Why isn't cheating in marriage illegal?

[Swift]

What about no-fault states? Once you get a divorce it is only a matter of division of assets, child custody, and child support. When my father cheated on my mother all she got was child support until I turned 18 because she retained full custody of me and my brother. Not one penny of alimony was even mentioned.

These situations prevent even civil punishments for infidelity.

Great point. How can there be "no fault"? someone did something to cause a rift. But since we're talking about cheating I'll just leave it there.

Let's say a mother of two is caught cheating on her husband and they get a divorce. Now the average thing would be that the mother would get custody of the children and the father would have to pay child support. That's lunacy! The father wasn't the one in direct violation of the contract, so why should he be the one made to suffer? Of course that works the other way around as well.

I think that if you cheat on your spouse you give up what you marriage created. So if through your marriage you acquired a house and had some children then you LOOSE all of those things and you must make do. That's the price for willfully breaking the contract.

 

[Danoff]

Great point. How can there be "no fault"? someone did something to cause a rift. But since we're talking about cheating I'll just leave it there.

Let's say a mother of two is caught cheating on her husband and they get a divorce. Now the average thing would be that the mother would get custody of the children and the father would have to pay child support. That's lunacy! The father wasn't the one in direct violation of the contract, so why should he be the one made to suffer? Of course that works the other way around as well.

I think that if you cheat on your spouse you give up what you marriage created. So if through your marriage you acquired a house and had some children then you LOOSE all of those things and you must make do. That's the price for willfully breaking the contract.

I don't see how you can simply arbitrarily set the price for willfully breaking a contract that you had no part in. Perhaps the couple should set the terms upfront.

 

[Zardoz]

...In 2002, the divorce rate in New York stood at 3.4 per 1,000 people. That's lower than the marriage rate of 7.3 per 1,000 people for the same year.

I could probably name fifteen couples that I've known where an affair happened, but they didn't break up. I can think of four that I've known where they stayed together in spite of multiple affairs.

An indiscretion does not automatically lead to divorce.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I could probably name fifteen couples that I've known where an affair happened, but they didn't break up. I can think of four that I've known where they stayed together in spite of multiple affairs.

An indiscretion does not automatically lead to divorce.

I agree with you. What I didn't tell you about those statistics is that the general trend is:

*overall, the marriage rate is decreasing
*in some states, the divorce rate is increasing

The trends seem to suggest that people are less monogamous now than they were 15 years ago.

 

[Zardoz]

...The trends seem to suggest that people are less monogamous now than they were 15 years ago.

And if it wasn't for the existence of incurable STDs, there's no telling what things would be like. Those nasty bugs have a tendency to alter one's behavior.

 

[Swift]

I don't see how you can simply arbitrarily set the price for willfully breaking a contract that you had no part in. Perhaps the couple should set the terms upfront.

Why not? It's a legal binding contract recognized by the federal government and gets federal benifits. Why should there not be at least an equivilent penalty for willfully breaking the contract?

I just don't see how somebody can cheat on their spouse(in a NONabusive marriage) get divorced and then take the spoils of the marriage with them like it wasn't their fault in the first place.

 

[Duke]

Ok, let's say I agree with that. As Danoff pointed out earlier, why are there some serious benifits, from the state, for being and staying married? Should you at least not loose those benifits if you break the contract? Imagine what a different president bill clinton would've been.

No, you shouldn't lose those benefits unless your spouse (the other party in the marriage contract) chooses to void the contract by divorcing you. And that's exactly what happens now. As long as your spouse remains agreeable to remaining married, again, there's no reason the State should care.

 

[Swift]

No, you shouldn't lose those benefits unless your spouse (the other party in the marriage contract) chooses to void the contract by divorcing you. And that's exactly what happens now. As long as your spouse remains agreeable to remaining married, again, there's no reason the State should care.

I understand where you're coming from. But that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that when they do get a divorce, why doesn't the person that cheated loose any rights to everything?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm saying that when they do get a divorce, why doesn't the person that cheated loose any rights to everything?

Isn't that what a prenuptial agreement is for?

 

[Zardoz]

...I'm saying that when they do get a divorce, why doesn't the person that cheated LOSE (NOT LOOSE!!!) any rights to everything?

Because of the brutal legal battles that would ensue. If one party stood to get so badly hurt, every divorce case would be an all-out war.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because of the brutal legal battles that would ensue. If one party stood to get so badly hurt, every divorce case would be an all-out war.

My parents' divorce lasted two years. It was all over custody and child support. I've heard of worse. So it still is a brutal battle.

If we are going to use that rationale then it should be appointed to all situations. Compensation in everything should be based on loss of money/property and nothing else.

 

[Swift]

Isn't that what a prenuptial agreement is for?

And if you don't get one, you get all the benifits of the law and get taken to the cleaners with if and when your spouse wants to get out. Yeah, fair.

I'm just talking about the law being equal on both sides.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

And if you don't get one, you get all the benifits of the law and get taken to the cleaners with if and when your spouse wants to get out. Yeah, fair.

I'm just talking about the law being equal on both sides.

Nothing wrong with that [wanting the law to be equal on both sides]...

...taken to the cleaners with...

 

[///M-Spec]

I'm saying that when they do get a divorce, why doesn't the person that cheated loose any rights to everything?

My wife works in a law office that handles a lot of divorce cases.

If a couple is getting divorced because one spouse cheated on the other, the cheating spouse is at a disadvantage IF there is an issue over 1) custody of children and 2) alimony.

Needless to say the cheating spouse would have a much harder time getting the kids. Judges will always consider what's best for the children; and one of the factors will be based on the "moral character" of the primary parent. Same goes with alimony.

But notice I said "harder", not impossible. Each divorce, like each marriage is unique. And there's no way to make blanket rules for every situation. That is why we have judges.

Infidelity has little or no impact on division of marital assets, such as a house or a car. Infidelity has little or no impact on divion of marital debt, such as credit cards.

The only time when the non-cheating spouse can get more money is if the cheating spouse spent marital funds on the affair.

For example, say I had an affair with.. say oh.. Jessica Alba and I bought her a Porsche (a Cobalt Blue Carrera S with PASM, ceramic brakes and 19" wheels ). The keys would end up in my wife's hands more likely than not when the dust settles. (which may be just as well, since I can't expect to drive a Porsche when I'm dead )

This is in the state of Florida. Can't really comment on other states because it varies.

As for why the non-cheating spouse don't get ALL marital assets, I think that's a little extreme. Sexual fidelity is only one component of a marriage (and not even a mandatory component for ALL PEOPLE) so I don't think the non-cheat spouse should automatically get EVERYTHING.

Besides, you don't pay for marital assets with your fidelity. You pay for them with money. And if both spouses helped pay for a house, then the asset should be divided equally when the marriage is over... unless one spouse can make a case on a financial level --not a fidelity level.

You can always sue your ex-spouse in civil court for "emotional distress" or whatever.


M

 

[FoolKiller]

As for why the non-cheating spouse don't get ALL marital assets, I think that's a little extreme. Sexual fidelity is only one component of a marriage (and not even a mandatory component for ALL PEOPLE) so I don't think the non-cheat spouse should automatically get EVERYTHING.

I agree. Taking everything for infidelity would be hard to justify when sometimes cases of infidelity are usually the final step in an already troubled marriage. Many cheaters feel justified because they feel something is missing and that they are just going out to find it. This is not justification for infidelity, but it does justify it in teh cheater's head. The problem is that if a marriage has problems that lead to infidelity the fault then lies on both sides.

So this makes me say that giving all assets is extreme, but I don't see a problem with the cheater being punished by a 5% loss or something along those lines. It punishes them for the infidelity while not having a need to go into any possible causes for the infidelity.

 

[Pako]

I agree. Taking everything for infidelity would be hard to justify when sometimes cases of infidelity are usually the final step in an already troubled marriage. Many cheaters feel justified because they feel something is missing and that they are just going out to find it. This is not justification for infidelity, but it does justify it in teh cheater's head. The problem is that if a marriage has problems that lead to infidelity the fault then lies on both sides.

So this makes me say that giving all assets is extreme, but I don't see a problem with the cheater being punished by a 5% loss or something along those lines. It punishes them for the infidelity while not having a need to go into any possible causes for the infidelity.

I almost agree except that infidelity is a choice, not a symptom.

 

[FoolKiller]

I almost agree except that infidelity is a choice, not a symptom.

Which is why I still gave a penalty for it. It may or may not be the result of other problems, but in the end you still had to make a choice to do it, so you get a penalty of some sort.

Am I making sense?

 

[Pako]

Which is why I still gave a penalty for it. It may or may not be the result of other problems, but in the end you still had to make a choice to do it, so you get a penalty of some sort.

Am I making sense?

I'd agree with that.

 

[Swift]

Well, maybe losing everything is a little bit extreme. But I still say that it should put them on the disadvantage. But in a no fault state, this probably isn't the case.

It's amazing how getting into marriage is a blanket law, but getting out is very picky. Interesting...