Loving Wives rights!

[JackLuis]

The past few day/weeks, it is hard to tell with my schedule, I have been hearing about the "C Street Group".
Josh Marshall at TPM wrote about today.

"You remember the C Street Group, the combo Bible fellowship and group home for members of Congress up on Capitol Hill. But it's been occurring to us that the C Street Group, which is an emanation of a shadowy religious outfit called "the Family", might not be a religious fellowship at all so much as a covert 12 Step Group from Republican Hound Dogs, womanizers and sex addicts trying to get clean during their tenure in the hallowed halls of Congress."

Oh my a "shadowy religious outfit" linked to our Congressmen? How quaint.

But the question I had is caused by this part:

"Now it's the turn of former Rep. Chip Pickering (R) or Mississippi, who appeared to be in line to grab Trent Lott's senate seat and was allegedly offered the gig by Gov. Haley Barbour, but decided instead to leave Congress altogether.

Pickering and his wife divorced soon afterward and now she is suing the novelistically named Elizabeth Creekmore-Byrd for "alienation of affection," i.e., for stealing her husband. What's more, according to legal papers filed by Leisha Pickering, some of the "wrongful conduct" between Pickering and Creekmore-Byrd (I guess that's what they call it down there?) took place at ... you guessed, the C Street group home up on Capitol Hill. "

The "long suffering" wives of these less than loyal Congressmen have rights too! I'm sure that lit contains a few stories from both sides of the relationship.
But,
"Alienation of Affection," is that still, or ever was a crime? What that heck is it and where does it come from?

Another angle of the story is;
What is a Presidential hopeful (Sandford) doing bonking an Argentine News Doxy and just how many tats did he get with those tits?

 

[3113]

What is a Presidential hopeful (Sandford) doing bonking an Argentine News Doxy and just how many tats did he get with those tits?

Hey! Sandford actually loves that woman. He wrote her poetry. If one had to choose between true love and god...well....

 

[voluptuary_manque]

According to research I did for a story I wrote (posted on Loving Wives, no less), Alienation of Affection laws haven't been on the books for years. And even if they were, they were designed to protect fathers who used their daughters as low-(or unpaid)-labor in family businesses from suitors who would (gasp!) steal the girls away into domestic bliss (or more unpaid labor, depending on your viewpoint).

If the Congressbody's wife is going to sue another Congressbody, it would be for Fraud. The logic is explained (in heavy Lowland burr) in the story. And I didn't make it up, either.

 

[penandpaper]

According to research I did for a story I wrote (posted on Loving Wives, no less), Alienation of Affection laws haven't been on the books for years. And even if they were, they were designed to protect fathers who used their daughters as low-(or unpaid)-labor in family businesses from suitors who would (gasp!) steal the girls away into domestic bliss (or more unpaid labor, depending on your viewpoint).

If the Congressbody's wife is going to sue another Congressbody, it would be for Fraud. The logic is explained (in heavy Lowland burr) in the story. And I didn't make it up, either.

Voluptuary is right. The case would be under fraud.

There was a case a few years back where the wife sued the husband's mistress, and eventually new wife. I think it was in North Carolina. The jury awarded her over a million dollars. Although, they weren't congressmen/women, I believe it was similar to this case. The jury said they were "sending a message" to the unmarried women out here that wanted to steal away husbands. Sounded to me, at the time, like there were a lot of bitter people on the jury.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Voluptuary is right. The case would be under fraud.

There was a case a few years back where the wife sued the husband's mistress, and eventually new wife. I think it was in North Carolina. The jury awarded her over a million dollars. Although, they weren't congressmen/women, I believe it was similar to this case. The jury said they were "sending a message" to the unmarried women out here that wanted to steal away husbands. Sounded to me, at the time, like there were a lot of bitter people on the jury.

Another good reason for legalizing group marriage, IMO. Of course, HM would be unlikely to have any interest in making our duet into an ensemble even with the possibility to adding a soprano and a tenor.

 

[JackLuis]

According to research I did for a story I wrote (posted on Loving Wives, no less), Alienation of Affection laws haven't been on the books for years. And even if they were, they were designed to protect fathers who used their daughters as low-(or unpaid)-labor in family businesses from suitors who would (gasp!) steal the girls away into domestic bliss (or more unpaid labor, depending on your viewpoint).

If the Congressbody's wife is going to sue another Congressbody, it would be for Fraud. The logic is explained (in heavy Lowland burr) in the story. And I didn't make it up, either.

I read it and liked it very much. "Warrior" , winner takes the Women! I gave it a 5 for the plot itself.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Why thank-you. Given the vehemence that usually responds to a LW story, I think I got off rather lightly. A couple of the comments puzzle me though. Are there people out there who actually like seeing the bad guys win?

 

[ms.read]

Why thank-you. Given the vehemence that usually responds to a LW story, I think I got off rather lightly. A couple of the comments puzzle me though. Are there people out there who actually like seeing the bad guys win?

some

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Voluptuary is right. The case would be under fraud.

There was a case a few years back where the wife sued the husband's mistress, and eventually new wife. I think it was in North Carolina. The jury awarded her over a million dollars. Although, they weren't congressmen/women, I believe it was similar to this case. The jury said they were "sending a message" to the unmarried women out here that wanted to steal away husbands. Sounded to me, at the time, like there were a lot of bitter people on the jury.

It is not the business of juries to send messages to people about their sex lives. They need to learn that, sooner rather than later. Don't use your bitterness as an excuse to steal my money and give it to someone else.

 

[JackLuis]

It is not the business of juries to send messages to people about their sex lives. They need to learn that, sooner rather than later. Don't use your bitterness as an excuse to steal my money and give it to someone else.

So you are saying that stealing your money is wrong but depriving a woman of her rights under the contract of marraige, ie" a secure monogamous relationship, until death us do part, is not?

So such women are deprived of their due, not because of their own acts but by their husband's acts? So shouldn't they be allowed compensation?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So you are saying that stealing your money is wrong but depriving a woman of her rights under the contract of marraige, ie" a secure monogamous relationship, until death us do part, is not?

So such women are deprived of their due, not because of their own acts but by their husband's acts? So shouldn't they be allowed compensation?

I don't think that men (or women, for that matter) should be punished for obeying Mother Nature instead of society's warped moral code. The State should not be in the business of enforcing the twisted (and failed, I might add) Victorian social experiment that is monogamous marriage. We constantly complain about a litigious society. Well, this is a case in point. "Alienation of affection" lawsuits are classic frivolous lawsuits. One cannot fix a monetary value on sentimental concerns, anyway. They are far too subjective for that.

 

[penandpaper]

I don't think that men (or women, for that matter) should be punished for obeying Mother Nature instead of society's warped moral code. The State should not be in the business of enforcing the twisted (and failed, I might add) Victorian social experiment that is monogamous marriage. We constantly complain about a litigious society. Well, this is a case in point. "Alienation of affection" lawsuits are classic frivolous lawsuits. One cannot fix a monetary value on sentimental concerns, anyway. They are far too subjective for that.

Well said Sever. I agree.

However, it's a dicey situation. When a man/woman breaks that marital contract, they are breaking a contract. Whether the contract is right by Mother nature is pointless. In fact, most of our contracts are not reinforced by Big M. Property rights being a perfect example. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but once you commit, you should actually commit. And if you falter, then there must be some form of compensation to the partner that did not. It's true in business and needs to be true in relationships. It's the: "get out or don't do it, before you fuck someone else" rule. A good motto I may add.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That's why it isn't "alienation of affection" it's fraud. Marriage is a legal contract. If you don't want to abide by the contract, don't get married. It's a no-brainer. If you don't believe in monogamous marriage, don't get married. If you're married and don't want to be monogamous, divorce, then cat around. But actions have consequences so if you enter into a contract and then break it, expect to pay through the nose. QED.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That's the sort of reasoning I can't agree with, because there is no monetary value that can be placed on emotional issues. What's the objective monetary worth of a deal like that? Who decides? You? Me? The next door neighbor with her gossipy, holier than thou attitude? Bad enough with judges, but juries in civil cases are too apt to be swayed by passion instead of reason. Some contracts are not legal by definition and not legally enforceable. Which is why marriage should be a totally private deal, between two or more individuals and no state or public licenses or role whatsoever. If they want to involve religious authorities, so be it. But the judges, mayors, clerks, etc. should butt out.

The only time the state should get involved is with property division and child custody. Period. Marriage itself is a private deal between consenting adults. There should be no formal, legal difference between marriage and cohabitation.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That's the sort of reasoning I can't agree with, because there is no monetary value that can be placed on emotional issues. What's the objective monetary worth of a deal like that? Who decides? You? Me? The next door neighbor with her gossipy, holier than thou attitude? Bad enough with judges, but juries in civil cases are too apt to be swayed by passion instead of reason. Some contracts are not legal by definition and not legally enforceable. Which is why marriage should be a totally private deal, between two or more individuals and no state or public licenses or role whatsoever. If they want to involve religious authorities, so be it. But the judges, mayors, clerks, etc. should butt out.

The only time the state should get involved is with property division and child custody. Period. Marriage itself is a private deal between consenting adults. There should be no formal, legal difference between marriage and cohabitation.

In an ideal world, perhaps. However in real life, marriage is an enforceable contract. Look it up.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

In an ideal world, perhaps. However in real life, marriage is an enforceable contract. Look it up.

I don't doubt that it is, legally. But practically, again, what is the monetary value of emotions? Who sets the damages? I don't trust most judges in such cases, let alone jurors.

Which is why new legislation should kick the State out of people's sex lives once and for all. But that's just my radical viewpoint. There's a reason that I quote Lysander Spooner in my sig.

And this is just an example of how litigious our society has become. Tort reform is badly needed, and not just in medical matters. Lawyers better hope that I never have a chance to make law, because they won't make nearly as much money from civil law.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And this is just an example of how litigious our society has become. Tort reform is badly needed, and not just in medical matters. Lawyers better hope that I never have a chance to make law, because they won't make nearly as much money from civil law.

Do you need any of us to sign a petition so you can run for Congress?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Do you need any of us to sign a petition so you can run for Congress?

Tempting....but I could never run. I would have to tell the truth, and that would cause some Bible-thumper relatives of mine (whom I love, in spite of their beliefs) too much emotional pain. See, I do have a sentimental side. It just doesn't formulate my political philosophy, which is basically Spoonerite/Libertarian.