The ruling is broader than indicated. It holds that regardless of sex, only male - female coitus is covered within the term “adultery.” Thus any sort of sexual affair that does not involve coitus does not give rise to right to divorce based on fault. This seems to thwart the legislative intent. No-fault divorce had been enacted, but certain misconduct, including adultery, allowed the abused spouse the extra rights of a fault based divorce.

Ok, so according to the court it’s not just lesbian activity, but male on male sodomy, that doesn’t count as an adulterous act. I thought Taranto did a good job of bringing out the ironies of this, one of them being, if only male-female coitus counts legally as sexual intercourse, then how does a homosexual “marriage” ever get consummated? Which only underscores the absurdity of the notion of homosexual “marriage” in the first place.

This would be an effective argument to use with people who support homosexual marriage. Just ask them: “So tell me, since you believe in marriage between a man and a man, and between a woman and a woman, how would these marriages be consummated for legal purposes?” By putting the advocates in the position of having to spell out the actual acts that they think constitute marriage, the question would force at least some of them to recognize the utter absurdity of what they are proposing.

I have not thought up the full implications of this ruling yet. But it reminds me unpleasantly of a dictat of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who decreed that a married woman whose husband had had a homosexual relationship had no right to divorce him.
Perhaps a case of great minds thinking alike?

LA wrote: “By putting the advocates in the position of having to spell out the actual acts that they think constitute marriage, the question would force at least some of them to recognize the utter absurdity of what they are proposing.”

Actually, I don’t think so. I mean, of course, it would point up the absurdity of homosexual “marriage” for those who still define marriage in the traditional way: as an act fundamentally ordered to the procreation and raising of children. But the homos and their sympathizers manifestly do not see marriage as that. To them, marriage is, or should be, simply an economic and/or libertarian arrangement—a relationship that confers certain civil rights upon its members, both with respect to each other and with respect to the state. Thus, no particular consummation of such a “marriage” is even necessary. Simply being granted the license is sufficient to satisfy the new definition.

I think the question I suggested would shove in their faces the contradiction they want to avoid: that they are demanding a certain type of “marriage” while denying what everyone knows to be the essence and substance of marriage. To say to them, “How would this marriage be consummated?” would bring back to their consciousness, at least for a moment, what marriage is really about. At least for that moment, it would tear open the denial of truth in which they live.

I’d hope it would, but I wonder if it really would in fact? It seems to me that these people long ago made their peace with absurdity. There is nothing so idiotic anymore that they won’t stand there in all earnestness and proclaim it. Still, I’m with you. :) It certainly couldn’t hurt to try.

I think Bubba’s just pointing out the classic pitfalls that we naive Traditionalists still stumble over — thinking we can invoke plain and obvious logic and that it will somehow make a difference in modern man’s thinking.

Mr. Auster of course is right as to the logic…