quote:
Supreme Court: Gay Sex Not Adultery
Decision Comes In Divorce Appeal

POSTED: 11:55 a.m. EST November 7, 2003

http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/wnne/2619895/detail.html

CONCORD, N.H. -- If a married woman has sex with another woman, is that adultery? The New Hampshire Supreme Court says no.

The court was asked to review a divorce case in which a husband accused his wife of adultery after she had a sexual relationship with another woman. Any finding that one spouse is at fault in the break-up of a marriage can change how the court divides the couple's property.

Robin Mayer, of Brownsville, Vt., was named in the divorce proceedings of a Hanover couple. She appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that gay sex doesn't qualify as adultery under the state's divorce law.

In a 3-2 ruling Friday, the court agreed.

The majority determined that the definition of adultery requires sexual intercourse. The judges who disagreed said adultery should be defined more broadly to include other extramarital sexual activity.
I had some comments on this, but www.opinionjournal.com beat me to it.

One wonders what gay-rights activists will make of this case. On the one hand, it puts homosexual spouses at an advantage in divorce proceedings, compared with unfaithful heterosexuals. On the other hand, it would seem an affront to gay dignity to say that homosexual affairs don't rise to the level of adultery. Also, if members of the same sex are ever allowed to wed, this ruling would make it legally impossible for them to consummate their marriages.

Come to think of it, will traditionalists applaud the New Hampshire high court for reaffirming the definition of adultery as a relationship between a man and a woman?

If gay unions were legalized, and then one of them had an affair with another man, then there would be no punishment, right? That doesn't make sense. The would mean the wronged spouse couldn't get any justice. But how would it make it impossible to consumate the marriage?