Prosecuting for Adultery

Written by Tara Tainton

Thursday, 26 May 2005 00:00

We Americans are known for our tendency to sue each other and our habit of enacting the law when it best suits our needs and priorities. Such is the case of an Illinois wife who's studied up with the state law books to see how she can get back at her husband who's cheated on her repeatedly. Of course, her only proof of his continuous infidelity is her personal medical health which has resulted in a few STDs over the years. I wonder which they are and if she realizes he (and she) could've had latent forms only deciding to crop up and make themselves known years later.

Phil Luciano, columnist for the Journal Star, gives us the scoop in "Wife Says Mate Guilty of Adultery." In this case, the fact is that Illinois state law still includes two relating judgments on the act of having sexual relations outside of your primary relationship. One law exists for adultery specifically: "Any person who has sexual intercourse with another not his spouse commits adultery if the behavior is open and notorious." I'm not clear on how the law defines open or notorious, but it doesn't seem to apply to the case of 50-something Michelle and her hubby. It doesn't seem her husband has even confessed to the crime.

The definition of adultery in Illinois pertains to "a married person involved with someone other than a spouse, or to a single person knowingly involved with a married person. The crime is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 364 days in jail." The court reports that someone inquires about the adultery laws and their enforcement once every year or so, but that adultery is very hard to prove.

The judgment wouldn't pay Michelle any money either. She "hopes to encourage other wronged spouses to seek similar legal relief. That way, perhaps the law could scare people into behaving better." She says, "Maybe they'd think twice before jumping into bed with someone else."

If the law and punishment exist, I say go for it, Michelle, if that makes you feel better. But I don't agree she's proving anything to her husband (other than she likes to seek revenge in this way) or to other adulterers by calling in the big dogs. I have to say, it's not up to an individual to "teach another a lesson." It's up to that individual on trial so to speak to decide to learn the lesson himself.

I think an agreement is an agreement and respectful partners will honor the agreement they've made. However, I don't believe in assumed agreements, where one automatically expects a marriage or similar commitment or relationship dynamic to include certain arrangements and rules without having communicated them with each other. Sure, the tradition is that marriage means monogamy, but that truth is different for every marriage; it's up to the partners involved and their agreement.

I'll be repeating it for the next decades and in every subsequent life I may live: communication is key. If you don't communicate, you have no right to expect anything. I don't know if Michelle and her hubby communicated a certain agreement to each other or not, but we do know she intends to show the world his wrongdoing by seeking out additional punishment for him when the fact is that if he likes to cheat (and even has), he'll continue to do so and so will everyone else who likes to make it an addition to their lives. All one can do is express their own needs and not give the time of day to or worry over another who doesn't wish to help fulfill those needs.

Getting back at someone is merely revenge. It's merely a way to make your own self feel better temporarily by making you feel like justice has been served, like the wrongdoers have been punished, that you are more "good" than another. And seeking your own pleasure at the expense of someone else (which may be just what Michelle's husband was doing) is never a positive action, nor one that returns a real reward. My advice to Michelle is to let go of whatever attachment she has with the man and seek fulfillment elsewhere. She's not changing the world by making his ass sit in jail. And she's not allowing herself to move on and seek respectful relationships or self-confidence either.

Child molesters? Let's keep them off the streets as long as we can. Adulterers? They're not doing any harm in society that they can't also be doing while in jail: breaking agreements, which occurs first in the mind and is only sometimes followed by action.