Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Umm, why didn't you quote WHY the judges ruled the way they did, instead of spouting off on liberals and gays?
It seems the judges were trying to follow the written word of the law as much as possible. It wasn't some biased pro-gay stance they had.
Of course homosexual cheating should be considered adultery. But it seems New Hampshire law hasn't defined it as such, and thus the "liberal" judges were following the word of law. I thought conservatives were the ones who hated "judges legislating from the bench"? I only make that point because you're bent on making this a liberal vs. conservative issue. Maybe the NH Legislature should clarify the definition of adultery.
You people don't seem to understand the question. This isn't about gay marriages - this is about ADULTERY. You know -when 2 people are married! When one goes out and has "sexual relations" why is it only "adultery when it is man/woman and not woman/woman? It is "sex" - is it not?
Then yes we get into the whole positioning of the court - Unlike monsta seems to think - I wasn't "bent on making this a liberal vs conservative issue". This was about why a court would rule that woman/woman sexual contact is NOT adultery. It seems like common sense(like our courts have any anyway
Now as to some people's argument about gov't in the bedroom - I agree...to a point. I don't think it matters who is doing who or whether it is hetero or homo - all that matters is that it happened and when legal proceedings(divorce and etc) rely on these factors to decide "fault". This woman would have been deemed adulterous if it were a man she strayed with right? Why should it make a difference if it was with a woman? Isn't the big push to have equal rights? If that really is the intention - then that sexual contact should be deemed "sex" and thus ADULTEROUS.
My position in this is NOT anti-gay in ANY way, but IF the courts and gov't are going to grant "rights"(such as "unions" and the like) to a group then they better fall under the SAME rules and such as other groups - lest it be "special rights" instead of just "rights".