chapka

Courts are there to protect tangible losses, not hurt feelings. The "marriage contract" is a nice phrase, but there aren't that many enforceable contract terms in most jurisdictions, as far as I'm aware. If you sign a prenup that specifically addresses issues like infidelity, it's generally binding, but most people don't.

Just a friendly reminder: laws vary from state to state and from country to country, and it's generally a bad idea to give or take legal advice on the internet. Also, you're not my client, I'm not a specialist in family law, and this isn't legal advice.

That being said, "loss of consortium" has nothing to do with adultery (it's generally invoked in tort cases); New York (and most other states) abolished actions for breach of promise decades ago; the return of engagement presents happens only under some circumstances; and the paternity of a spouse's child is only a presumption, not an absolute guarantee as you seem to imply.

In addition, as has been pointed out already, adultery does still have legal consequences in some states. But most states, I think, have realized that the costs of the old system were ridiculous and moved to no-fault divorce. In my opinion, the benefits of the no-fault system far outweigh any "costs" in terms of hurt feelings.

Philadelphia Lawyer

If my remember my first year torts class correctly, "alienation of affection" was the lawsuit that the cheated-on spouse could bring against the person who had sex with the cheating spouse, not against the cheating spouse him/her self. I also seem to remember that there was an exclusive male/female dimension to it, but I can't remember which way it went.

Chapka is of course correct that "loss of consortium" has nothing to do with cheating spouses. If your spouse is killed or injured in a tortious manner, you can recover against the tort-feasor (the one who caused the death or injury) for your loss of consortium (ie sex) with your spouse.

I also expressly subscribe to all of the disclaimers that Chapka mentioned in his paragraph starting "Just a friendly reminder. . . "

chapka

And as a final note, with disclaimers still in effect, I believe alienation of affection cases went the way of the rest of the heart-balm actions in most jurisdictions some time ago.

However, it may cheer you, Mr. Proctor, to know that you're not alone in your annoyance with the current marriage laws. Google "no-fault divorce" and among other links, you'll find several advocacy groups trying to bring back the 1940s-era divorce law, where in order to get a divorce one partner had to basically arrange to be caught cheating. They blame no-fault divorce for the breakdown of the American Family, etc., etc., and have created something called "covenant marriage" in a number of states where you can basically agree up front not to get a no-fault divorce.

john proctor

Okay, I slept on it and agree with you. Although a liquidated damages clause is appealing on some level, it would not serve in a significantly different manner than a favorable property award to the non-adulterous spouse. Bottom line, the fewer barriers to entry and exit when it comes to interpersonal relationships, the better.

However, I'd like some consistency here. Let's acknowledge that marriage is a contract about feelings, not concrete rights and responsibilities, and should not carry legal significance at all.

Any objections? Is this actually what we have today? What significance does marriage have?

Reign_Cryogen

Whatever significance you assign to it.

john proctor

So, that means none. Unless you feel that a girlfriend is less entitled to certain treatment (fidelity, financial and emotional support) than a wife.

If it's useless, why does it continue to exist? I don't think it is a relic facing extinction, because almost everyone I know would like to be married one day.

Reign_Cryogen

If you feel it has no significance, then that is correct.

I would wager that "almost everyone [you] know" assigns some kind of significance to it, if it's a goal of theirs, hmm?

john proctor

Definitely. But, what, and why?

Reign_Cryogen

I dunno. Ask them. I know what it means to me. Why? I think that directly relates to the "what."

Marriage, to me, is a means of making official - on paper - the committment of one individual's life to another's, with an implied romantic slant, by whatever terms they feel it applies. As I see it, if marriage changes a damned thing about a relationship other than legality, something is very seriously wrong. Why, for me? To ensure that, in unforseen circumstances, she is taken care of in terms of my estate and whatnot, rather than my default next-of-kin. Sure, it implies a host of other things - like not cheating - but those were already in place.

Nothing irritates me more than someone speaking so longingly of marriage as if it is some holy grail to be achieved. It's not, to me. It's a reaffirmation. If one needs that in the relationship, I suspect something else entirely is lacking.

But that's me.

Wallener

You're dealing with a poor translation. More accurate would be "...your are to...stone them with stones so that they die - the girl because she did not cry out in the town and the man because he humbled the wife of his neighbor."

So it's very clearly an issue of her being a willing participant.

There is. It's a fate worse than death we generally refer to as Divorce Court.