staff
> >>
> >>CONCORD ? If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
> >>adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
> >>
> >>In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
> >>cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
> >>
> >>Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
> >>outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
> >
> >This isn't considered sex by the esteemed elders of NH courts? .... lol
> >
> >What an incredible joke ... once again proving what complete dolts we have
> >running our lives sometimes ... jeez! Eyah.
> >
> >						--  billbo
> >
> >>Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
> >>defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
>  
> >>(Snip)
> >>_______
> >>
> >>http://www.theunionleader.com/
> >
> >
> >                 ---------   <*{{{<><  -----------
> >
> >             A closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose.

"brojack77@my-deja.com <jackweso@email.msn.com>" wrote about a case in
New Hampshire where the state Supreme Court ruled that a same-sex affair
doesn't count as adultery.

The relevant bit was snipped out of the summary, however:

> Looking at a dictionary and old case law, the court determined that
> the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse.  The judges
> point to a Websters dictionary definition that mentions intercourse
> and an 1878 case that refers to adultery as "intercourse from which
> spurious issue may arise."
> <http://www.seacoastonline.com/cgi-bin/printstory/printstory.cgi>

The problem we face here is that the court system heavily depends on
following "precedent", which basically amounts to "We're too stupid to
make any sense of this, so let's just see what was decided last time
this came up and do that again."

In essence, the legal system tells judges to cheat on their homework
instead of understanding the issues and coming to a sensible conclusion.

The ruling in the 1878 case is clearly idiotic, because it means that
a woman who has had a hysterectomy cannot commit adultery.  No
intercourse with such a woman can give rise to "spurious issue", and
therefore -- by this definition -- no sexual activity on her part can
possibly be adultery.

So let's see: 125 years ago, many states had anti-misgenation laws,
women were legally barred from voting, and minorities were barred from
voting by dirty tricks that were also perfectly legal.  Naturally any
conclusion reached by rich white men who lived in that alien culture
should be applied to our culture without taking five minutes to think
about whether those conclusions were right in the first place.

But instead of recognising the stupidity of applying the 1878 decision
to our society, the court did what courts usually do.  They pretended
that the past decisions are right, because otherwise we've based our
legal system on something fallible, and we can't let anyone believe
THAT, can we?

 *

If you want to get worked up over something, don't worry about
this or that stupid ruling from a court.  Instead, read:

    _An Introduction To Legal Reasoning_,
    by Edward H. Levi

and then you'll get to see that the entire legal system is basically a
bunch of post-hoc rationalisations dressed up to look as if there were
some important guiding principles that inform judges' decisions.  There
are no such guiding principles; a kindergarden class could make better-
informed decisions than courts do.


The history of the "inherently dangerous" rule, laid out in all its
glory, would be funny if it wasn't so horrible.  Basically, the question
is "Can you sue somebody if you were injured doing something that is
inherently dangerous?"  The judges in the first case rule about what
sort of activity is in fact "inherently dangerous".  This ruling gets
cited as precedent by other courts, and so on, until eventually a court
citing a long chain of precedents comes to the exact opposite conclusion
of the first court, which precedent they cite in support of their
position.

As a result, just about any activity at all could be ruled as inherently
dangerous, or not, depending on the whim of the judge.  He can cite
precedent to support his opinion, no matter what it is.  Judges in the
past made essentially random decisions, and the conclusions of past
courts -- no matter how stupid -- can always be cited in support of
whatever it is the judge feels like ruling today.

Just reading the history of "inherently dangerous" makes perfectly clear
the wisdom of Biblical advice to settle disputes before you get to
court.


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"A contract is an agreement between two people what to do when times
 go bad, written in such a way that even a judge can understand it."
                                   -- Bernard Paul Sypniewski

drawnai@hotmail.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<d33ce629.0311100327.3a7d6a2d@posting.google.com>...
> jeff s <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message news:<a6jrqv4ao7jhb96bkadiriqeo8n2pc0eal@4ax.com>...
> > If I remember correctly, the bible stats that abultery is between a
> > man and a married women. As long as a man has sex with a unmarried
> > women it's OK. At least according to the bible.
> > 
> 
> A married man can have sex with unmarried women too. The bible may 
> criticise it but it's not like the bible isn't just a manual for
> controlling the populus.
> 
> > Jeff
> > 
> > On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 23:12:24 -0600, "|3ill|3o" <byte@moooooooooo.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >On 8 Nov 2003 18:36:00 -0800, jackweso@email.msn.com
> > >(brojack77@my-deja.com) wrote:
> > >
> > >>By NANCY MEERSMAN
> > >>Union Leader Staff
> > >>
> > >>CONCORD ? If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
> > >>adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
> > >>
> > >>In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
> > >>cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
> > >>
> > >>Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
> > >>outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.

Actually, adultery can only be committed by a man.  Any woman who is
involved is the victim of a "rape".  If there is no convenient man
around, as in lesbian affairs, then the nearest by affinity is
obviously guilty.  So, the wife in this case should be given all the
material property of her marriage, plus half of the husband's income
for the rest of his life as compensation for the embarrassment he has
caused her.  And he should be forbidden to come within 100 yards of
her and any children they may have had.


> > >
> > >This isn't considered sex by the esteemed elders of NH courts? .... lol
> > >
> > >What an incredible joke ... once again proving what complete dolts we have
> > >running our lives sometimes ... jeez! Eyah.
> > >
> > >						--  billbo
> > >
> > >>Justice Joseph P. Nadeau wrote for the majority that New Hampshire law
> > >>defines adultery as "sexual intercourse" outside of a marriage. ...
>  
> > >>(Snip)
> > >>_______
> > >>
> > >>http://www.theunionleader.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >                 ---------   <*{{{<><  -----------
> > >
> > >             A closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose.

merasmus wrote:
> drawnai@hotmail.com (Ian) wrote in message news:<d33ce629.0311100327.3a7d6a2d@posting.google.com>...
> 
>>jeff s <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message news:<a6jrqv4ao7jhb96bkadiriqeo8n2pc0eal@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>If I remember correctly, the bible stats that abultery is between a
>>>man and a married women. As long as a man has sex with a unmarried
>>>women it's OK. At least according to the bible.
>>>
>>
>>A married man can have sex with unmarried women too. The bible may 
>>criticise it but it's not like the bible isn't just a manual for
>>controlling the populus.
>>
>>
>>>Jeff
>>>
>>>On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 23:12:24 -0600, "|3ill|3o" <byte@moooooooooo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 8 Nov 2003 18:36:00 -0800, jackweso@email.msn.com
>>>>(brojack77@my-deja.com) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>By NANCY MEERSMAN
>>>>>Union Leader Staff
>>>>>
>>>>>CONCORD ? If a woman cheats on her husband in a lesbian affair, is it
>>>>>adultery? The state Supreme Court said yesterday it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a 3-2 split, the court ruled that a Dartmouth College professor
>>>>>cannot use same-sex adultery as a ground for divorcing his wife.
>>>>>
>>>>>Adultery, the court said, only takes place when the sexual liaison
>>>>>outside of marriage involves a man and a woman.
>>>>
> 
> Actually, adultery can only be committed by a man.  Any woman who is
> involved is the victim of a "rape".  If there is no convenient man
> around, as in lesbian affairs, then the nearest by affinity is
> obviously guilty.  So, the wife in this case should be given all the
> material property of her marriage, plus half of the husband's income
> for the rest of his life as compensation for the embarrassment he has
> caused her.  And he should be forbidden to come within 100 yards of
> her and any children they may have had.
> 

That does seem to be the criteria that "family" courts use to decide 
divorce cases.

Bob

Free-radical wrote:
> 
> "Werebat" <rpoirier2@cox.net> wrote in message news:3FAF545D.1066@cox.net..
> 
> > >
> > > I say yes it's adultery.
> >
> > What you say is of no consequence here.  The only thing that matters in
> > the SANCTITY of MARRIAGE is what *GODD* says!
> >
> > The MORALLY RIGHTEOUS: Are you *FOR* us -- or *AGAINST* us?!?
> 
> I love it when someone posts on a Usenet discussion group that what someone
> else says is of no consequence, especially when it's on a post which asks a
> question and the original poster is answering that question.
> 
> AND especially when the person preaching the word of God can't even spell
> it.
> 
> Sort of makes my internet bill worthwhile.

YHBT.  HAND.

   - Ron   ^*^

"spammy" <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:BHIrb.5$t6.3@news.randori.com...
>
> geminii2 wrote:
> >  Ya gotta love New Hampshire - state motto,
> > "We'll do Anything For Attention".  [...] One
> > wonders if they have a clue as to what
> > homosexuality really means, given the decisions
> > they've made regarding it recently.
>
> I think it's pretty clear they were looking for
> a particular result (excuse the woman, as usual)
> and found the right weasel words to justify it.
> I seriously doubt that any of those judges would
> tolerate a homosexual affair by their spouse,
> much less tolerate the excuse "it's not adultery".

Yeah, kind'a has the sound of clinton's "I did not
have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" bleat,
don'it?

Does New Hampshire have "alienation of affection"
as grounds for divorce?  If the woman's lesbian affair
isn't adultery, it certainly is "alienation" from her man's
POV.  Remember that civil suit prosecuted on those
grounds in Virginia a few years back -- the husband
won that one, btw.

-- 
    Men are people with feelings.

----------
In article <vr12mtlpd7oleb@corp.supernews.com>, "Society" 
<Society@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:


> Does New Hampshire have "alienation of affection"
> as grounds for divorce?

Nope.

> If the woman's lesbian affair
> isn't adultery, it certainly is "alienation" from her man's
> POV.  Remember that civil suit prosecuted on those
> grounds in Virginia a few years back -- the husband
> won that one, btw.

What is this 'emotional cruelty' shit? Nothing like that here. Welcome to
Hew Hampshire!

From the Portsmouth Herald, Nov 8th, 2003.

Part of the problem is that adultery is not defined in New Hampshire�s
divorce laws.

Looking at a dictionary and old case law, the court determined that the
definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse. The judges point to a
Webster�s dictionary definition that mentions intercourse and an 1878 case
that refers to adultery as "intercourse from which spurious issue may
arise."

And unless there's the Divine Hand of God involved, it's not very likely
that there'll be any 'spurious issue' resulting from a lezbo love fest.

Ain't 'conservatism' grand?

Deb.

"Society" <Society@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message news:<vr12mtlpd7oleb@corp.supernews.com>...
> "spammy" <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:BHIrb.5$t6.3@news.randori.com...
> >
> > geminii2 wrote:
> > >  Ya gotta love New Hampshire - state motto,
> > > "We'll do Anything For Attention".  [...] One
> > > wonders if they have a clue as to what
> > > homosexuality really means, given the decisions
> > > they've made regarding it recently.

     <snip>
> >
> Yeah, kind'a has the sound of clinton's "I did not
> have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" bleat,
> don'it?


       I always liked what Barbara Bush was quoted as having said
regarding the man.  "Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks
or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it
is."

        G2