320
Cheating on your spouse is no longer a crime in New York
(gothamist.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
320 points (99.1% liked)
News
23422 readers
3575 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Great now make it so if you cheat you lose the ability to get alimony.
And an open relationship is different then cheating.
Honestly, I think it’s high time we ditch old marriage laws in favor of much more individualized marriage contracts that are settled in civil court if they’re dissolved. Modern marriages are much more complex than traditional ones and our antiquated laws don’t deal with them well. We’d have to update laws/policies about hospital visiting, medical decisions, inheritance, etc, as well, but I think it would be worth it.
I was in favor of individual contracts for most of my life.
But there's an issue - with individual contracts there's a greater degree of uncertainty every time someone goes to court over them.
It's the same as with individual contracts in other areas. Say, labor.
Power balance matters.
So - ideally yes, but in our real world with our real legal and enforcement systems - we may not be able to. Same as with labor, again.
Well I doubt it would be truely individualized. Probably something more like a menu of terms that everyone else is using would quickly develop. Maybe a few numbers to customize. But mostly boilerplate. And probably requiring arbitration.
So reading a 200+ page EULA before saying I do, got it.
Yes absolutely this. Cheating should not be a crime you go to jail for.
But it should have consequences. I think a good way to go is a law that unless there is a prenup that specifically deals with cheating, and unless it was an agreed to open relationship or there was otherwise permission to cheat, a cheater is ineligible for alimony and must be considered morally suspect for the question of child custody.
Consider the following (IMO common) scenario: One spouse is abusive and does not care about the children. Maybe it’s a malignant narcissist and their family is like property for them.
The other spouse cares about the children and may be the only one doing any real parenting. Also they suffer the loveless, abusive marriage. At some point they meet someone that cares for them and somehow that leads to cheating before they can escape the marriage.
In this scenario the children should stay with the cheater and the alimony should not be depending on who cheated. (Both IMO of course).
In that scenario, the spouse doing the parenting who isn't a narcissist should divorce the narcissist. Or keep their pants on until the divorce happens.
'somehow that leads to cheating' No it does not 'somehow' lead to anything.
Either the person is in control of their actions, in which case they should have the self-control to postpone sex at least until divorce process begins, or they are not in control of their actions and are helpless to prevent themselves from sleeping with the other person, in which case they are not the paragon of virtue you paint them to be. They may well be a better parent than the narcissist, which is why I don't say custody should be automatic. I am only saying that infidelity should be strongly considered in custody decisions.
I find your lack of empathy for abuse victims quite concerning TBH.
I have a ton of empathy for abuse victims.
Having something shitty done to you, doesn't mean it's okay for you to be shitty.
Cheating is not okay, even if your spouse is abusive. Leaving an abusive spouse is a valid reaction. Cheating is not.
And from a legal perspective, the second we open up the can of worms of 'This person is shitty there for it's okay to be shitty to them' you create a slippery slope that could easily be used by shitty people against good people.
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t.
I did not say that.
I did not say that.
So, according to you malignant narcissists are good people? Okay
But you did. Not in so many words, but you said it.
I made the simple point that cheating is not okay, that there should be consequences for cheating. You brought up abuse victims. I said abuse victims should leave their abuser rather than cheating on them. And you said I have no sympathy for them.
The logical conclusion from your statement, is that you think abuse victims cheating on their abuser is okay. And that me saying they should leave their abuser rather than cheating on them is without empathy.
If I'm understanding the situation wrong, can you clarify your position a little? Are you or are you not trying to say that it is somehow okay for abuse victims to cheat on their abuser? And if you think that is okay, why?
Where?
If you can't keep it in your pants for the sake of your kids I don't feel bad for you. You're not gonna die from not fucking. Jesus christ lol
that's the opposite of the point of these laws. the entire point of this and no fault divorce is that the state shouldn't dictate relationships. how are you going to adjudicate cheating anyway?
How?
If person a is shown to have been cheating then person a loses any claim to alimony.
Pretty simple.
Person A in divorce court “judge I want alimony”
Person B in divorce court “your honor Person A was cheating here’s the proof”
Judge “ no alimony will be awarded from Person B to Person A”
Why should anyone be allowed to get alimony after cheating? That’s just insult to injury.
Your spouse cheats you walk in on it and now you want a divorce. Added bonus you have to pay money to the cheater for life???
How does that make sense?
It should literally be law that the alimony goes away at that point.
Yeah indentured servitude as punishment for being victim of a cheater. That’s just pure injustice and the state shouldn’t be enforcing that.
Here's something nuts . I have three down votes and six up votes. Think about that. There is a solid percentage of people that think I'm wrong in saying what I said.
Even Canada doesn't have that implemented, I wouldn't count on that any time soon. In Canada, your wife could cut off your finger and cheat on you then file for divorce, then you'd have to give her half of your house (even if it was your childhood home you fully owned long before your marriage) and pay her alimony if you make more than her. Also if you have kids, she's very likely going to win custody of them.
It's a bit fucked up lol
In some states in the United States, if you get a divorce, they go back to birth so for example, a child home would be split up. But in most states, they only go back to the date of marriage. I will say : I’ll never get married ever. But if I was dumb enough to do it, I would absolutely never get married in a state that (during a divorce) went back to birth. And I would never live in that state (while married) either. What’s mine before the marriage is mine what is hers before the marriage is hers.
No one should be able to claim the ability to take something before the marriage ever existed. That’s just my opinion.
And yeah, I doubt it would ever get implemented.
People who are so concerned about that possibility can just require their prospective spouse to sign a prenup with conditions like that on alimony, as a condition of getting married.
Yup, that's a great way to start a marriage. "I love you with all my heart and want to be with you forever. Also, I don't trust you, so let's get a prenup."
The law needs to protect people by default. It's just impractical not to. You have to keep in mind that humans are not perfect rational agents.
If someone has this strong of a concern about potentially having to pay alimony in the future and their partner is this bothered by practical attempts to alleviate that fear by preventing an issue, then maybe they're just not right for each other and shouldn't get married.
Alimony laws also vary enormously by jurisdiction, and people could also just e.g. not marry someone who doesn't work or isn't planning to. Or only marry someone who gets paid close enough to the same amount that alimony likely wouldn't come into play regardless.
I think you have an overly optimistic view of the world.
I think I have a realistic view. Usually terminally online men don't understand how alimony even works or how rare it is in the first place. I suppose they just get off on these kinds of justice porn theoretical outrage scenarios.
People change. Often for the worst and it's completely out of your control.
There are a number of states where the prenup is all but worthless.
I do wonder the legal definition used here. I hope the law doesn't consider it cheating if you tell them about it first, regardless of if they say yes
Just my opinion, if my spouse (I'm not married) walks up to me and asks if they can sleep with someone else and I say no. Then they do it anyway. I would absolutely call that cheating. Then I'd call a divorce attorney. If I had to pay alimony after the divorce I'd be extremely bitter.
If I had to pay alimony in a situation like that, I would become a criminal fast.
Your partner is not your property. They have the right to fuck who they want.
They dont have the right to endanger your health, which is why they need to tell you
In the context of the comment chain, you’re saying that a person who willfully violates a monogamous marriage vow should still be able to claim alimony in the event of a divorce, simply because they informed their spouse they were doing it?
Fuck that. What the hell are you thinking? Please tell me this isn’t what you mean.
Marriages shouldn't be monogamous. Thats antiquated and ridiculous
Some people get married for tax benefits, and the law shouldn't say anything about whether or not the marriage is poly or mono. I mean, sure, let people opt into it if they want legally enforced monogamy, like a prenup. But by default marriage shouldn't require monogomy. Thats insane.
Wow. Way to give polygamists a bad name, dude. Can’t let the monogamists have their slice of happiness, huh?
Pathetic. I’m glad you’re in the extreme minority, what a horrendous opinion you have.
I literally said its OK to be mono. Just that it shouldn't be required.
Also its polyamory, not polygamy
There is absolutely a difference between having an open relationship where both parties consent, and having a relationship where one person just sleeps around, but it's totally fine because the other was informed it was happening.
Your partner may not be your property, but that doesn't mean that sleeping around just because you told them it was happening is ok.
If you dont consent to your poly partner fucking someone else, you're saying "your body, my choice"
Thats so fucked, and I can't believe you're defending it
Whoa buddy, drop the assumptions. You're assuming your partner is poly. Among other things.
I can't believe you're defending cheating and then excusing it as "we're just poly" (Even though you absolutely did not make that clear to begin with, and are now changing the circumstances of your argument. Maybe list out any assumptions you're using?)
I would never marry anyone who wasn't poly. The law is the one making assumptions here.
My point is that it shouldn't be possible for my spouse to persue criminal action against me for fucking someone else in a poly relationship if we're married. Thats fucked.
The law shouldn't make it not allowed to fuck someone outside your marriage by default. As I said before, thats cool to make it optional like a prenup, if you'd like, but it shouldn't be the default
You have no conception of how contracts work do you?
Contracts involve things people aren’t entitled to all the time. Nobody is entitled to have someone else meet them for lunch at 1 pm either. You can’t dictate someone else’s movements that way.
Oh wait! Unless they agreed to meet you there at 1pm.
Fascinating, the way promises can turn a lack of entitlement into legitimate entitlement.
This article is literally about changing that contract because its based on an antiquated concept of some old book that claimed it was the word of some mythical creature in the sky
We're updating the contract for a reason.
If a poly person is with a monogamous person and wants to sleep with a new partner, end the relationship with the monogamous person. The monogamous person can stay out of the relationship if they know the other person is poly, too.
Sure. I'm talking about a poly person in marriage with a poly person. They shouldn't be able to be criminalized for fucking someone else if they told their partner about it first.
No you weren't. You're moving the goalposts.
Nah, you made assumptions
Do you know what alimony is?