Lesbians can't cheat, law says.

Liar

now with 17% more class
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Posts
43,715
Just FYI.

Opinions in article below not nessecarily mine. But coincidentally, yeah. Silly things like this is what is holding sexuality equality back.

----------------

LESBIAN AFFAIR NOT CONSIDERED ADULTERY

By Brian Hodges

Bi-curious housewives all over this nation breathed a sigh of relief last week. They have just been given the freedom to explore their blossoming sexuality in a guilt-free, consequence-free environment. No, this isn’t the plot to some late-night Cinemax flick. On November 7, in a move that Bill Clinton could be proud of, the New Hampshire Supreme Court voted 3-2 that when a woman cheats on her husband with another woman, it is not considered adultery.

According to an article in New Hampshire’s Union Leader, "The decision reversed a Lebanon Family Court’s finding allowing David G. Blanchflower of Hanover to allege fault against his wife, Sian Blanchflower, for carrying on a ‘continuing adulterous affair’ with a woman… The ruling may have monetary consequences for David Blanchflower because he cannot use adultery to prove fault against his wife in the divorce." New Hampshire state law defines "adultery" as "sexual intercourse outside of marriage."

Webster’s Dictionary defines "sexual intercourse" as requiring a male and a female organ. Justice Joseph P. Nadeau backed up the court’s decision, stating that according to the law, adultery "clearly can only take place between persons of the opposite gender." Clearly. Sure. Whatever you say Joe. Once again, common sense apparently has no place in the law. Lanea Witkus, lawyer for Mrs. Blanchflower and her lesbian lover, Robin Mayer said, "It is a good decision… The court is following the law as it was written." As it was written? As it was written? Excuse me, but have we all forgotten that this law was written two hundred years ago at a time when oral sex and sodomy were still considered criminal acts in New Hampshire?

"The way the law was written," Ms. Witkus, your clients wouldn’t be worrying about divorce, because they’d be on their way to jail. Jennifer Levi, an attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) breathed a formal sigh of relief for the gay community because the ruling was based solely on the law, and that the justices did not deny that "gay and lesbian relationships are significant and important." According to Levi, "In my eyes, that was the greatest concern of this case – that the court would not be understanding of gay and lesbian relationships."

That was the greatest concern of this case? Are you serious? Is the gay community so agenda oriented that that is the greatest concern in this case? Not the fact that a marriage fell apart due to infidelity? Not the fact that a woman committed the ultimate act of betrayal and then hid behind that very act – for financial gain? Ms. Levi, the defendants in this case have only hurt your cause, regardless of whether the outcome was decided based on law or prejudice.

And your apparent lack of compassion for anything and anybody that does not further your agenda boggles my mind. Boy… What can I say New Hampshire? Just… Wow. I mean… Wow. Seriously, what are you people trying to do over there? Are you just making sure we don’t forget about you? I understand tourism is down after your little face fell off the mountain, but really now. I don’t think this is the solution to draw people back. Somehow, I just don’t see tourists flocking to the Concord courthouse, taking pictures and saying, "See that kids.

That’s where it all started. That’s where it became okay for your mom to completely dyke-out on us." (snap) Okay, all kidding aside I really do sympathize with the judges. I know a law is a law and you can’t just change it midstream. I hate it when people try to do that too. (cough) hangingchads. But please, stop burying your head in the sand, fix the law, make it clearer or broader or whatever you have to do. Just fix it.
 
I wonder if the (pardon) flip side of this means a man who has sex with a man outside of wedlock isn't cheating, either.

Adultery no longer means "cheating on someone you made a promise to", then, unless there is a penis/vagina combination involved?

F U C K E D U P
 
Yes, and the only real sex out there is intercourse, as in penetration.

I wonder if two lesbians and a strap-on would count as intercourse.
 
Liar said:
Yes, and the only real sex out there is intercourse, as in penetration.

I wonder if two lesbians and a strap-on would count as intercourse.
maybe intracourse, then?
semantics are a hoot, ain't they?
so, according to this law...lucky and i don't have sex. (don't tell her that.)
 
vella_ms said:
maybe intracourse, then?
semantics are a hoot, ain't they?
so, according to this law...lucky and i don't have sex. (don't tell her that.)

I wanna not have sex with you two!
 
vella_ms said:
maybe intracourse, then?
semantics are a hoot, ain't they?
so, according to this law...lucky and i don't have sex. (don't tell her that.)

considerin its not cheatin i feel good about pouncin you again beautiful

*POUNCE*
 
impressive said:
I wanna not have sex with you two!
lets call it a date to not have sex. it will be the most insidiary episode of nonsex ever!
bring it. :devil:
 
vella_ms said:
so, according to this law...lucky and i don't have sex. (don't tell her that.)
No, you probably do something like 'engage in unsanctioned fornication'.

Hmm. Sounds hot.
 
So this morning when you ...---... on me and then ...---... your tongue inside me and then ...---... with that huge toy ... ? That wasn't sex?

Cool! :cool:

When we finally get to the stage of having real sex, it's gonna be OFF THE FUCKIN' HOOK!
 
It's still infideleity, just not adultry under the law. Kinda like you can be really expreinced, a great fellatrix and able to take a coke bottle up your ass, but still can be technically a virgin. You aren't chaste or pure, but your maidenhead is still intact.

The only meaning I see in the decision is that men won't be able to use lesbian affiars as grounds in a divorce for leverage. theoretically, women won't be able to use m/m sex as grounds either. Since you don't need grounds for a divorce anylonger, it's really just about who gets what in the proceedings.
 
lucky-E-leven said:
So this morning when you ...---... on me and then ...---... your tongue inside me and then ...---... with that huge toy ... ? That wasn't sex?

Cool! :cool:

When we finally get to the stage of having real sex, it's gonna be OFF THE FUCKIN' HOOK!

PMSL!! God lit is good for me tday. Im LMAO!!
 
Colleen Thomas said:
It's still infideleity, just not adultry under the law. Kinda like you can be really expreinced, a great fellatrix and able to take a coke bottle up your ass, but still can be technically a virgin. You aren't chaste or pure, but your maidenhead is still intact.

The only meaning I see in the decision is that men won't be able to use lesbian affiars as grounds in a divorce for leverage. theoretically, women won't be able to use m/m sex as grounds either. Since you don't need grounds for a divorce anylonger, it's really just about who gets what in the proceedings.
Quit talking so much sense, take your clothes off and get un-laid! :p
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Well, since you put it that way you ole romantic you ;)
You know I'm not one to mince words, especially when it comes to sex...but my romance is always there. :catroar:
 
Odd

My newspaper for today reports a court decision saying, for the first time, that same sex affairs equal adultery.
 
lucky-E-leven said:
You know I'm not one to mince words, especially when it comes to sex...but my romance is always there. :catroar:


I know I won't be mincing words, If you're naky I have better things to do with my mouth thanbeat my gums.
 
Pure said:
My newspaper for today reports a court decision saying, for the first time, that same sex affairs equal adultery.
Interesting.
I mean, it's fascinating that such a relationship can be quantified as illegal when one participant is involved in a standard marriage elsewhere and yet when it comes to recognizing a same-sex relationship as a stand alone there is really no such thing. Very curious indeed.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
I know I won't be mincing words, If you're naky I have better things to do with my mouth thanbeat my gums.
In the throes is really the only time I can agree that words are worthless. :cool:
 
Back
Top