The New Hampshire Supreme Court says that gay sex isn't adultery.
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.So, what's your take on the matter, from a legal and moral standpoint? Does this affect the line that's drawn for male-female sexual activities and adultery?
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.
My initial take on it is that female-female sex is different from male-male sex, am I wrong? Sure, you may think that all combinations are equally unfaithful emotionally, but are they all adultery?
Eugene Volokh says that the ruling applies to all nongenital sex and not just oral sex, for what it's worth. I think the moral aspect of the question is more interesting than the legal, however.