• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    174
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    You used to have to prove adultery in order to get a divorce in New York state.

    Family story time! My great-grandparents wanted to get divorced and were in New York, so my grandfather lay in a bed next to his mother-in-law under the covers and my grandmother took a photo to present to the courts. My great-grandmother apparently never even took off her coat.

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Great now make it so if you cheat you lose the ability to get alimony.

    And an open relationship is different then cheating.

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yes absolutely this. Cheating should not be a crime you go to jail for.
      But it should have consequences. I think a good way to go is a law that unless there is a prenup that specifically deals with cheating, and unless it was an agreed to open relationship or there was otherwise permission to cheat, a cheater is ineligible for alimony and must be considered morally suspect for the question of child custody.

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Honestly, I think it’s high time we ditch old marriage laws in favor of much more individualized marriage contracts that are settled in civil court if they’re dissolved. Modern marriages are much more complex than traditional ones and our antiquated laws don’t deal with them well. We’d have to update laws/policies about hospital visiting, medical decisions, inheritance, etc, as well, but I think it would be worth it.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I was in favor of individual contracts for most of my life.

        But there’s an issue - with individual contracts there’s a greater degree of uncertainty every time someone goes to court over them.

        It’s the same as with individual contracts in other areas. Say, labor.

        Power balance matters.

        So - ideally yes, but in our real world with our real legal and enforcement systems - we may not be able to. Same as with labor, again.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Well I doubt it would be truely individualized. Probably something more like a menu of terms that everyone else is using would quickly develop. Maybe a few numbers to customize. But mostly boilerplate. And probably requiring arbitration.

    • freeze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      People who are so concerned about that possibility can just require their prospective spouse to sign a prenup with conditions like that on alimony, as a condition of getting married.

      • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Yup, that’s a great way to start a marriage. “I love you with all my heart and want to be with you forever. Also, I don’t trust you, so let’s get a prenup.”

        The law needs to protect people by default. It’s just impractical not to. You have to keep in mind that humans are not perfect rational agents.

        • freeze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          If someone has this strong of a concern about potentially having to pay alimony in the future and their partner is this bothered by practical attempts to alleviate that fear by preventing an issue, then maybe they’re just not right for each other and shouldn’t get married.

          Alimony laws also vary enormously by jurisdiction, and people could also just e.g. not marry someone who doesn’t work or isn’t planning to. Or only marry someone who gets paid close enough to the same amount that alimony likely wouldn’t come into play regardless.

            • freeze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              12 hours ago

              I think I have a realistic view. Usually terminally online men don’t understand how alimony even works or how rare it is in the first place. I suppose they just get off on these kinds of justice porn theoretical outrage scenarios.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      that’s the opposite of the point of these laws. the entire point of this and no fault divorce is that the state shouldn’t dictate relationships. how are you going to adjudicate cheating anyway?

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        How?

        If person a is shown to have been cheating then person a loses any claim to alimony.

        Pretty simple.

        Person A in divorce court “judge I want alimony”

        Person B in divorce court “your honor Person A was cheating here’s the proof”

        Judge “ no alimony will be awarded from Person B to Person A”

        Why should anyone be allowed to get alimony after cheating? That’s just insult to injury.

        Your spouse cheats you walk in on it and now you want a divorce. Added bonus you have to pay money to the cheater for life???

        How does that make sense?

        It should literally be law that the alimony goes away at that point.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Yeah indentured servitude as punishment for being victim of a cheater. That’s just pure injustice and the state shouldn’t be enforcing that.

          • andrewta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Here’s something nuts . I have three down votes and six up votes. Think about that. There is a solid percentage of people that think I’m wrong in saying what I said.

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      I do wonder the legal definition used here. I hope the law doesn’t consider it cheating if you tell them about it first, regardless of if they say yes

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        Just my opinion, if my spouse (I’m not married) walks up to me and asks if they can sleep with someone else and I say no. Then they do it anyway. I would absolutely call that cheating. Then I’d call a divorce attorney. If I had to pay alimony after the divorce I’d be extremely bitter.

        • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 day ago

          Your partner is not your property. They have the right to fuck who they want.

          They dont have the right to endanger your health, which is why they need to tell you

          • Tedesche@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            In the context of the comment chain, you’re saying that a person who willfully violates a monogamous marriage vow should still be able to claim alimony in the event of a divorce, simply because they informed their spouse they were doing it?

            Fuck that. What the hell are you thinking? Please tell me this isn’t what you mean.

            • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              20 hours ago

              Marriages shouldn’t be monogamous. Thats antiquated and ridiculous

              Some people get married for tax benefits, and the law shouldn’t say anything about whether or not the marriage is poly or mono. I mean, sure, let people opt into it if they want legally enforced monogamy, like a prenup. But by default marriage shouldn’t require monogomy. Thats insane.

              • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                19 hours ago

                Wow. Way to give polygamists a bad name, dude. Can’t let the monogamists have their slice of happiness, huh?

                Pathetic. I’m glad you’re in the extreme minority, what a horrendous opinion you have.

                • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  19 hours ago

                  I literally said its OK to be mono. Just that it shouldn’t be required.

                  Also its polyamory, not polygamy

          • JamesFire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 day ago

            There is absolutely a difference between having an open relationship where both parties consent, and having a relationship where one person just sleeps around, but it’s totally fine because the other was informed it was happening.

            Your partner may not be your property, but that doesn’t mean that sleeping around just because you told them it was happening is ok.

            • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              If you dont consent to your poly partner fucking someone else, you’re saying “your body, my choice”

              Thats so fucked, and I can’t believe you’re defending it

              • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                29 seconds ago

                If you dont consent to your poly partner fucking someone else

                Whoa buddy, drop the assumptions. You’re assuming your partner is poly.

                Thats so fucked, and I can’t believe you’re defending it

                I can’t believe you’re defending cheating and then excusing it as “we’re just poly” (Even though you absolutely did not make that clear to begin with, and are now changing the circumstances of your argument.)

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                16 hours ago

                You have no conception of how contracts work do you?

                Contracts involve things people aren’t entitled to all the time. Nobody is entitled to have someone else meet them for lunch at 1 pm either. You can’t dictate someone else’s movements that way.

                Oh wait! Unless they agreed to meet you there at 1pm.

                Fascinating, the way promises can turn a lack of entitlement into legitimate entitlement.

                • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  15 hours ago

                  This article is literally about changing that contract because its based on an antiquated concept of some old book that claimed it was the word of some mythical creature in the sky

                  We’re updating the contract for a reason.

              • kofe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                16 hours ago

                If a poly person is with a monogamous person and wants to sleep with a new partner, end the relationship with the monogamous person. The monogamous person can stay out of the relationship if they know the other person is poly, too.

                • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

                  Sure. I’m talking about a poly person in marriage with a poly person. They shouldn’t be able to be criminalized for fucking someone else if they told their partner about it first.

  • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Woot to all the people that were horny but it was the legal system stopping them from cheating on their spouse.

  • 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    I mean, fair, but doesn’t really seem like something worth the effort one direction or the other, doubt that law was being enforced much.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      2 days ago

      We should reduce as much as possible laws that make something illegal but aren’t enforced. It creates uncertainty about your position and allows authorities to threaten citizens for unrelated reasons.

      • 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s true but I imagine doing so would quickly become tedious and that initiative would inevitably be used for nefarious purposes.

        • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          2 days ago

          What would become tedious, eliminating crimes from the books? I’m not saying we need to go on some campaign, just here’s a law that isn’t being used, isn’t just, and they’re getting rid of it. That’s good.

          • 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            IIRC correctly the process for striking a law is more or less the same as making a new one, so for every single little antiquated thing and protest bill somebody got passed you’d have to do the same thing with all the associated foot stomping and bitching from anyone and everyone motivated to either stop you or do something else.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Remember that’s why a whole slew of anti-abortion laws were able to put back into place recently because they were just left on the books. Same for a lot of other laws involving interracial marriage, gay marriage, gay relationships in general, freedom of religion, Etc… these laws are usually left on the books because people hope they can be used again one day. Getting rid of them protects us all. I don’t care if it’s tedious.

    • JamesFire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Nah, fuck that. If a law isn’t enforced it shouldn’t be a law. Things being illegal because it’s “too much effort” to make it legal is bullshit.

  • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    132
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It kinda should be IMO. If you can’t not be faithful, don’t fucking get married and be a cheating piece of shit.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      2 days ago

      You won’t get a lot of argument that cheating is a shitty thing to do but the government doesn’t need to be involved in peoples relationships.

      • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        64
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        If you’re worried about the American dream I have shit loads of horrible news for you since you haven’t been paying attention for the last 40 fucking years apparently.

        Being able to be a cheating shitbag with no consequences should be the least of your concerns at this point.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Ahhh

              Now it makes sense.

              If someone cheated on you. Go live your best life. Because there’s something else that commonly happens to guys if they don’t, and it seems to be what’s happening here

        • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          2 days ago

          I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s ok and there should be no consequences, just that it’s not a matter for the law. The law isn’t really about what’s moral and immoral. There are plenty of immoral things that are legal and moral things that are illegal. I think it’s wrong to cut in line but I don’t think we should be locking people up for it. I also think in many cases stealing is morally justifiable but I don’t necessarily think we should make stealing legal.

          • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            I think it’s wrong to cut in line but I don’t think we should be locking people up for it.

            IDK, you might be onto something here.

            • njm1314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              This is why we need to bring back stockades. Perfect punishment for that kind of shit. Just lock someone up in public let people deride them and throw vegetables at them all day and then let them go.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                16 hours ago

                Bro that’s totally out of date and makes no sense in the context of our current societal situation.

                Let them throw pringles.

        • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          50
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It would have been criminal under the law. I cheated, she cheated. It was the law, whatever agreement she and I had was immaterial.

          • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            2 days ago

            That’s just how the system is. My wife and I are into bdsm. Legally speaking I’m guilty of spousal abuse because she legally can’t consent.

            So we just ignore the law. But if we ever divorced acrimoniously she could rake me over the fucking coals.

              • jerkface@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                It must be a weird edge case. You can certainly consent to being beaten, humiliated, degraded, etc.

                One thing you cannot consent to where I live is to be touched sexually while you are asleep. The moment you become unconscious (as though that were a thing with a clear, bright line definition) any sexual consent you have given is deemed to have been revoked. This seems rather paternalistic to me since you can consent to have your leg chopped off while you sleep, but whatever. There have been cases where police and crown prosecutors went after charges because someone talked about letting their husband have sex with them while they slept; ie they had moral consent but not legal consent, and so were charged with sex crimes over the protest of their willing partner.

              • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                A woman can’t consent to being hit in my state. Or at least that was the common consensus when we were social about it.

                I just looked it up and some random website says it’s fine with consent so either the entire community was misinformed, something has changed, or that website was full of shit.

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          You don’t have to be married to cheat. You are right, they are totally different things. Marriage is a legal status that has nothing to do with sex. Asexual people can get married. Two straight men can get married. People in open relationships can get married.

          You want it to be illegal to cheat. That’s bonkers. How would that even work? Do you really want the state investigating your intimate relationships to make sure they are legal??

          Why should only sexual intercourse get that kind of protection? If my partner and I swear that we will share our feelings with each other, and I find out that they have feelings they’ve been keeping from me but sharing with someone else, that is cheating. But as long as there isn’t a dick and a vagina involved, it’s okay? Like where do you draw your lines, and why do you want those lines enforced by men with guns?

    • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’ve been cheated on and divorced. My ex was seeing a divorce lawyer lol. That was some fun times with depositions and constant harassment since they had 24/7 legal access.

      Even with all that said, I don’t think cheating should ever be criminalized. Just gotta be careful who you marry or date. I still have never learned my lesson lol.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, Anyone who thinks cheating should be a crime isn’t emotionally mature enough to be in a relationship in my opinion. It’s a horrible thing to cheat on someone, but laws aren’t for hurt feelings.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Every couple that wants the legal rights grants by marriage must be monogamous whether they want to or not, because it gives you feelings that you are unwilling to process when confronted by committed but nonmonogamous relationships?

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      If a married couple want to fuck around with other people, why should that be a crime?

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          2 days ago

          It does have consequences. You mean you want cheaters to be punished. That’s a different thing.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 days ago

          The law makes no distinction between the two. Open marriage? More like 5 years in a federal penitentiary waiting to happen because a cop coveted your wife. It’s your word against their’s unless you want the state to issue permits for sex or something.

          What you’re looking for is civil court, which is entirely different from criminal court and works differently as well. And that already exists for cheating on your spouse.