Woman runs over philandering husband.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that is to say: if someone can be legally in trouble for lying under oath, to an officer of the law, to obtain money, why is it 'ridiculous' to question why it is not legally wrong to lie about to a partner in a marriage contract?

Because you don't read? Someone already posted that marriage IS NOT a contract between two people. It is a contract between the two of you and the state. The state is the other party.

Furthermore, lying under oath or to an officer of the law is obstruction of justice (though lying to an officer usually doesn't get you in much trouble... unless you lied to him about committing the crime ).

[orange]

Originally posted by Frogger
Now please explain why it's okay to jail somebody for cheating on his wife, but not because he called in sick in order to go fishing.

ok! an argument! Well sorta...

Hell am I going to have to make this for you?

You're saying that calling in sick when you want to go fishing, if caught, could be legitimate grounds for being fired, this of course synonymous to if you cheat on your spouse and get caught it's grounds for divorce. Correct?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange
I still don't see the philosophical difference between lying in one instance and lying in another. Both are 'wrong'. Now, if Clinton lies under oath about his sex life, which I support since it's none of anyone's damn business, but gets impeached for it...why is that a crime whereas lying to a spouse whom with you have a 'contract' based on fidelity is not? Ok, so this becomes grounds for a divorce...so what?

I don't think the difference is 'obvious'. I think there are differences, but the root crime is the same. There are circumstances that I can think of where lying under oath would be 'permissable' or forgivable, but I can't think of many, if any times where cheating on a spouse could be forgivable when it is an expressed part of your marriage to that person that you will be faithful and exclusive.

I understand why you compared me to Floyd, and to be honest I'm not 100% serious about this...but am I upset that cheating on a spouse is regarded as just something that happens and that should be accepted - you bet!

I think that it's none of the State's business, and none of mine what goes on between a husband and a wife in terms of fidelity.

The only time it arises is when the marriage is dissolved by the offended party. And that's what the civil consequences are about.

Jailing somebody for adultery is an unforgivable intrusion of the State on the individual. And that's just how it is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Both are 'wrong'. Now, if Clinton lies under oath about his sex life, which I support since it's none of anyone's damn business, but gets impeached for it

Impeachment is much different than criminal penalties. If you recall, Clinton NEVER was brought to court for perjury.

You could make a case he should have because his false testimony obstructed justice. That is why we have perjury, so you don't obstruct justice by lying.

--

Oh, and if marriage WAS a contract between two people, you'd have a HELL of a time getting a divorce... it'd be so close to impossible no one would ever do it.

[orange]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because you don't read? Someone already posted that marriage IS NOT a contract between two people. It is a contract between the two of you and the state. The state is the other party.

I read it. I understand it. According to law you're really only making a contract to deligate monetary responsibility and such.

My counterargument for that is: if that's the case, why would infidelity be grounds for a divorce, a breaking of that contract, if fidelity is not an issue with the contract? And why should it matter with regards to alimony.

Furthermore, lying under oath or to an officer of the law is obstruction of justice

Well, if under the current system infidelity is grounds for divorce, wouldn't lying about cheating be an obstruction of justice as well?

[orange]

Originally posted by Frogger
Jailing somebody for adultery is an unforgivable intrusion of the State on the individual. And that's just how it is.

Well it's certainly hard to argue the overwhelmingly substantial evidence presented in this quote.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange


ok! an argument! Well sorta...

Hell am I going to have to make this for you?

You're saying that calling in sick when you want to go fishing, if caught, could be legitimate grounds for being fired, this of course synonymous to if you cheat on your spouse and get caught it's grounds for divorce. Correct?

Why don't you try to explain why there's a difference? I'm not posing it as an exercise in analogy making.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange


Well it's certainly hard to argue the overwhelmingly substantial evidence presented in this quote.

Ahem.

The difference is there, it's obvious, and it's completely inexplicable to someone who chooses not to see it.

[orange]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Impeachment is much different than criminal penalties. If you recall, Clinton NEVER was brought to court for perjury.

Yes, but he could have, correct? Besides, that's a whole 'nother story

You could make a case he should have because his false testimony obstructed justice. That is why we have perjury, so you don't obstruct justice by lying.

I already did.

Oh, and if marriage WAS a contract between two people, you'd have a HELL of a time getting a divorce... it'd be so close to impossible no one would ever do it.

I don't know about that...

[Asher]

The whole concept of marriage as a legal device is flawed beyond belief.

[orange]

Originally posted by Frogger
Why don't you try to explain why there's a difference? I'm not posing it as an exercise in analogy making.

I can't

But if that's the case, and that's your argument, I can easily say that lying could apply to all such things. No punishment is necessary as it simply violates a contract. And in the case of the police, there is no contract. Under oath I suppose the contract is really made with "God", so that is the only contract that is broken, yes?

[orange]

Originally posted by Frogger


Ahem.

The difference is there, it's obvious, and it's completely inexplicable to someone who chooses not to see it.

I don't understand this. I didn't post that, did I?

[orange]

Originally posted by Asher
The whole concept of marriage as a legal device is flawed beyond belief.

Asher!!

: points while touching nose :

[Asher]

Originally posted by orange
Asher!!

: points while touching nose :

I'm not sure if that was defending your statements.

I just don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage, that's a religious thing.

I think civil unions should be allowed under law, for reasons such as taxes, but there's no reason the law should retrict this to, say, between a man and a woman. It should be allowed between man/woman, man/man, woman/woman... But that's a civil union, and certainly doesn't warrant any criminal punishment if someone cheats on their SO or anything. Civil suits are fair game...

[Imran Siddiqui]

why would infidelity be grounds for a divorce, a breaking of that contract

Because the contract with the state is wholly terminable by the parties at will. It isn't bound in stone, well since recently it hasn't.

I don't know about that...

If it were a contract between two people (in the sense of a legally recognized contract and not a political contract), then whenever one party said "I want a divorce", the other could claim anticipatory repudiation, and claim the first party was in material breach. Since the marriage to the one person is unique, the best remedy is specific performance (ie, forcing the people to stay married). If you wanted monetary damages, you'd have to prove how much money you'd be losing in the future.

Marriage is different. In divorce it is usually 50/50. We know it is different and make it that way, so you won't have to jump through hoops nowadays to get divorced.