…and this is a 
Marriage, adultery, and the law
Category: News
Posted on: August 11, 2008 7:17 AM, by PZMinion
[MAJeff here. I'll remember this one of these times.]
Apparently, John Edwards had an affair. I've been out of the news loop and haven't been following it other than what I see in a few blog comment sections. I'm honestly not all that interested in the sex lives of the powerful; I'm more interested in the social reaction. So, I'm going to talk about a few things that I've seen, and tie those into issues of marriage and sex regulation by the state.
One thing I've heard is, "at least he didn't break the law." Well, depending upon where his trysts took place, Edwards may have broken the law. Here in Massachusetts, for example, adultery is a crime that carries a penalty of incarceration in state prison for up to 3 years, jail up to 2, or a fine of up to $500. As of 2004, 24 states criminalized adultery. (Cossman, 2007: 209. fn6). Admittedly, such laws are rarely enforced, and the no-fault system means that even if cheating takes place, it's less likely to be the legal "reason" for the divorce ["Irreconcilable differences" or its equivalent is the norm].
Marriage is a regulatory system. When folks stand in front of their witnesses, and take their vows (the state won't allow you to marry without a public ceremony), they are entering a three-way contract, with conditions set by the state. One of those conditions is sexual monogamy. Mess around, and you've violated the terms of the contract. You've sinned against the state, and have committed a criminal offense.
Adultery itself has changed. At the founding of the Republic it wasn't sex outside of marriage, but involved a married woman having sex with a man not her husband. Adultery laws were put in place to establish men's property rights over their wives, and particularly to ensure that the children born into such relationships were theirs and not some other man's. It wasn't about violations of intimacy or trust, as we take it to be today. It was about stealing another woman's womb. [Ed. Oops. Big difference]
Indeed, the comment of Edwards's, that he "didn't love" the woman with whom he had the affair is a sign of that. In contemporary society, marriage has become about companionship and intimacy [see, for example, Giddens or Seidman]. One of the things that makes same-sex marriage imaginable to many people is the fact that marriage itself has changed in such ways as to make it imaginable. We no longer have the explicit gender-based marital roles established in law. (Everyone say, "Thank you" to the feminist legal activists who brought about a lot of those changes.) Marriage isn't gender-role based, at least legally, in the rigid ways that it once was.
Additionally, marriage has become more focused on intimate life. It has, over the course of the past couple centuries, become a space in which emotional and affective life is more and more important. Indeed, a romantic friendship at work--devoid of sexual activity--or flirtatious talk in an online chat-room are now examples of infidelity, reasons worthy of filing for divorce. The contract has not been violated, but the intimacy and trust held as the contemporary bases of marriage have been. Marriage has become less about procreation and more about intimacy (Griswold severed the procreative imperative from marital conjugality). That has changed both what counts as cheating and which relationships count as marriages.
Even though, in some places, same-sex couples have been included in marriage, another comment I saw yesterday reminded me how homosexuality is still to be excluded from "legitimate" domestic and intimate spaces. Someone wrote: "I'm happy Edwards's affair was with a woman, unlike those Republicans who have affairs with the same sex." Adultery can be forgiven, homosexuality can't.
Well, in Vermont, if that affair had been with a man, it would not have been adultery. Recall above the definition of adultery. I wasn't only sex with a married woman, but vaginal intercourse. It was the sex that would make babies, and only that sex. And, in the 2003 Blanchflower decision, the Vermont Supreme Court held that same-sex activity there did not fall under the definition of adultery. It might be cheating, but it isn't cheating against the contract or the state. What is even more interesting about this is that Vermont's Civil Union statutes are basically the same as their marriage statutes. If the adultery statute is to apply to same-sex couples, it's going to take some special kinds of cheating to make it adultery. [Cossman, linked above, has a discussion of the changing status of adultery in law and popular culture.]
Marriage and the family are constantly changing. "Traditional marriage" is a moving target. A century ago, the statement "I didn't love her" wouldn't have mattered in the least. Marriage was a different beastie then, far less organized around the intimate and emotional than it is today. These news moments provide us an opportunity--not to talk about the individual relationship, but instead the public issues surrounding it, like how the institution and its regulation are changing. Those are, I think, far more important.
Comments
Posted by: EyeNoU | August 11, 2008 7:41 AM
Some states don't require a public ceremony.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 11, 2008 7:45 AM
Some states don't require a public ceremony.
Taking the vows in front of witnesses isn't required for a marriage license? Where?
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2008 7:47 AM
A fascinating book about it is Marriage, A History by Stephanie Coontz. I know there are a lot of others as well. It was honestly surprising to me to realize exactly how recent the whole "marry for love and your love must fill all the emotional needs in your life" meme really is.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 11, 2008 7:48 AM
I'd also suggest Nancy Cott's Public Vows. Anything by Coontz is good, as is Judith Stacey.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2008 8:01 AM
Maybe EyeNoU is talking about common law marriages?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 11, 2008 8:05 AM
I'd forgotten about Common Law. Most states have regulated those out of existence. I can't recall how many, if any, still recognize it...been a few years since I've dealt with that specific issue.
Posted by: Jim A | August 11, 2008 8:05 AM
I would argue that modern, no-fault divorces revolve around the construction of a case of abandonment. That's what legal separation is for. Having been a witness in a divorce case, the thing that the judge was most interested in was that the couple hadn't been cohabitating for a year.
Posted by: Jackal | August 11, 2008 8:13 AM
It wasn't about violations of intimacy or trust, as we take it to be today. It was about stealing another woman's womb.
Wouldn't that be, "another man's womb"? After all, the wife was the husband's property.
When public figures having affairs, I only care when it makes them into big hipocryts. Well, yes, I lose a little respect for them, but it doesn't really affect their fitness for office unless they are going against the rhetoric that got them into office. That's why it's always more interesting when an outspoken, anty-gay politicial or religious professional is caught in a homosexual affair.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 11, 2008 8:18 AM
Wouldn't that be, "another man's womb"? After all, the wife was the husband's property.
oops. yup. Fixing.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2008 8:18 AM
I would argue that modern, no-fault divorces revolve around the construction of a case of abandonment. That's what legal separation is for.
But that's not actually no-fault, then. It's a wink at the law by creating a fake cause. New York's is that way (I think it's one of only a handful of states left that don't have no-fault). I don't see why they don't go ahead and have no-fault as an option, if they'll go so far as to say that two people who decide to live separately are "abandoning" each other.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 11, 2008 8:27 AM
Abandonment is an issue of fault. Separation is a no-fault solution based on the idea that the relationship had simply broken down. The basic idea in no-fault is that of the relationship having dissolved. It is, in part, due to the rise of the intimate and emotional as central organizing features during the twentieth century.
The first "divorce revolution" was probably in the 1820-40s. Indiana was the divorce Las Vegas of the day. Abandonment was introduced as a form of fault, largely because women who had been left couldn't remarry. It was during this era when "Fault" divorces tended to become more common, and when jurisdiction for individual divorces was shifted from the legislatures to the courts. Women, in particular, could now file to end the relationship with a judge instead of asking the state legislature to grant her one. And it was usually women doing so because many men would just pick up and leave without going through the legal formalities.
Posted by: TX CHL Instructor | August 11, 2008 8:33 AM
"Taking the vows in front of witnesses isn't required for a marriage license? Where?"
Texas, for one.
Posted by: TX CHL Instructor | August 11, 2008 8:40 AM
Just to tweak the noses of the bleeding heart Liberals (capital L) here, for whom their darling socialists can Do No Wrong, Mr. Edwards just screwed (literally) himself out of the VP slot, and possibly permanently out of consideration for any office other than his current one. The voters have a short enough memory that they probably will continue to re-elect him to the legislature.
But Mr. Obama will be more than happy to throw him under the bus, just like he has done to others that he thinks no longer benefit his campaign.
Posted by: Blaise Pascal | August 11, 2008 8:41 AM
#2, #5, and #6: Some religious traditions (including the Society of Friends, if I recall correctly) don't celebrate marriage with a public ceremony, or don't have an officiant, etc. Pennsylvania offers a "self-uniting marriage license" which merely requires the signature of the couple and two witnesses to be valid.
The Federal courts have held that membership in a clergyless religious system isn't necessary to get a self-uniting marriage license, so those with "secular beliefs" (which sounds like a code-word for atheist to me) can self-unite.
Posted by: DangerAardvark | August 11, 2008 8:47 AM
Promising to love someone forever is like promising to be lucky forever. It's a fatuous statement that's forgivable if you're high, but for some reason we've legislated it.
Posted by: realthog | August 11, 2008 8:51 AM
TX CHL Instructor writes:
"for whom their darling socialists can Do No Wrong"
Neither Edwards nor Obama is a socialist -- they're not even pale imitations of socialists -- so precisely what the heck are you talking about?
Posted by: syntyche | August 11, 2008 8:54 AM
yeah, except that he doesn't currently hold elective office. You should try, you know, actually knowing what you're talking about perhaps.
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 11, 2008 9:01 AM
Nonsense - what we've legislated is not about love, but is about a contract in which one respects the other person. While I fully expect that my wife and I will love each other forever (maybe I'm naive, but we have a good thing), the marriage as a civil union is a way to gain some tax benefits on the condition that we behave in certain ways and respect one another (and the contract) enough not to violate it.
The marriage as a legal construct isn't about love, it's about behaviour - something you really can control.
Posted by: IBY | August 11, 2008 9:03 AM
I don't think that adultery should be criminalized. I don't think adultery is good, and I would lose respect of the person, but making it illegal seems to be going a bit too far. What do you guys think? Am I making an informed idea?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 11, 2008 9:24 AM
Why the hell would that tweak anyone's noses? A politician had an affair and got caught. Shocker!!!! And that has what to do with being a liberal or conservative?
Conservatives don't get busted having affairs?
Posted by: Whateverman | August 11, 2008 9:25 AM
Fantastic write-up, MAJeff.
Random thoughts inc:
I've been debating for a long time (with friends and internet strangers) about the legal, religious and social issues involving marriage. I personally hadn't done any reseach into "adultery", so this entry is very helpful.
I have long argued that marriage is primarily a legal contract between the three or four parties involved (couple, state and optionally religion). There are too many tax and legal benefits to be able to label it merely as a "spiritual" contract.
As for Edwards... I don't know what to think. To be sure, I don't care too much; adultery is really a matter for his family to handle. I'll admit to being a little disappointed, in that I've lost a little respect for the man. However, (to me) it wouldn't affect his viability for the Presidency.
Additionally, there are certain social environments where "adultery" is more common. In my experience, this includes high stress levels and areas where charisma is a valued commodity: Politics, Acting (theater, television), etc.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2008 9:26 AM
, the marriage as a civil union is a way to gain some tax benefits on the condition that we behave in certain ways and respect one another (and the contract) enough not to violate it.
But why is that? Why give tax benefits on the condition that you not fall in love with or have sex with other people? It's a non sequitur. Tax benefits based on financial responsibility, ok, but that can be done in a lot of ways other than through a romantic relationship. There are already laws in place to ensure people support their children, and there is movement starting to grant legal rights and responsibilities to good friends for single people (think two elderly neighbors who don't have any family, but need each other to visit in hospital, for instance).
Posted by: Scott B | August 11, 2008 9:36 AM
#12
IIRR, one of the conditions for establishing a common law marriage in TX is that the parties represent themselves to others as if they were married, which seems to me to fall under the point MAJeff was making about public ceremonies.
#14
Same there - filing a document with witness signatures is a kind of public ceremony. No cake, but ceremony nonetheless.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 11, 2008 9:38 AM
Fascinating stuff! Is this excerpted from the Soc. of Sexuality class you've alluded to elsewhere?
The notion that adultery could be criminal just horrifies me. I'm sure it's one of those laws that's almost never enforced, but even so...
Yah... and I have real heartburn with the notion that folks' sexuality should be subject to much, if any, regulation. I'm no libertarian: I'm all for government regulation when it's warranted and effective... but regulation of sexuality is (IMHO) neither. The state — which is to say, your neighbors — has no legitimate compelling interest in regulating who you have sex with, or what kind of sex you have, or the frequency or permanence of your sexual activities. And even if it did have such an interest, there's no effective way to enforce control over such a private, intimate aspect of life (as witness the long and inglorious history of adultery in societies where it's nominally forbidden).
Yup. My problem is that the rest of the contract — which is essentially economic and social, and (IMHO) legitimately the subject of state involvement — should be dependent on specific promises about private sexual behavior... promises which, if (all of human) history is any guide, are virtually impossible for a large percentage of us to keep.
And BTW...
...since when has breaching a partnership agreement been criminal? Your choice of the word "sinning" is apt: I suspect it's only owing to religious restrictions on sexuality (i.e., the notion of sexual sin), that we have such comprehensive legal/criminal limitations on sexuality (however unenforceable most of them might be).
Because I believe in fairness and hate legal inequality, I support marriage equality... but in my utopian dreams, we would abolish civil marriage altogether, replacing it with a sensible legal framework for the economic partnership aspects of what we now call "marriage," and leaving the personal, sexual, and spiritual aspects (for those to whom they are important) to nongovernmental organizations (i.e., religious groups, yes, but also any private social/philosophical groups that had any interest in publicly recognizing and celebrating such relationships).
In fact, my dreams — and yes, I know how impossible this is in today's America — go further: I would like to see a constitutional guarrantee of personal sexual liberty... an enshrining of the principle that no law should prohibit, restrict, encourage, or mandate any behavior based solely on its sexual nature. This would have the effect of instantly desexing civil marriage, not to mention legalizing sex work, but it wouldn't be the social apocalypse it might at first seem: Acts that violate others' rights (e.g., rape, child abuse, human trafficking, etc.) would still be crimes because they violate others' rights, but not because they involve sex; behaviors that legitimately affect public health could still be regulated on a public health basis, just not because they're "sinful"; businesses, including those that create a public nuisance or disturb the peace, could still be regulated in exactly the same way as all businesses.
So this would strike down legal restrictions on gays and their relationships; would invalidate prohibitions on pornography and sex toys; and would legalize sex work, nonmonogamous sex, and so-called sodomy. But it would leave our legitimate mutual interests in social and economic regulation intact. In fact, by bringing some of these things out of legal twilight into the light of day, we might be able to exercise legitimate regulation more effectively (e.g., legalizing prostitution would almost certainly make it easier to combat human trafficking and to apply reasonable public health standards).
It'll never happen in 'Murrica, of course, but as the song says, "I can dream, can't I?"
Posted by: Seamyst | August 11, 2008 9:42 AM
MAJeff at #4:
I'd also suggest Nancy Cott's Public Vows.
Seconded! That book was used in my grad-level "US Women's History" class that I took last fall, and it was probably the most interesting of the six books we read and discussed. I highly recommend it.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | August 11, 2008 9:42 AM
The astute TX CHL Instructor noted (#13),
You mean like McCain and the nutbag Hagee?
(It's always fun when capital-R Republicans complain about common political manuevering...like they don't do it themselves. Asses.)
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 11, 2008 9:44 AM
MAJeff,
why can't you just make a stupid post about John Edward's affair ?
You're giving us too much to think about. That's nasty ;-)
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 11, 2008 9:44 AM
Rev BigDumbChimp @ #20:
Of course (male) conservatives get busted having affairs... but how often do they get busted having affairs with adult women?
Posted by: Jacques | August 11, 2008 9:44 AM
What a strange story this is. Funny though how the Democrats tend to get caught with women, and the republicans tend to get caught with boys (okay, not often, but the sheer steepness of the hypocrisy involved often makes it seem that way :)
and why did Edwards have to elabourate that "he didn't love her"? What a horrible thing to say. Too bad, I quite liked Edwards, but I guess that sort of thing pretty well dooms his political career since the only politicians who step down after stuff like this are Democrats. Democrats don't like fighting back, it's what separates them from Repugs.
Posted by: george | August 11, 2008 9:48 AM
Nobody even on Pharyngula has pointed this out, which surprises me - This isn't just another politician being a scumbag, this is another prominent CHRISTIAN being a hypocrite and not following his religion, even though it's the basis of his public persona.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2008 9:48 AM
and why did Edwards have to elabourate that "he didn't love her"? What a horrible thing to say.
Well, that's a lot of the point of the post. He had to say that to prove that he didn't violate what we now think to be the most important part of the marriage contract, the emotional one. However, up until recently, it didn't matter at all who he loved, the important thing was where he could have left a magic sperm to grow a baby. Now it's the opposite.
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 11, 2008 9:50 AM
Carlie @22
Well, I suspect the original goal of marriage was to encourage settling down to have children, and that the tax benefits were a way to encourage it and facilitate life for those thying to start families? I don't know for certain though.
I agree - I think that the benefits should be completely divorced from the romantic bit; most of the benefits have to do with costs of things like child care, education and so on, and pertain to people involved in a long term co-dependency, but limiting it to those who are also romantically linked doesn't seem sensible or fair. Same sex marriage is legal here, which is a good step, but it's still linking the romantic with the practical.
That said, I do support adultery laws, for those that choose to enter into marriage contracts and then break them. I have no sympathy at all for people who violate the trust of others. Perhaps some people need marriages with time periods (like most contracts) so that one can marry for 5 years, and then opt to renew it; an alternative might also be marriage until children hit a certain age. I have no issue with a contract having a time limit, just with violations of trust.
Posted by: eyerock | August 11, 2008 10:15 AM
I'm very glad he did not win the democratic primary.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 11, 2008 10:20 AM
I disagree: Edward's qualification about his affair asserts that while he violated the "rules" about his physical behavior, he did not violate his fundamental emotional commitment to his wife.
Now, whether you believe that or just write it off as self-serving and disingenuous on Edwards' part, it brings up an issue worth talking about: Almost anyone who's post-puberty will tell you that the overlap between sexual desire and romantic love is far from total, and yet our laws and customs around marriage and sexuality cling to the fiction that sex is always an expression of love, and that sexual infidelity is always a betrayal of love.
Even if it was nothing more than a craven bit of CYA excuse making, Edwards' comment about not loving his "bit on the side" reminds us that there's a distinction to be made between what we do with our genitals and what we do with our hearts.
BTW...
As other's have already pointed out (but it obviously bears repeating), Edwards does not currently hold any elective office, so "stepping down" isn't an issue. Further, I don't believe he was on anyone's short list for VP even before this admission (having run for VP and lost once, it strikes me as unlikely he would be interested in running for the second spot again). So as far as electoral politics is concerned, Edwards' only likely future race would be for president in 2016 (I refuse to even consider the possibility that there won't be a Democratic incumbent on the ticket in 2012!). Presuming Elizabeth sticks by him (and it seems she will, as she's known about the affair for 2 years and hasn't left him yet), I think by the time the 2016 election campaign cranks up, this affair will be nothing more than a historical footnote. The real question in my mind is whether this episode excludes Edwards from consideration for Obama's cabinet (I was thinking maybe Sec. Labor or Sec. Health and Human Services, since Edwards is so focused on poverty and social justice issues).
If you doubt that last, consider that John McCain treated his first wife in a fairly beastly fashion (she had a disfiguring accident while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, and was by all accounts no longer pretty enough for the returning war hero when he got home), beginning his relationship with the beer-heiress Cindy while he was still married and moving in with her before his divorce was final. This history has not prevented McCain from winning his party's nomination in an open primary season, nor has it (yet) seemed much of a problem for him during the campaign.
The other obvious comparison is Newt Gingrich, who was essentially forced out of the Congress (during the Clinton impeachment process!!) by revelations of his sexual past. Gingrich famously dumped one of his wives in her hospital room while she was undergoing cancer treatment. (By contrast, and contradictory to initial reports, Edwards did not carry on his affair during his wife's cancer treatment: It was over — and he'd already confessed to her — before the recurrence of her cancer.) Notwithstanding this history, Gingrich was seriously touted as a presidential candidate during this cycle, and probably would've won the nomination had he chosen to run.
Mind you, I don't mean to be suggesting it should be otherwise: I think our electoral politics would be much better served if we let our candidates' sexual lives stay entirely private. I'm just pointing out that when it comes to electoral politics and sexual misbehavior, time really does seem to heal all wounds.
Posted by: demallien | August 11, 2008 10:23 AM
Bill Dauphin @ 24
"Yah... and I have real heartburn with the notion that folks' sexuality should be subject to much, if any, regulation. I'm no libertarian: I'm all for government regulation when it's warranted and effective... but regulation of sexuality is (IMHO) neither."
You know, whenever I look at sexuality laws, I always come to the conclusion that there is only one sexual act that the state could possibly have an interest in regulating, and that is procreation. I mean, I can understand how you might want to be able to control the birthrate to avoid resource disasters - famine, disease, that sort of thing.
But of course, what do we see? Homosexual sex is regulated in many places, and yet any two idiots can get drunk and have a child, and that's OK.
Anyway, enough off-topic ranting, but every time I think about government interference in the bedroom, I come to the same conclusion, and it makes me soooo mad!
Posted by: marcia | August 11, 2008 10:26 AM
Maureen Dowd puts the smackdown on Edwards and hits the nail on the head.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10dowd.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
Posted by: Interrobang | August 11, 2008 10:29 AM
I'm with the great sage and eminent adulterer Pierre Eliot Trudeau here, when he said, "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." Then again, Canada also recognises common-law marriages, and, in fact, one can find oneself in a common-law marriage here whether one wants to or not, depending on the length of time one has been cohabiting with someone of the opposite sex. This, of course, needs to be fixed, but hasn't been yet. (Hypothetically speaking, it is entirely possible in Canada for a pair of good friends, he a gay man and she a lesbian, to have lived together in a roommate arrangement long enough to find themselves de jure married for certain purposes. Bzzt! Sorry, human rights violation. Go directly to the Commission, do not pass Go, do not collect $200 in marriage license fees.)
My opposition to things like adultery laws would be asking the question, "Does the state have a compelling interest in enforcing all the terms and conditions of the contract?" I would say the answer, at least as it pertains to sexual monogamy, is no. Even assuming there's issues of paternity involved -- and many times there are not -- that to me isn't a state issue, it's an interpersonal issue. The insistence on it, particularly when it is possible to have non-injurious, non-monogamous relationships -- as long as you're not suffering from a religious hangover -- strikes me as being leftover state-sanctioned piety. I also wasn't aware that monogamy was an absolute condition of civil (not religious) marriage; I essentially thought that what you did sexually behind closed doors was your business, where "you" is the collective. There's another reason not to get civilly married, I suppose. Who wants to be monogamous forever? Bleah...
Posted by: marc | August 11, 2008 10:30 AM
I disagree with MAJeff here. My first guess was that the person who wrote that was pointing out the hypocrisy. What I mean is that 1) despite being gay, Republicans have a beard in the form of a wife and children (which is just evil, assuming she doesn't know) and that 2) they tend to be among the purveyors of distinctly anti-gay legislation.Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | August 11, 2008 10:32 AM
Benjamin Geiger @ #28
How soon we forget. Newt Gingrich admitted his extramarital affair, but I guess it's ok becuase he got absolution from James Dobson.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/gingrich.schneider/index.html
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 11, 2008 10:32 AM
Geez, if you're going to relegate to scumbag status everone who's ever followed his (or her) genitals into a place he (or she) really shouldn't go, you're going to be awfully lonely on that shining hill (or maybe not, eh?). Edwards has characterized this as a terrible mistake; do you really think it invalidates everything else about him?
Like most Democrats, Edwards has not made his faith a part of his core political identity in anything like the way Republicans regularly do. It's a sad fact of American political life that nobody can run for any office these days without saying something about their personal beliefs... but making conservative Christian "values" issues a core part of the political message is almost exclusively a Republican tactic.
Personally, I think politicians' sex lives should be completely off limits... but when your political identity is based on scolding the rest of the country for its licentiousness (as the current generation of wingnuts invariably do), hypocrisy becomes a legitimate issue, even when the underlying sexual behavior is not. Judge Edwards as harshly as you want; he's not guilty of the same type of hypocrisy as (for instance) a Larry Craig.
Posted by: Whateverman | August 11, 2008 10:35 AM
Carlie #22 wrote:
I view marriage as slightly more than *just* a legal contract. It also represents a state (and possibly religious) endorsement of lifestyle. To wit: a happy family unit is healthy for the community and state at large.
So, I disagree with you about the utility of marriage (and monogamy); it makes sense that states want their citizens to create (and maintain) healthy families. Cohesive units use less resources (and in theory require less intervention).
Keep in mind: marriage is primarily a legal contract. But I think it's a mistake to dismiss it as "merely" legal.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | August 11, 2008 10:39 AM
Hmm. Marriage: that's something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It didn't help that I'm part of the generation that views marriage as completely null and void simply because what's the point if you're going to divorce 2 to 5 years later. Also I am in a relationship right now that marriage is a topic of discussion. NOT because I want to have a ceremony or some sort of recognition by the states but because WE can't get heath care, life insurance, even hospital visits(?) because our names aren't together on a piece of paper? (I may be wrong on a few things but seriously if you're denied the title "family" simply because you didn't have a ceremony.) I suppose the whole thing wouldn't bother me if gays were allowed to marry. Otherwise, I have always viewed marriage as giving off the girl as property (in traditional religious ceremony the father "gives" away the daughter. . UMMM.) or as a validation for having children. As I won't subjugate myself to either so I feel frustrated by the decision to get married.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2008 10:41 AM
But there are a lot more ways to make healthy families than a couple who are romantically linked, is the point I'm making. I don't see why that one way should be so privileged in law above all the rest, especially as it seems to be the most fragile.
Posted by: CW | August 11, 2008 10:45 AM
"The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation", that conclusion?Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 11, 2008 10:49 AM
Encouraging the creation and maintenance of healthy households/families certain does make sense, and is a legitimate interest of the state. What's not so clear — in fact, what I deny emphatically — is that the creation and maintenance of healthy families requires enforced permanent sexual monogamy... or, for that matter, any socially mandated restrictions on consensual sexual behavior among adults. Take the sexual rules out of play and you have more, not fewer, opportunities to create stable, happy households. Or so it seems to me, in any case.
Posted by: Frank Lovell | August 11, 2008 10:50 AM
Bill, you sound like a libertarian to me!
And that's OK, I am a long-time (little-l) libertarian myself -- strong on law and order, and strong on law staying OUT of my bedroom, OUT my medicine cabinet, OUT of my kitchen, OUT of my library. We libertarians think it a legitimate function of government legislation to protect me from you, you from me, both of us from others, and others from either of us or anyone who would do us/them harm for fun, profit or prophet; but we do not think it a legitimate role of government legislation to protect me from myself, you from your own self, or others from their own selves -- that's what parents are for (at least up until we ourselves become adults). Any who can agree with what I just said are at least de facto (little-l) libertarians to a substantial extent.
In any event, I think PZ hit every nail squarely on the head on this subject of marriage and infidelity. It does bother me, though, that we might have two standards concerning lying to the public, one where we regard it serious to be lied to by public servants regarding matters that do affect us or are our business, and not too serious when we are lied to by public servants regarding matters that do not (at least, not prima facie) affect us or are not really our business. Just as when the Bible errs in what it plainly says regarding matters we can check and verify SHOULD worry us about where it errs in what it plainly says about matters we can not check and verify, it worries me what a public servant might lie to me about that affects me or is my business when I learn he lied to me about matters that do not affect me or are not my business. I can dismiss a public (or would-be public) servant's peccadilloes that are of a purely personal matter which one candidly acknowledges (or at least remains silent about) when appropriate, but I find it hard to dismiss being lied to on any account by a public (or would-be public) servant. I can't help it, that's just me.
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 11, 2008 10:51 AM
I'm happy with that, they're all scumbags. There are things one doesn't do. I don't like the trivialising of one of the biggest betrayls of trust one can commit. If you want a relationship in which you sleep around, power to you - make sure the other partner is fine with it and have fun. I'm not uptight that way, I have friends who've been in very open relationships, and I think it's great for people who are wired that way.
If you agree not to sleep around and break your word I have no respect for you. Period. You are in a relationship with someone, and want to sleep with someone else? Talk to your partner, explain it - don't cheat.
They'll either be okay with it (good for you), or they won't, at which point you decide between two things - your libido or (potentially) your relationship.
Posted by: Tulse | August 11, 2008 10:56 AM
Giuliani is noted for having several affairs, some very public. And, of course, John McCain left the wife that supported him while in Vietnam and raised his three kids for a rich 25-year-old.
"'Family values' -- I do not think that term means what you think it means..."
Posted by: ennui | August 11, 2008 11:12 AM
My whole problem with the Edwards affair is that Rielle Hunter is not hot enough. ;p
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 11, 2008 11:15 AM
Not even close. I have no formal political science or philosophy background, so I won't argue definitions, but in a very practical sense, I'm at political odds with virtually every self-identified libertarian I've ever met. Libertarians make the mistake of assuming anyone who defends some aspect of personal liberty against state intrusion is One of Them... but I don't think that's the case: While I'm a strong advocate for keeping the state out of, as you put it, keeping the Government out of our bedrooms and libraries, along with other aspects of life that I consider essentially private, I do accept that "society" exists as something more than the accidental sum of individual actions... and that "we, the people" have a legitimate concern for espressing our collective voice in regulating and moderating our society "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." To me, legitimate "regulation" is not some sort of external oppression, but rather the expression of our common voice in the service of self-governance.
I can't speak for you, of course, but most self-described libertarians I've spoken to would disagree with almost every word of the above.
Not to pick a nit, but it wasn't PZ who wrote this post; it was the inestimable MAJeff, one of several guest bloggers covering this space while PZ is off having more fun than the law should allow.
Posted by: Pablo | August 11, 2008 11:26 AM
To what extent has Edwards based his public service on "defending the sanctity of marriage" and promoting other such "family values" stuff? Has he been a crusader for purity laws? I realize he makes a big deal out of supporting his wife, but has he acted upon those things politically?
You know, like Larry Craig and David Vitter, who have championed themselves as the protectors of marriage?
For me, it's never been a case of "ooooo, he had an affair," but "that moron proclaims to be a great defender of marriage and goes out and has an affair." Barney Frank can have all the gay affairs he wants, but he won't get any grief from me because he doesn't spend his time crusading against homosexuality.
It's not adultery that is the sin of the politician, it is the hypocrisy.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford | August 11, 2008 11:29 AM
Adultery laws are still on the books, but they're not enforced because they are unconstitutional.
Posted by: Whateverman | August 11, 2008 11:29 AM
Carlie (#43) and Bill (#45) - it seems your opinions can (generally) be summed up by Carlie's statement:
I wont disagree. To be perfectly honest, I think we could do more for "cohesive family units" today by addressing popular media/content than by using endorsing sexual practices via marriage.
With that said, we already have marriage in our box of societal tools - it already does some part of the work. Doesn't that justify its utility?
Posted by: nicole | August 11, 2008 11:34 AM
Hey, this happened to me—and a bunch of people I knew! It's not clear to me whether this is recognized in my current state, but it's a bit disturbing. Especially since normally one requirement is to represent yourselves as a married couple, and where I lived (Quebec) it is actually illegal for a woman to take her husband's name anyway, so this makes it a little confusing now that I'm back in the US. I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't be legally recognized at this point because we're no longer cohabitating, but like I said, disturbing!
Oh, and Bill Dauphin, don't worry, you're nowhere near a libertarian.
Posted by: llewelly | August 11, 2008 11:47 AM
McCain, Reagan, Robertson, Gingrich, ... and many other conservative had affairs with adult women. The difference is that the Republican party is the 'Strong Father' party. It's expected that these successful male leaders should be attractive to women - and thus, their affairs with adult women are not news. The Democratic party, on the other hand, is the weak mommy party, and it's definitely news when mommy has an affair.Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | August 11, 2008 11:51 AM
For some reason the note on demanding public ceremonies gets me to think of the efforts to get de facto partnerships equalized to marriages as going "from public ceremonies to pubic ceremonies".
[One can tell when the first couple of mondays after vacation happens.]
Posted by: scooter | August 11, 2008 11:56 AM
I was minding my own business reading Pharyngula, and somebody posted about a border dispute between Georgia and Russia, complete with tanks on the roll and bombing runs.
I rushed to the TV and began to scan the News Channels. All Edwards, all day long.
US media is a disaster.
Not only is it impossible to mind your own business, but you can't get any information if there is celebrity sex.
ugggggyhhh
Posted by: Kerlyssa | August 11, 2008 11:56 AM
"I wasn't only sex with a married woman, but vaginal intercourse."
What a difference a 't' makes. Don't be a vaginal intercourse, Jeff, I suspect you wouldn't like it.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 11, 2008 11:58 AM
Hunh. Now here I aways thought that the "public ceremony" stuff was because getting hitched is a "public act".
In the same sense as getting a lien recorded on your house, but with more flowers. 'Cause, after the ceremony the couple is treated as a single legal entity, and it's only fair that the public be warned.
So when are we going to find out about the Mittster's secret second (and third, and...) marriages? Potential veepdom looms, and "Enquiring Minds Want to Know!".
Tabloids, start your engines.
Posted by: Tulse | August 11, 2008 11:59 AM
Exactly. I like the meme that replaces "family" with "patriarchy" in conservative-speak, which then makes these cheating politicians endorsement of "patriarchy values" much more consistent.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 11, 2008 12:04 PM
Epinephrine:
I object to your notion that I'm trivializing anything. It's not that I don't understand the importance of keeping one's word (even when it's a promise that we essentially force people to make through law and custom)... but I think you don't understand the scope and scale of human fallibility. Have you seen the statistics on marital infidelity (which don't even begin to include those who've "cheated" in ostensibly committed relationships society doesn't deign to recognize)? Have you, yourself, never broken your word on anything important? Never made a promise that you found yourself, 5 or 10 or 15 years later, incapable of keeping? Never been sexually tempted, perhaps in a situation where if you'd been just a tiny bit more tired or distracted, or if you'd had just one more drink, you might have slipped? Do you really have no cause, throughout your whole life, to say "there but for the grace of FSM go I" in response to Edwards' situation?
If that's the case, more power to you: You're "a better man than I am, Gunga Din." Edwards identified narcicism as his problem, and I think that was a correct self-diagnosis... but it takes a special sort of hubris to believe you're not at least potentially vulnerable to the same weakness. But even if you really are pure as you implicitly claim, I still think relegating everyone who is not to "scumbag" status is going to leave you awfully lonesome.
Whateverman:
Yikes, no!! You want to replace our marriage laws with more censorship?!?! Talk about cures worse than the disease....
Not at the cost of systematically denying equal treatment under the law not only to GLBT folks, but also to anyone who prefers any sexual arrangement other than publicly declared permanent heterosexual monogamy... not to mention those who would like to form a "happy family" completely independent of any sexual relationship.
At various times in our history, we've had slavery and formalized racial segregation in our "toolbox," but we decided (admittedly with great struggle) that the moral stain of enforced inequality mattered more to us than the social utility of those particular tools. I don't mean to be equating marriage inequality to slavery (though I wouldn't be shocked if some of our friends in nontradtitional families chose to do so), but I do mean to be pointing out that not all social "tools" are worth perpetuating merely because they exist and have some utility.
Posted by: Chris P | August 11, 2008 12:10 PM
Adultery and sex are very badly defined. Is oral sex really "sex" or just sexual. And why is anal sex defined as sex too? From what I understand its common in the animal kingdom but nothing to do sith sexual reproduction.
Adultery should be something to do with a personal contract between two people and the rest of us should butt out - pun intended.
Posted by: Prof MTH | August 11, 2008 12:22 PM
Marriage laws differ by state although a marriage license, but not civil unions, automatically transfer across state and international lines. Any US citizen can be married in any state irrespective of state residency of the couple. This is why NY now must recognize gay marriages in other states, because their laws explicitly say that they will recognize any legal marriage conferred in any state of the union.
Alabama does not require a public ceremony nor a witness. The minimal requirements for obtaining a legal marriage is to have a marriage license signed and notarized by a state approved person which could be a registered wedding officiant or an active or retired probate judge.
A pastor of some kind does not automatically qualify that person as capable of legally marrying a couple. The minister must be registered with the probate court. Furthermore, not all states recognize all denominations. Some states will not license those ordained under the Universalist Church; i.e., not license them as religious ministers. They might be licensed as a secular wedding officiant.
Posted by: Hairhead | August 11, 2008 12:24 PM
I am 50, son of an uptight British couple, son of a minister, brother of one of the first hippies, older sister pregnant at sixteen . . . and I have watched (and participated, of course) in the sexual politics of the twentieth century. And gradually, gradually over decades, accurate information about sexuality has been accumulated, over the strenuous objections and denials of society's institutions, those who considered it in their interest to control. This process has not stopped; there's a long way to go -- but now we can begin, as PZminion has posted really talking about how (individual) sex and society go together, rather than just muttering the old mythical tropes. (e.g.'s of mythical tropes: if a man sucks a cock one time in his life, he's gay; women are just naturally not as horny as men; it is easy to control one's sexual feelings, it's just a matter of saying 'no'; old people don't have (or shouldn't have) sex . . . and so on.)
And today: There's been a recent study which claims that one out of five children in the U.S. has not been fathered by the man who thinks he is the father. It is now considered normal for women to have affairs with other women during college.
What I am getting at here is a few things:
1) First of all, everyone, everyone, everyone lies about sex all of the time. The biggest problem with sex research is trying to figure out how and why your respondents/subjects are lying, and whether or not it is relevant. (For instance, about the Edwards affair: what if his wife said, "Due to cancer treatments, I can't have sex with you. Go out discreetly and get your rocks off. If you get caught, I'll stand beside you." It wouldn't be the first time.)
2) Every personal/sexual relationship is different and has its own rules and tolerances which may have NOTHING to do with the public pronouncements parties made in their committment.
3) Sex and the desire for it is and will remain a core part of every adult person's identity, and as such will affect and even dominate their actions, even at inappropriate times. (One of the great hypocrisies of our present culture is that we reward the acquisition of money and power with great sexual access, except in the case of politicians, whom we then expect to act like monks or virgins once they succeed to power.)
Edwards was dumb, but we don't and never will know the whole story, which is as it should be. His sex life ought to have nothing to do with his political future, and I hope President Obama appoints him Attorney-General.
Posted by: Tulse | August 11, 2008 12:31 PM
When politicians have affairs, to me it shows markedly bad judgement, given that they know they are being scrutinized so heavily by the media. I don't particularly care how people arrange their personal life, but I do care if they show profound hubris and lack of judgement in doing so.
Posted by: Doug | August 11, 2008 12:32 PM
"You've sinned against the state"
Sin, is a religious term. The state isn't based in religion it is based in Law. There is no since in entangling and adding to the general confusion of society.
Is it a "sin" in sociology to take a stand against social structures that don't reflect quality reasoning? I ask because the ceremony of marriage is one of many places in society where reality is obscured by the ceremony.
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 11, 2008 12:43 PM
Bill Dauphin:
It's not you that I was speaking of re: trivialising adultery, it's society in