Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

Adultery Decision Means No Same-Sex Marriage, But Polygamy is Possible

Date: Nov 12, 2003
Word Count: 700 words
Cross-Reference: Adultery, NH State Supreme Court, "Same-Sex Marriage"

The NH State Supreme Court determined that it is biologically impossible for homosexuals to commit a dictionary definition of adultery.

On   November   7,   2003,   the   New   Hampshire   State   Supreme   Court,   in   a   3-2   decision,   acknowledged   that   it   is   impossible   for   a   woman   to   commit   adultery   with   another   woman. 
Many   perceived   the   decision   as   being   "pro-gay"   because   it   appears   to   favor   two   homosexual   women.   But   it   was   actually   quite   conservative,   even   (unwittingly)   validating   polygamy. 
The   case   involved   a   divorce   between   David   and   Sian   Blanchflower.   In   establishing   grounds   for   the   at-fault   divorce   proceeding,   David   cited   his   wife's   "adulterous   relationship"   with   another   woman,   Robin   Mayer.     A   lower   court   accepted   that   as   valid   ground,   determining   that   his   wife   had   committed   adultery   with   Mayer. 
Mayer   appealed,   referring   to   the   vagueness   of   NH   State   Law   which   did   not   define   homosexual   activity   as   "adultery." 
To   the   surprise   of   many,   the   higher   court   agreed   with   Mayer,   reversing   the   Family   Court's   decision. 
Since   the   definition   of   adultery   was   not   explicitly   specified   in   any   New   Hampshire   statute,   the   Court's   majority   deferred   to   a   dictionary   definition   in   making   its   decision.     (The   Court   did   not   dig   more   deeply   to   consult   the   original   Biblical   definition   for   adultery,   from   which   the   legal   concept   had   actually   originated.) 
"Adultery"   was   thereby   defined   as   voluntary   sexual   intercourse   between   a   married   person   and   someone   else   to   whom   they   were   not   married.     The   majority   noted,   "Although   the   definition   does   not   specifically   state   that   the   'someone'   with   whom   one   commits   adultery   must   be   of   the   opposite   gender,   it   does   require   sexual   intercourse." 
Accordingly,   the   definition   of   "sexual   intercourse"   had   to   be   determined.     The   dictionary   specifically   defined   it   as   "coitus,"   the   specific   conjoining   of   opposite-gender   genitalia   in   copulation.     Hence,   coitus   is   biologically   impossible   for   homosexuals   ---except   when   being   heterosexual,   of   course. 
Since   coitus   is   an   impossibility   for   two   women,   no   adultery   could   have   occurred,   the   Court   decided. 
Without   doubt,   "sexual   relations"   and   "marital   covenant   betrayal"   had   occurred.     Most   people   understandably   find   those   issues   as   legitimate   for   the   husband   making   his   case. 
But   unlike   former   President   Bill   Clinton's   absurd   "sexual   relations"   assertion   in   1998,   this   matter   before   the   Court   was   only   about   "adultery,"   not   "sexual   relations."     The   Court   only   had   to   determine,   "Did   adultery   actually   occur?"      
It   is   ironic   that   "gay"   and   "adultery"   are   both   involved   here,   causing   confusion.     Both   words'   meanings   have   been   altered   from   historic   definitions.     The   "Gay   '90s"   of   the   19th   century   meant   something   quite   different   from   the   "Gay   '90s"   of   the   20th   century!     And   the   ancient   meaning   of   "adultery"   is   quite   different   from   its   misunderstood   use   today. 
Even   most   conservatives   do   not   know   what   Bible-defined   adultery   means. 
Therewith   lies   both   great   confusion   and   irony.     After   all,   historically,   the   very   first   use   of   the   written   word,   "adultery,"   appears   in   the   Bible.   It   is   in   the   seventh   of   the   Ten   Commandments.     Moses,   a   devout   and   holy   man   of   God   with   two   wives,   was   the   first   to   write   "adultery,"   Exodus   20:14.   "Thou   shalt   not   commit   adultery." 
But   polygamous   Moses   did   not   write   it   in   English.     "Adultery"   is   translated   from   the   original   Hebrew   word,   "na`aph."     It   only   means   "woman   who   breaks   wedlock,"   a   married   woman   having   coitus   with   any   man   other   than   her   husband.     "Na`aph,"   therefore,   explains   how   so   many   of   the   Bible's   heroes   were   polygamous   without   committing   adultery.   None   of   their   wives   were   breaking   their   wedlock   to   a   husband. 
While   "sexual   relations"   with   anyone   other   than   a   woman's   husband   were   also   prohibited,   Biblically-defined   adultery,   itself,   never   meant   the   modern   idea   of   being   "any   mere   infidelity   of   either   married   man   or   married   woman."     A   wife's   non-marital   coitus   with   another   was   always   the   evidentiary   matter. 
That   is   why   marriage   was   determined   by   coitus   too,   never   by   "government." 
No   coitus,   no   marriage.     Likewise,   no   coitus,   no   adultery. 
While   the   Court   did   fall   just   a   bit   short   of   the   more   complete   "na`aph"   definition,   it   did,   nevertheless,   affirm   that   Biblical   method   of   adultery-determined-by-coitus. 
Contrary   to   some   opinion,   therefore,   the   NH   Supreme   Court's   decision   was   not   "pro-gay."     Actually,   it   was   downright   conservative. 
Using   that   Biblical   method   of   determining   adultery   by   coitus   consequently   means   determining   marriage   by   coitus.     By   pointing   out   the   biological   impossibility   of   coitus   for   homosexuals   together,   the   decision   unwittingly   indicated   that   "same   sex   marriages"   are   equally   impossible. 
It   also   (unwittingly)   shows   that   polygamy   is   very   possible,   indeed.   History's   first   recorded   "adultery"   word   and   adultery-determined-by-coitus   commandment   were   written   by   Moses,   who   married   two   wives! 


Bibliographic URLs: 

Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" – the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  

2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.

2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like déjà vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.

2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.

Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles


Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"" is an exclusive legal Trademark of ™.