Marriage is complicated. It requires more than love to sustain it. Divorce is a lot more complicated. It is rare for a single reason alone to cause a divorce, at least for most of us. I used to get offended when people inquired about why I divorced. That offense itself was layered with a need for privacy, the rawness of processing emotional injuries, and the reality that I did not know why he left. The only certainty was that I couldn't trust him anymore. It took more than a decade for me to openly talk about it.
In North Carolina, South Dakota, Mississippi, and Hawaii, you can seek justice in monetary form from an individual for interference with a marriage. Commonly referred to as alienation of affection laws, each of these states has retained statutes that allow a spouse to sue the other person with whom their partner is engaged in an affair, while most other states have effectively abolished the law.
I believe in the institution of marriage. It binds two people through legal protection, privileges, and, at times, liability. Societies have long relied on family structures for socialization, economic cooperation, social regulation, and emotional support. It begins with two people bound in commitment to one another and, often, to their children. That commitment should not be easily broken without just cause, nor intentionally interfered with by a third party. That bond warrants respect.
There are, of course, exceptions—malicious actions such as abuse, gambling, addiction, and other harmful behaviors that put safety at risk.
Are the laws that allow a third party to be sued—collectively known as alienation of affection laws, now abolished by most states—outdated? When someone intentionally contributes to damaging our lives—something we have invested in physically, emotionally, and financially over time—shouldn’t there be accountability?
For anyone to claim they could not foresee the damage of infidelity is a difficult argument to accept. It is equally difficult to accept that intentional actions that damage a legally bound relationship—one that may have taken years of work to build and sustain—should carry no responsibility. Why do we accept harm caused in our relationships, in our individual spaces, by others simply because we happened to be in their way?
Marriage is a legally recognized and binding relationship, yet in most states, it is not legally protected when intentional harm results in its dissolution. Why provide legal recognition and privilege when it will not hold those legally accountable for actions that damage it? It seems obtuse at best.
Some have argued this is a matter of personal and moral choice, beyond the scope of legal intervention. But aren't murder, rape, robbery, drunk driving, theft, fraud, and other crimes also personal and moral choices?
I'm not suggesting that we criminalize so-called homewrecking; however, the erosion of civility raises the question of how accountability should be imposed. Shouldn't we hold those whose actions have a direct adverse impact on the lives of others accountable? If people cannot make responsible personal and moral choices that damage others—emotionally and financially at times—shouldn't the law protect those who are impacted by it?
Is that not the function of law—to establish and enforce consequences that protect those harmed when actions cause damage?
_____
More essays:
Comments
Post a Comment