halfoffdepot.com
 
Advertisement
Replacement

Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

Georgia and the big red “A”

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

Georgia and the big red “A”


Left to right: Sen. John Edwardsand his wife Elizabeth; Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his wife, Callista Bisek; Jennifer Moorhouse, a Monica Lewinsky lookalike, poses in front of a giant screen showing U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1998.
Amy Sussman/Getty Images; Aude GUERRUCCI/AFP/Getty Images; HECTOR MATA/AFP/Getty Images

By Stephanie Ramage and Mark Woolsey
   
    When former Democratic presidential primary candidate John Edwards admitted earlier this month to a recent extramarital affair, many onlookers simply shrugged it off as exactly the sort of thing we’ve all come to expect from politicians, regardless of party affiliation.

Some compared Edwards to former Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and, inevitably, to Bill Clinton, the U.S. president who informed the world that oral sex isn’t really sex, so doing that with someone other than your spouse doesn’t count.

Former history professor Gingrich, who championed “family values,” married his second wife, Marianne, within months of divorcing Jackie, his cancer-stricken first wife, and 18 years later divorced Marianne to marry Callista Bisek, a congressional aide 23 years his junior with whom he reportedly had carried on a six-year affair. (You may recall that Gingrich was the sole prominent Republican to say that Clinton’s non-sex with White House intern Monica Lewinsky wasn’t enough of a reason to impeach the president.)   

“It’s the Republicans who have affairs and then divorce to marry the people they have affairs with,” says Atlanta psychiatrist and marriage therapist Frank Pittman. “The Democrats have affairs and stay married.”

    He’s not sure why that is, but unlike Clinton, Pittman doesn’t quibble over what’s sex and what’s not. He explains that it is possible to have an affair that doesn’t involve sex at all, and a sexless affair can be just as, or even more, damaging to the innocent spouse than a purely sexual affair.

    That may be fodder for counseling sessions, but under Georgia’s adultery law, it’s the sex—specifically the kind of sex—that matters. Under our law, Gingrich, depending on the details (which never came out), may or may not have been an adulterer. Clinton, stained dress notwithstanding, was not. But Edwards, since there’s some speculation that he’s the father of campaign videographer Rielle Hunter’s baby, probably was.

    Georgia’s law basically defines adultery as genital intercourse involving penetration between someone who is married and someone to whom that person is not married. The law characterizes adultery as a misdemeanor, and prescribes a punishment exactly like that applied to people who buy the services of a prostitute: 12 months probation and/or a $1,000 fine.

    Of course, for anyone to be punished, they’d have to be arrested first, and that seems extremely unlikely. The law is on the books, but it is never enforced. Police officers say they would have a very hard time gathering evidence to bring a charge. Figuring out if it was a “Clinton affair” or an “Edwards affair” would rely on a lot of hearsay. The details of most hookups would remain mysteries like Gingrich’s. And even if police managed to scrape up some clues, a misdemeanor charge wouldn’t be worth the trouble.

    Yet no one is eager to be the one to strike the prohibition from Georgia’s legal code. So although the state’s sodomy law was overturned a decade ago, Georgia’s adultery law remains in the book, like Hester Prynne’s scarlet letter. 

“We’d have to arrest half the county”

The Sunday Paper conducted an admittedly random survey of about 10 law enforcement agencies, from one end of the state to the other, and found not even one officer who could remember ever having made an arrest or even having heard of an arrest for adultery.

    When we posed the question, “Has your agency ever arrested someone for adultery?” the response was usually a gale of laughter that took a few minutes to subside. There were also requests that we not use officers’ names (not that they felt self-conscious about the topic, mind you; they just felt better talking about it if no one knew who they were).

In Hancock County, after an assistant who was nearly helpless with laughter managed to transfer the phone to him, a sheriff’s deputy said, “No. I’ve been here for 27 years and I have never heard of that happening.” At the Telfair County Sheriff’s Department, the response, when it finally emerged from a wave of giggles, was, “We’d have to arrest half the county.” A retired Atlanta Police Department officer said, “In 26 years, I arrested a lot of people for a lot of things, but I never arrested one for that.” And a Colquitt County officer said, “Honey, let’s face it, I’m sure there have been plenty of occasions when it would have been necessary, but no, I’ve been here 13 years and I’ve never heard of it happening.”

    Gwinnett County, DeKalb County and Cherokee County didn’t hide behind anonymity.

    “I would seriously doubt that you would find any law enforcement agencies that have made arrests for adultery,” said Cpl. Illana Spellman, public information officer for the Gwinnett County Police Department. “It’s like fornication: It’s an old law that has been left on the books. Arrests for fornication or adultery would definitely clog up the court system, and there are other, more serious crimes that we have to pursue.”
   
Mekka Parish, public information officer for the DeKalb County Police Department, asked a group of veteran officers and returned with “a definite ‘no’” answer.

    And at the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Department, Sgt. Jay Baker explained that officers would rather pursue arrests that would result in convictions.

    “The problem with adultery would be finding a jury of 12 people who hadn’t done the same thing,” he said.

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
Zifty
Advertisement
Half Off Depot
Advertisement
Skyscraper