Saturday, January 26, 2019

Representatives Pischke and Brunner and Senator Nelson Embrace Marriage Equality

Ok, the post's title might be overselling the point a bit, but Pischke, Brunner, and Nelson are becoming more inclusive. They want South Dakota's legal definition of adultery to apply to every married person.

If their legislation passes, a married person who has voluntary sex with a person not his or her legal spouse will be guilty of adultery. It won't matter if the person is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight.

Pischke, Brunner, and Nelson are co-sponsoring HB 1107 which changes South Dakota's legal definition of adultery. If HB 1107  passes, state law will read, "Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with any other person to whom he or she is not married."

Currently, the law reads, "Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married."

The definition of adultery is found in section 25-4 of South Dakota's Codified Laws. That section covers divorce. Pischke, Brunner, and Nelson are acting like social liberals and allowing aggrieved same-sex spouses to use adultery as grounds for divorce.

It is a little odd that folks who have strenuously argued for the sanctity of marriage would make it easier for anyone to divorce

In fact, some cynical folk might argue that the legislation is being being proposed as a form of sour grapes in reaction to Obergefell decision which legalized same-sex marriage. Those folks might contend that these legislators are making divorce easier for marriages that the legislators never considered valid.

I will be curious to see if anyone argues against this legislation because it removes from state law the premise that marriage is between one man and one woman. 

2 comments:

Porter Lansing said...

Grounds are for coffee not divorce. Grounds for divorce bring to light some supposed "awful behavior" in order to convince a judge to grant extraordinary damages and child support against (mostly) a man. What a sham.
- Great post, Mr. Lis

Kal Lis said...

Thanks Porter.

Coming from these three, the whole thing seems weird.