Tuesday, January 16, 2007

24 with an l all for adultery

so, i saw this story and it bothered me. i realize that many of our laws are societal norms that we have formalized, but this is going too far. although i believe that adultery is wrong, to criminalize the act is lunacy. And, for it to be challenged in court, and the 2nd highest court in michigan upheld it, sheesh.

5 comments:

Adam said...

No, no Ed. We're looking to legislate the family values of a particular group. Laws against abortion, adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, dildos. We're takin' it to the US, Bible style (OK, so I'm pretty sure dildos aren't in the Bible, but you get me).

And to make sure, I'll clarify that I don't take the stance that all Christians want this (example might be this post of yours), just some of them.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha, the Michigan attorney general's name is Mike Cox.

edluv said...

except that this law passed in 1931, so it's not like it's some new push (taking it to). it reminds me of the episode off the simpsons were they enforce prohibition. "we found this law on the books..."


and, from many sociological perspectives it makes sense to be against adultery. stability in society ya know.

Adam said...

Oh, I missed the date on that, my bad.

There are plenty of other species that are non-monogamous and have managed not to obliterate themselves.

Not to mention, as I understand the word adultery, anyone who consensually participates in an orgy, swinging, and/or a menage a trois can be charged with a felony. I don't think a consensual threesome is going to bring down our society.

edluv said...

yep, all of those consensual adulterous acts could be punishable if they also involve the commission of another crime.

as i think through the law, i could see how it may have been initially geared to stop prostitution or something. and, i think the news sources may be misrepresenting the law a bit. i have only read what they presented of the law, and it's not quite as sensational as the headlines make it. but, still, it is an odd enhancement to a law, and seems like a court should have struck that down.