Man Has A Point

14 Responses to “Man Has A Point”

1. martin kennedy writes
   July 17th, 2009 4:48 pm

   The point is the one on your head Kleinheider.

   A voluntary exchange of property is not intrinsically harmful to the spouse. It is harmful only if the husband makes a poor decision. An exchange that involves sexual relations is harmful by its very nature. Arguing that such distinctions be done away with would have the effect of treating spouses like property.

2. Southern Beale writes
   July 17th, 2009 5:02 pm

   You can sue for anything. Doesn’t mean you will win. Anyone can sue for anything at all.

3. Martin Kennedy writes
   July 17th, 2009 5:35 pm

   I think the question SB is whether or not there is a tort. Was damage done to the spouse by the woman who had relations with her husband?

4. dontcallmemikey writes
   July 17th, 2009 6:13 pm

   Zack Wamp knows, but he’s not sayin’ a word … shhh …

5. Paul writes
   July 17th, 2009 6:18 pm

   I am afraid Zach Wamp is going to have a flashback and all hell is going to break lose.

6. dontcallmemikey writes
   July 17th, 2009 7:01 pm

   If I’m workin’ op research for Zach, well - lets just say I’m checkin’ his background pretty close

7. Mack writes
   July 18th, 2009 7:52 am

   An exchange that involves sexual relations is harmful by its very nature.

   I have real trouble with that statement.

8. DADvocate writes
   July 18th, 2009 11:42 am

   Suing a third party for “alienation of affection” used to be much more common. It pretty much fell by the wayside with the sexual revolution.

9. Emmy Lou writes
   July 18th, 2009 12:12 pm

   Yes, and for most of the reasons mentioned in the article. Even in not-entirely-progressive Tennessee, it’s not a valid claim anymore.

10. Tom Paine writes
    July 18th, 2009 2:02 pm

    By divorcing her husband and taking him for all she could get, then, turning around and suing the “other woman”, isn’t she taking legal action against BOTH parties in the illicit relationship?

11. Martin Kennedy writes
    July 18th, 2009 4:02 pm

    Impresses me as a very valid claim, an injustice not to recognize such claims in principle, and also unwise from the viewpoint of society’s interest. When a guy runs off with a co-worker or old-flame it is not hard to imagine the harm it does do his wife and children. It is absurd to claim that the “other woman” plays no role in his leaving.

    Family (divorce) law impresses me as being very screwed up. The incentives are perverse. Even those who view marriage as merely a contract recognize how serious a commitment and how high the stakes. Yet it is a fairly easy contract to break.

12. Martin Kennedy writes
    July 18th, 2009 4:10 pm

    Of course various particular scenarios can be used to build sympathy for the husband - the situation where the wife is like the wicked witch of the west. What about the general case where the wife is a reasonable person but the husband just likes his new girlfriend better? Suppose the wife has recommended marriage counseling and is otherwise very intent on saving her marriage.

13. Mack writes
    July 18th, 2009 8:52 pm

    Financially, she should be made whole to the extent possible. But this idea that a man, or a woman, cannot decide to move his/her life in another direction, regardless of motivation, is absurd.

14. Mack writes
    July 19th, 2009 10:29 am

    And I would add, assuming the wife stayed home and did not work, or made some other financial sacrifice. Divorce law is very screwed up, but it is skewed toward keeping the attorneys in business, not keeping families intact.