Advertise Here!
 

Most Viewed

Top 6 articles this week:

Write In

In order to use this feature, please sign in or register.

Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

Georgia and the big red “A”

Is it time to throw out Georgia’s adultery law?

A law no one will touch


 Attorneys who have done battle over state control of private sexual behavior say the statute on adultery is a misguided attempt to legislate morality, and that Georgia should get rid of it.

         But there’s little chance of that.

          Steve Sadow, an Atlanta attorney who argued the case leading to the Georgia Supreme Court’s overturning of the state sodomy law in 1998, says that if someone were prosecuted under the adultery statute, he would be interested in pursuing its repeal. But, he says, a legal database shows no prosecution for adultery in Georgia later than 1952, and little activity before. And he thinks the likelihood that someone would be hauled into the dock nowadays on an adultery charge, giving him a prosecution to contest, is just about zero.

        “No district attorney in this state would want the adverse publicity that might arise from prosecuting someone for adultery,” he says. “This is different from a legislator attempting to sponsor a bill to eliminate adultery. In the case of the D.A., you’d have someone who would be railed against as attempting to criminalize or prosecute morality, when there are so many bigger and more important issues he or she should be focusing on, such as drug use and violent crime. In the case of the legislature, it looks like you are attempting to legislate immorality.”

      The Gold Dome crowd has sporadically addressed the issue on both sides of the coin, ranging from a 2005 proposal to prohibit a divorcing adulterer from receiving any marital property to a state senator’s announced 1997 campaign to repeal several laws on private sexual behavior, folding adultery into the package.

     But the status quo remains, and that troubles Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the Georgia ACLU.

     “This should be taken care of by the legislature,” she says. “For many reasons, this is a very bad law. Number one, if it were enforced ... there would be a police officer at every divorce hearing, and an arrest would be made anytime there was an adultery allegation. I am saying that to illustrate how ridiculous it is that the law is on the books. We would be in support of any lawmaker who would sponsor a repeal.”

     While Seagraves says the group will study whether to take steps to press such a case in the legislature, she agrees with Sadow that the short-term prospects for a repeal are slim.

        “The legislature right now doesn’t seem to be, as a whole, a group that wants to broaden freedom and liberty,” she says. “But there are some enlightened legislators out there and if approached, they might introduce such a bill.”
     
There is precedent for the ACLU to jump in. The group represented the defendant in the 2003 case that resulted in the Georgia Supreme Court throwing out the state’s fornication law. But again, for such a battle to take place on the adultery front, a prosecution would have to arise first.

Who’s your daddy?

Pittman, who in his book “Private Lies” chronicled almost 50 years of counseling couples whose unions hit the iceberg of infidelity, believes adultery should remain illegal.
   
“We have to make sure that when people screw around, they know they have committed an offense against another person,” he says. “But I am not so sure about enforcing it.”

    He adds that our society encourages adultery.
   
“We have a whole popular culture built around reassuring yourself you’re sexy,” he says.

    Maybe so, but that’s nothing new. At least as early as the 12th century, poets described a subject’s sex appeal by numbering their many lovers—and those odes to courtly love almost entirely referred to married people. Some of that, of course, was pure fiction. But factually, the great beauty of the era, Eleanor of Aquitaine, complained that her husband, King Louis VII of France, didn’t frequent her bed enough to allow her to conceive a male heir, so she left him for England’s much more virile King Henry II, with whom she’d begun a lusty relationship while still wedded in apparently too-holy matrimony to the very devout Louis.

    People didn’t become more faithful with the rise of democracy and a more equal distribution of wealth, either. In her book, “Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage,” social historian Stephanie Coontz writes that in a 1928 survey, one quarter of married American men and women admitted to having had at least one affair.

    In 1998, around the time of President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, the Associated Press compiled survey results that showed 22 percent of married men and 14 percent of married women admitted to having had at least one affair. (One survey put the numbers at 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively.) The AP also reported that although 90 percent of Americans believed adultery to be morally wrong, only 35 percent believed it should be illegal.

    Given how long adultery’s been going on and how it’s managed to survive every slate of prohibitions thrown at it, one can’t help but wonder if the only reason Adam and Eve weren’t stepping out was that there was no one else to step out with.

    “I have studied 42 societies, and around the world you will find men and women who have committed adultery,” says biological anthropologist Helen Fisher. “Even in those cultures where you can get your head chopped off for it, they do it.”

    Fisher, who explores the topic in her books, “The Anatomy of Love” and “Why We Love,” believes that, whatever its social and personal ramifications, adultery is part of an unconscious reproductive strategy, and that in a way, humans have evolved as adulterers. If a man has two children with one woman, she explains, he’s spreading his DNA into the next generation. But if he “goes over the hill” and has two children with another woman, he’s doubled the amount of DNA he’s spreading, and he’s adding to its variety. So adulterers may have disproportionately contributed to the human gene pool.

It’s not all “he,” though. In the ’40s, Fisher says, a study in Los Angeles hospitals intended to examine other traits in the blood samples of newborn babies found a trait that shocked the World War II-era world: Between 10 percent and 30 percent of the babies studied were not the offspring of the men to whom the mothers were married.

    If it’s always been so common, why is it illegal in Georgia?
   
“This is what they call ‘cultural lag’ in anthropology,” she says. “It hasn’t caught up with the reality.” SP

This article has multiple pages.



COMMENTS

Commentby Mike | Sunday, August 17, 2008, 12:10 PM

Congrats you have now joined the ranks of complete idiots.

Law on the books or not Lawrence v. Texas effectively struck down every sodomy and adultery law in the country, and last I checked Georgia is still a part of the country. A decision your "reporter" never even mentioned.

I don't really think you people are just plain stupid, so please stop trying to convince me otherwise.

 

Commentby Amy | Sunday, August 17, 2008, 7:55 PM

Have you ever heard of "state laws"? If the law is still on the books in the state of Georgia, aren't YOU the idiot? Wait, are you that pornographer loser? If so, I'm not surprised you would make such an asinine comment. If not, I'm sorry you share your moniker with a perverted retard.  

Commentby Mike | Sunday, August 17, 2008, 8:20 PM

I'm sorry Amy apparently you didn't finish elementary school where you learn that a state law cannot supercede the Constitution, when a law is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the law is struck down, that's why abortion is legal in all 50 states...Rowe V Wade struck down state laws prohibiting abortion.

Now please try to engage your brain prior to putting your foot squarely in your mouth.

 

Commentby Mike | Sunday, August 17, 2008, 11:09 PM

Oh and by the way....If you think that you are going to win an intellect contest with me by impugning my chosen profession I will continue to make you look like an idiot.

 

Commentby Simon | Monday, August 18, 2008, 10:11 AM

When you don't have the facts on your side, stoop to smokescreens (phrases like "effectively struck down" and "law on the books or not") and name-calling.

The whole point of this article, from my reading, is whether the law SHOULD still be on the books. It also points out that the law is ineffective, since no one will prosecute it. So where's all the Limbaugh-style bloviatng coming from?

It's true that in his dissenting opinion re: Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia predicted that statutes regulating or prohibiting same-sex marriage, prostitution, adultery, bigamy, incest, etc., would find themselves vulnerable to being struck down/invalidated as a result of L v. TX. That hasn't yet happened, however. To quote the late, great Clara Peller, where's the beef?

 

Commentby Stephanie | Monday, August 18, 2008, 2:12 PM

Thanks Simon and Amy, you're right. Marital laws are governed by states, not the feds, as are laws relating to misdemeanors. The adultery law remains in Georgia's code because there has been no challenge to it. If there were, the most obvious source of case law would indeed be the Lawrence decision, but there would have to be a challenge first, and there hasn't been. In the meantime, you can still be arrested for adultery and if you're like most folks, you're probably going to pay the fine and not make a fuss bc it's an embarassing charge. So, the pressure is on the legislature, which most assuredly won't touch the matter. The story quite thoroughly explains this, but we can't be expected to pander to the needs of the more challenged readers.  

Commentby Jerry | Thursday, August 21, 2008, 9:12 AM

Simon V., for the sake of precision, the phrase "Limbaugh style bloviating..." is an O'Reilly-ism.

I'm just saying, it seems inconsistent to throw a punch involving slamming one Right-Wing windbag while using the phraseology of another Right-Wing windbag. It sort of slams one while endorsing the other?

O.K., I'll admit it...I just hate the word "bloviating". It's a stupid word.

Whatever happened to good old tried and true words like "diatribe" or "demented ramblings" or "lunatic howlings at a deaf and uncaring moon"?

Be creative. Make up your own artistically inspired verbiage next time. Sure, your point was well made and you seem like a guy who would make good conversation over a beer, but try a little harder to make the language your own. "Bloviating" belongs to Bill O'Reilly now. He uses the term constantly.

And Bill O'Reilly is well known to be a "Limbaugh-style oxycontin mainlining douche-baggery" of a man.

See? Something like that would go a long way toward making us "bloviating" haters happy.

Please and Thank You.  

Commentby Mike | Friday, August 22, 2008, 12:26 PM


Good lord you people are idiots when it comes to basic law. Didn't you attend your civics classes?

The Supreme court struck down all sodomy and adultery laws in Lawrence V Texas.

On the books or not the law is null and void, period.

No wonder an complete idiot like George Bush can be elected look at the utter ignorance of Americans as to how their own government functions.

You are an embarrassment

 

Commentby Robert | Friday, August 22, 2008, 3:24 PM

Mike South:

Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy. It left the door open to strike down laws against adultery and other related laws, as Justice Scalia and Senator Rick Santorum have publicly said. But as Simon V. says above, that has not yet happened.

It may be useless, but the law still exists. To say that the Supreme Court struck down adultery laws is patently false, and all your insisting that it did does not make it so.  

Commentby Jerry | Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 8:06 AM

Robert Morton wrote:

"Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy. It left the door open to..."

To be more precise, I think you meant "It left the BACK door open to...."

Oh no you di'in, Girlfriend!

Posted by "Citizens for Precise Language".

Oh, and Mike South, if you REALLY want to argue with some G.W. supporters - and I agree with you on Bush, i.e. just how little skill does a president have to show to lose the public trust in this country? - check out MLIVE web site and columnist Tracy Lorenz (search for him). There you will learn that even though we had 7 years of cities sinking into the sea while Nero played guitar at WW2 Conventions, endorsed torture "just up to a point", etc. - "liberals are destroying this country!"

I could use some help combating the insanity with those groupies. Give it a try. You will find it as enjoyable as that bitter sweet pain you get when you have a loose tooth and you just can't keep pushing it with your tongue, just to make sure it really is that painful. MLIVE, Tracy Lorenz and followers. Enjoy.  

Commentby V | Saturday, September 06, 2008, 6:41 PM

The question isnt whether the law is valid, the question is who gives a damn if it is. Let's see someone enforce it. Then let's talk about the law about unmarried women skydiving on a Sunday, and see how that's affecting everyone's lives. And how about the one about keeping donkey's in bathtubs? We'd better see if that needs to be repealed because my donkey is dirty  

Commentby DLink | Sunday, September 07, 2008, 12:20 AM

People are quick here. I picked up the paper on random chance in Decatur, and here I am. :-)

So, the quickest way to end the facade of fidelity, could someone clarify that term, is to have an amicable affair and force it to the courtroom via marital request.

In other words, Drag the govn't into the bedroom in order to force the legislature to acknowledge on the books that they don't belong there.

Now that would make for some interesting news.  

You must be logged in to post a comment. You can log in here.

The Sunday Paper actively moderates site content.
Offensive material will be removed.
However, user comments on display do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Sunday Paper or its staff.

Get what we're talking about
Items we've reviewed in the latest issues of The Sunday Paper, from Amazon.com

 
Advertisement
Depression Studdy
Advertisement
Sharp Residential Banner Block
Advertisement
Dialog in the Dark