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!