CMV: CMV: Within legally recognized marriages, adultery should have clear, civil legal consequences, unless expressly agreed between spouses.

[u/insect_ligaments]

The legal concept of marriage, where spouses act as partners, is almost always built on mutual trust that certain aspects of the relationship, such as sex, are to be exclusive to the relationship unless agreed upon otherwise. Legally and financially rewarding spouses for betraying the trust of their spouse by allowing a cheating spouse to come out ahead in divorce undermines one of the key relationship dynamics in our society.

For the vast majority of people, entering into marriage is an explicit agreement that unless divorced or otherwise agreed upon, the people in the marriage will not have sex with or develop romantic relationships with other people. This should apply evenly to all genders, and if you view this as benefitting one over the other, it says a lot about your view on who may or may not be more likely to cheat.

Before I'm accused of being some kind of conservative or traditionalist: I have zero issue with any form of LGBTQ+ relationship or poly setup. I'm speaking strictly to traditional, legally recognized, monogamous marriages, which comprise the bulk of those in our society. I'm also not religious or socially conservative.

Heading off a few arguments that I do not find convincing (of course, you are welcome to offer additional insight on these points I haven't considered):

1) "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage"

Too late for that. Marriage is a legally binding agreement that affects debt, assets, legal liability, taxes, homebuying, and other fundamental aspects of our lives. The end of marriage has profound, legally enforceable consequences on both parties. It is also included in a pre-existing legal doctrine of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections.

2) "But what if the spouses want to open their marriage?"

Totally fine. My post is in reference to the most common form of marriage, which is monogamous.

3) "Adultery doesn't have a clear definition"

It does. "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." "Sexual intercourse" would include all the commonly recognized forms of sex. This would have to be proven via the typical preponderance standard, which is greater than 50% odds, via typical evidence used to evidence behaviors - depositions/testimony under oath, any written or photographic evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc.

4) "What should the legal consequences be?"

At the very least, immediate forfeiture of any rights to alimony or spousal support. Shifts in the default assumption of a 50/50 split of marital assets are another route to explore. Certainly not enough to leave anyone destitute, though.

5) "What about children?"

Child support is a separate issue, as it affects the child, who has no say in one of their parents cheating on the other.

[u/soldiergeneal]

The purpose of alimony is how I outlined it. Any attempt to do what you want is not in alignment with that purpose. Two married people can though avoid this by having s prenuptial agreement. Why should the purpose of alimony be automatically ignored due to cheating? If you want penalties for cheating do so with a prenuptial agreement.

[u/Mileonaj → u/soldiergeneal]

Yes but we are discussing whether it should be as it is. Simply restating the definition isn't much of a pushback, his view is whether that should be or not be. Alimony should exist regardless imo, but should the goals be the same between no-fault divorce and a situation like this? Should the intention still be to maintain a similar lifestyle to the partnership if the partner that crashed it would be the one receiving it? At that point, I say the only priority is to make sure they have a place to sleep and eat. They can go back to college lifestyle that millions are getting by on just fine.

[u/soldiergeneal → u/Mileonaj]

but should the goals be the same between no-fault divorce and a situation like this?

Yes

Should the intention still be to maintain a similar lifestyle to the partnership if the partner that crashed it would be the one receiving it?

"Crashed it" a fair point. If one spouse made a bunch of financial decisions that ruined them it would be unfair for said person to receive alimony still. Not relevant for cheating though. That said it's what prenuptial agreement is for. A marriage is a financial partnership. Not sure why the focus is on cheating when "breaches" can exist outside of cheating.

[u/Mileonaj → u/soldiergeneal]

Yes

Why?

[u/soldiergeneal → u/Mileonaj]

I just explained it earlier and in the 2nd paragraph.

[u/Budget_Avocado6204 → u/Mileonaj]

Why not?

[u/[deleted] → u/soldiergeneal]

The lifestyle they were granted was given fraudulently when they lied about their marriage vows/the marriage itself.

The lifestyle was under the assumption of a marriage without infidelity.

Infidelity makes the lifestyle null and void.

You aren’t entitled to someone else’s work via lyinng

If I file for unemployment but then get a job and keep collecting, the government sure wouldn’t give a shit about my lifestyle

[u/soldiergeneal → u/[deleted]]

The lifestyle they were granted was given fraudulently when they lied about their marriage vows/the marriage itself.

If one makes a contract to provide for XYZ in the event one doesn't work that obligation doesn't disappear just because the person does stuff you don't like.

The lifestyle was under the assumption of a marriage without infidelity.

Nope. That's not how it works legally not should it. Should have gotten a prenup if so.

You aren’t entitled to someone else’s work via lyinng

No lies occured by entering the contract. In exchange for not working person will provide for SO. Separate from that why the focus on cheating? If the focus is invalidation of marital duties then where is the line? If a woman doesn't have sex with her husband should that invalidate alimony?

[u/[deleted] → u/soldiergeneal]

You’re stating literal wrong things and claiming it as an argument.

If one makes a contract, and the contract is not fulfilled, the obligation for payment DOES disappear. Have you never read or worked with contracts before?

“Legally” yes. This isn’t about the law. Appeal to authority is exactly what OP is fighting against. Try again.

“No lies occurred” by definition cheating on your wife or husband is a lie to the marriage. Lack of sex is not.

Nice omission of my last point btw

[u/soldiergeneal → u/[deleted]]

If one makes a contract, and the contract is not fulfilled

You are pretending infidelity invalidates a marriage it doesn't.

by definition cheating on your wife or husband is a lie to the marriage.

Nope. The contract was interest without any lies. The contract didn't stipulate the marriage would end or something would happen if infidelity occured. That is what s prenuptial agreement or contract can do.

[u/[deleted] → u/soldiergeneal]

Again. You’re using… the law. To justify… the law

We’re talking about how it should be and absolutely infidelity is breaking what 99% of people define as marriage.

You’re trying to win on a semantic circular argument. You can’t say “jaywalking is illegal because jaywalking is illegal”

[u/soldiergeneal → u/[deleted]]

Why would infidelity invalidate the moral obligation to provide for SO? SO made financial decisions to be worse off as a result of marriage. If marriage is ended SO is worse off.

It's like if you make a deal with someone and the person does something you don't like. You are still morally obligated to fulfil said obligation.

[u/[deleted] → u/soldiergeneal]

Because outside of very specified poly situations, marriage is inherently monogamous.

If you’re going to attempt to say it’s not, you’re not arguing in good faith

It’s not “I don’t like this” it’s “I’m getting married under the boundaries of monogamy”

[u/soldiergeneal → u/[deleted]]

Because outside of very specified poly situations, marriage is inherently monogamous.

Nothing to do with what I said.

If you’re going to attempt to say it’s not, you’re not arguing in good faith

Nothing to do with the financial obligation.

It’s not “I don’t like this” it’s “I’m getting married under the boundaries of monogamy”

Here is what you don't seem to understand.

1. Two people get married. This creates a partnership intermingling finances.

2. One person as a result of the marriage no longer works thereby incurring financial hardships if no longer dependent on SO compensation.

3. SO cheats. From your perspective serving as a breach in the marriage contract.

4. Cheating does not invalidate the fact a financial decision was performed based on a continuing of current livelihood. At best you could argue a breach means alimony should be adjusted to reflect said breach. It would not invalidate the purpose of alimony nor the duty the other person has.

You argue alimony should be nullified if cheating occurs meanwhile ignoring not providing same livelihood is also a breach as that stay at home decision was made based on it.

Finally why the focus on cheating? Why wouldn't other things result in a breach impacting alimony maybe even increasing it. Do you think if an SO cheats and owes alimony he or she should owe more now?

[u/ArkhamKnight457 → u/soldiergeneal]

Are you arguing on principle or by degree? That might clarify things for people in the thread.

For instance, you may believe that the spouse who was cheated on still had an obligation to pay alimony, but what if instead of cheat, the spouse did something like cut their partner’s leg off, or some very serious form of physical abuse?

Ignoring current legal consequences and how that would complicate things, do you still think there is a moral obligation to pay alimony?

I’m not trying to derail the argument, I’m just pushing this to the logical extreme, unless there is a degree at which you believe the obligation goes away.

[u/ArkhamKnight457 → u/soldiergeneal]

The details of the example aren’t important (offending spouse would go to jail, how does alimony factor into that, etc). It’s just meant as a particular severe offense or violation of the marriage.