Commit Adultery go to jail for Life in Michigan

[Woody]

You have asked "What if the married people have decided that marriage can not be to each other because they have grown appart?"

My answer would be ... I support what the Bible says about marriage. Jesus is against adultry and does not want anyone to divorce. He does not authorize anyone to divorce for any reason. He did "allow" divorce because of the hardness of our hearts. But HE does not believe in it and neither do I.

I do believe in seperation under some circumstances. But marriage is a one time shot. Get it right or forget it.(And of course ... if you allow God to HE can heal any marriage.)

Of course the only exception is with death. The vow is till death do us part.

[cricket]

Hard to reconcile a marriage if one partner is imprisoned for life.

[Woody]

That would be called seperation which I do support as indicated in the post above.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think adultry needs to be a criminal offense but I would favor a civil statute that allows the injured spouse to seek puniative damaages in civil court.

[David Koot]

I see several potential problems with a civil statute. First, there needs to be a legal right enforceable under some theory--would it be breach of contract, tort, common count, or what? How would that legal right be defined? What would be the legal basis for identifying the right? And what about defenses? If it would be a civil statute, then what about the obligations of the other party under the civil statute? If, for example, the right is defined in terms of breach of agreement, then what about the defense that the other party breached the agreement in some way?

But beyond all this, there remains the issue of Constitutional rights, under freedom of expression, association, etc., as well as the importance of making such a statute secular in theory and operation. To say nothing of the issue of legal definitions!

Hmmmm . . . a daunting task, indeed, and one especially suited to the puritan 'city of God on earth' mindset (after Augustine).

I should add to that my reaction of shock and amazement that a modern court would actually uphold such a statute. Michigan? What can I say? If it were me, I would take it into Federal court on Constitutional grounds.

Dave

[Dr. Shane]

I think a group of politicians could work out all those details. A cheating spouse that has been forgiven should also be protected from a vengful spouse that changes his or her mind some years later.

However with the adoption of no-fault divorce, the value of marriage has become less and a civil statute for adultry and physical abuse would help strengthen a weaken institution.

[David Koot]

I think a group of politicians could work out all those details.

Politicians often try to do such things. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes not. I would be surprised if they could get away with it today. Fortunately, we have checks and balances, and the oversight of the judiciary. I am guessing that the Michigan court upheld it on the basis of stare decisis. But if the legislature made new law, then I question if it would be found Constitutional. And, someone should mount a Constitutional challenge to the existing law. But take it out of the state courts. Get it into Federal court.

Dave

[Dr. Shane]

I didn't know we had a constitutional right to commit adultry.

[cricket]

Separation by imprisonment will NOT help God's cause of reconciling one marriage partner to another; it is not His desire to see the marriage end (for all practical purposes) on the basis of the sin of adultery. It is His greater desire that they reconcile and re-establish a productively, God-centered relationship.

[Woody]

Cricket ... the way I see it is the options are divorce or seperation and I would encourage the seperation not divorce.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Cricket has made a good point here. Jesus did not throw the stones. That means to me that the CHURCH has no business throwing the stones. I am opposed to the CHURCH sitting in judgment of sinners in any form or fashion. However ... Jesus did respect the laws of the land ... even slavery. I feel that it IS up to society to make laws for the people and also for consequences. What must be avoided is the spiritual connotations.

First of all, the sentence was not by the CHURCH but by a COURT.

Secondly, are you saying you don't believe in Church discipline? That members can live any way they want to, even in violation of everything the Church stands for without being disciplined? Is Church discipline ABOUT throwing stones?

Gerry

[Woody]

Gerry thank you for your good questions.

The sentence was by the court and not the church. I support the courts having justice. I do not support the church doing the judgment.Cricket made the point that Jesus did not throw the stone. Jesus represents the church. The church should not throw the stones.

No . I do not believe in the Church's judgment of its members. OR Discipline as you call it. The Bible clearly teaches that judgment is up to God. All of us will fall short of the standards of God but it is not up to us to judge each other.

We should judge sin and call sin by its name so that we personally do not fall into sin. But to judge the sinner is wrong. The wheat and the tares are to grow together until the harvest and at the harvest the Lord will do the judgment and will seperate the wheat and the tares. The tares will be bound into bundles and burned.

I would not propose that we start the judgment and burning now while on this earth. He who is without sin cast the first stone.

You are right ... Church discipline IS about throwing stones and that is clearly against scripture. We are to judge sin but not the sinner. Call sin by its name ...yes. But love the sinner. And the sinner is you and me and all of us.

Can members live how they want to live? Yes. We all have free choice. Our churches are not free from sin. We are a home for sinners. We are a home of love and support for sinners. We are NOT some purified group of sinless members. We are purified only by the forgiveness of our sins that the Blood of Jesus offers.

We would be awful busy if we had to go around condemning all the sins in the church and its members. That is not our job. Our job is to judge no man. Our job is to love, encourage and support the sinner . NOT to condemn.

If you think our church and its members are pure ... then we have a real problem.

[Parade Orange]

well my first and only post here went over like a zephre.

So I will address the topic at hand.

"yawn"

or maybe not.

[David Koot]

I didn't know we had a constitutional right to commit adultry.

LOL I believe that freedom of expression, association, personal relationships and travel are things that the government protects, within limits. 'Adultery' is a religious concept, taken from the Bible. As for an enforceable issue under civil law, hmmmmm well there is the exchange of marriage vows, but then again, as someone else has pointed out on this thread, adultery almost never occurs in a vacuum, and it seems there would be a plethora of possible defenses.

[Woody]

Adultry is breaking a contract and therefore should be handled in the courts.

[David Koot]

Adultry is breaking a contract

Well, there may be some issues with that. First, are the elements of a contract present, and clearly-defined contractual duties? Secondly, what are those duties? Thirdly, are the duties enforceable? Fourthly, what constitutes breach of the contract? I don't mean just adultery, but what other breaches? Fifthly, what monetary damages could be shown to be caused by the breach?

Dave

[Woody]

Well ... apparently the courts in my state have decided it is a matter for the courts.

[cricket]

Cricket ... the way I see it is the options are divorce or seperation and I would encourage the seperation not divorce.

There are more options than these two. Perhaps this is the very issue I've been attempting to address: adultery, while it is an "allowable" cause for separation or divorce, is not an automatic precursor to divorce or separation.

Reconciliation is first and foremost in God's mind. As with any other sin, God wishes the sinner to be repentant and to reconcile himself/herself in his/her relationship with the Lord. Likewise, He wishes the marriage to re-establish around Him, and the partners to recommit one to another.

It is not an either-or situation.

[Woody]

If you are going to file a charge against your spouse ... I would think that you are not really interested in reconciliation. I would think if things were that bad that you were either going to Divorce or seperate. Filing charges would not be a step towards reconciliation.

In my mind ... reconciliation is the only option. But legally you should have options if it looks like Divorce is coming due to a spouse that is not interested in doing the right thing spiritually concerned by staying married.

By having this option it may actually encourage the unfaithful spouse to stay and make things work. I would point out that seperation may be needed and it is not giving up on the marriage. Only divorce is giving up on a marriage.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

there may be some issues with that.

Legislative bodies could address those issues. If the courts up hold a criminal statute, one would think they would also up hold a civil statute.

[Guest]

Quote:

by Redwood-NO ONE in the US will be put in prison for life for adultry.

Glad To Hear You Say That!

[David Koot]

Quote:

there may be some issues with that.

Legislative bodies could address those issues. If the courts up hold a criminal statute, one would think they would also up hold a civil statute.

Well, you still have to identify the legal right. Is it in contract? But then, you have the elements of a contract, you have the questions of breach of contract, you have various other elements. What would greatly complicate such a legislative endeavor is both the highly subjective nature of a marriage relationship, as opposed to an arm's-length business transaction, as well as the whole concept of mutual obligations and, just to pick one example, the argument of failure of consideration. But hey, there are a whole raft of potential problems. And no, it simply is not that easy to draft and craft legislation that would create a legal right and at the same time annul five hundred years and more of precedent and contract law! If the right is claimed to be in tort, well then that is a real crapshoot. How about a cross-complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress? That might be a good one for hubby to use. Thus we would have the parties suing each other. Some marriage! The marriage would self-destruct. The bottom line is that the marriage relationship is way too personal, and has way too many nebulous, vague elements, for the clear-cut requirements of legislation and the courts. And THAT is ONE BIG REASON why states went to no-fault divorce!!!!!!!!!!

[Woody]

I notice that one of the sponsers on this site is for ready made forms for divorce. I think it is getting far to easy.

Also ...

Quote:

by Redwood-NO ONE in the US will be put in prison for life for adultry.

Glad To Hear You Say That!

Glad To Hear You Say That!

David .... In the US we have a hard enough time putting murderers in prison for life. So ... putting those who have commited adultry in for life is not going to happen.

Our society in the US is more and more accepting of adultry ... not less. No jury will put an adulterer in for life.

[Guest]

Well-spoken Redwood. It's pretty similar here in Canada too.

I guess the following comment may be a bit of an aside, (parenthetical) but it seems to me that Christians should not have to worry about divorce laws. ( I know that in reality they do). If everyone were like one of my neighbors, there would be no problem. The other day I was outside in the parking lot, fixing my car, and I noticed him and his wife coming out to their vehicle just a few cars away.

Even though I was really busy; they caught my eye because this man rushed ahead of his wife to open the van door for her. As he was doing so; he said very sincerely & earnestly to her: "There you go sweet-heart." Then he came over to me for a minute and said in a very serious tone (with a smile) "See Dave; that's what we are supposed to do for a girlfriend or a wife! You be nice to her; and open the door for her; and she will GET IN ON YOUR SIDE."

Well, OK. Throw some of those [internet] tomatoes at me now. I deserve it.

[David Koot]

Just tagging on here . . . Permit me to say, quite simply, that I don't believe a civil cause of action for adultery would be amenable to legislative crafting that would hold up under fire. And beyond the huge vague areas, and the complexities of the issue, I just question whether the civil courts would meddle to such an extent in a deeply personal relationship. To say nothing of the Constitutional prohibition against enforcing involuntary servitude!!!! As for adultery as a criminal offense, I can't imagine such a thing passing muster if it were sent to the floor of the legislature today. But in terms of respect for precedent, an existing law just might squeak by. One never knows. A lot may depend on the jurisdiction. THAT is why it is good to get such a thing into Federal court!!! And take it to the Supremes. David Souter surely wouldn't support such a creature!!

Dave