Should The State Enforce Laws Against Adultery?

[Blueridge Believer]

The fellow who did the shooting here was a member of a local Baptist church. A person from the church told me the man's wife took to "whoredoms" on him awhile back and that even the man she was seeing was taunting him. Of course this is second hand and can't be verified. One thing is certain-a man is dead and a father is behind bars. If the civil magistrate was doing it's part according to the law of God the man may still be alive. What think ye children?

Police: Tensions crested in shooting - Roanoke.com

Pro 6:26 For by means of a whorish woman [a man is brought] to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.
Pro 6:27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?
Pro 6:28 Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?
Pro 6:29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
Pro 6:30 [Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;
Pro 6:31 But [if] he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
Pro 6:32 [But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he [that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
Pro 6:33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
Pro 6:34 For jealousy [is] the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
Pro 6:35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.

 

[Galatians220]

"No-fault" divorce laws that don't consider "who violated the bonds of matrimony" (i.e., who committed adultery during the marriage and who did not) except when it comes to the division of the marital estate are responsible for much of this sort of thing. These laws are an outrage.

There are statutes in the family law codes of many states that prohibit adultery. But they're never enforced. A long time ago, while in the employ of a general civil practice, I held my nose and wrote an appellate brief in which my boss wanted me to argue, based on precedent, that "just because" a wife had had an affair with her husband's brother was not a reason that she shouldn't be awarded the marital home in the property judgment. "Adultery per se is never prosecuted in this state," I had to argue. The appellate panel awarded the house to the wife. Disgusting outcome.

Yes, I think adultery should be prosecuted in the civil courts.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Should the State enforce laws against adultery? - Yes.

Will the State do so? - No, not until God grants repentance and faith.

And let me go ahead and "drop the other shoe". To what extend should the State prosecute those found guilty of adultery? - To the fullest extent of Biblical Law. Yes, that means the death penalty, but only in so far as the State is Biblically oriented and has the proper laws enacted (i.e. laws that align with "The Law").


*Running for cover now*

[Seriously though, I have to go out on some sales calls. Will be back later today to take my lumps. ]

 

[Blueridge Believer]

"No-fault" divorce laws that don't consider "who violated the bonds of matrimony" (i.e., who committed adultery during the marriage and who did not) except when it comes to the division of the marital estate are responsible for much of this sort of thing. These laws are an outrage.

There are statutes in the family law codes of many states that prohibit adultery. But they're never enforced. A long time ago, while in the employ of a general civil practice, I held my nose and wrote an appellate brief in which my boss wanted me to argue, based on precedent, that "just because" a wife had had an affair with her husband's brother was not a reason that she shouldn't be awarded the marital home in the property judgment. "Adultery per se is never prosecuted in this state," I had to argue. The appellate panel awarded the house to the wife. Disgusting outcome.

Yes, I think adultery should be prosecuted in the civil courts.

It seems our nation and our courts are falling deeper and deeper into depravity and rebellion.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Should the State enforce laws against adultery? - Yes.

Will the State do so? - No, not until God grants repentance and faith.

And let me go ahead and "drop the other shoe". To what extend should the State prosecute those found guilty of adultery? - To the fullest extent of Biblical Law. Yes, that means the death penalty, but only in so far as the State is Biblically oriented and has the proper laws enacted (i.e. laws that align with "The Law").


*Running for cover now*

[Seriously though, I have to go out on some sales calls. Will be back later today to take my lumps. ]

Maybe not the death penalty, but one things for sure. There should be penaltys for adultery that would make your ears tingle. Maybe something along multi thouand dollar fines with jailtime and public flogging.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

If the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed were correct, the decalogue is a reflection of the natural law (a corollary to the republication doctrine). We don't need to appeal to Mosaic case/civil law to argue for civil enforcement of the second table.

The family is the basic, creational, natural, social unit. Adultery is a crime against nature. It violates the social contract implicit in the marriage vows (whether taken in church or before the magistrate). It weakens and essential relation and destabilizes a community. It is also a form of theft.

A marriage is a civil, not just religious, covenant. Transgression of the marriage covenant is a transgression of a civil covenant. Every transgression of the civil covenant, e.g. the reckless use of an auto or firearm is punishable by the magistrate.

We don't want the magistrate punishing sins of the heart but we dot want him punishing crimes against nature and the civil contract implicit in nature and social relations. That's why he bears the sword.

 

[reformedcop]

Yes, I think we should.

From a law enforcement perspective ... We would need to hire a lot more officers.

 

[KenPierce]

Adultery, solicitation of prostitutes, strip clubs, divorce, p-rn, homosexuality --all contribute to societal breakdown, and should be penalized by the law.

I don't agree that we have to have a "christian" state (whatever that is) to do this. This is general equity, folks. The nuclear family needs to be protected, and things that contribute to its breakdown criminalized.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Adultery, solicitation of prostitutes, strip clubs, divorce, p-rn, homosexuality --all contribute to societal breakdown, and should be penalized by the law.

I don't agree that we have to have a "christian" state (whatever that is) to do this. This is general equity, folks. The nuclear family needs to be protected, and things that contribute to its breakdown criminalized.

Agreed!!!

 

[Galatians220]

In most states, you can get out of a 25-year marriage easier than you can get out of a contract to buy a car, put a new roof on your house, etc., etc. (Kids are usually grown and gone by then; when they're minors, they put a "crimp" in the divorce proceedings & hold up the inevitable process by a few months... )

The whole thing makes me sick.

"Go and sin no more," said Jesus to the woman caught "in the act." Adultery is forgiveable - but one must bear the reasonable consequences. David did: God made Him bear them. Who bears the consequences anymore, except in states where the property settlement is going to be more favorable to the non-adulterer?

Jesus did, however, expect the woman literally to abstain from adultery for the rest of her life...

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

That is just crazy talk there Gal220.

 

[Zenas]

"Money cannot buy a husband's jealous eye."

 

[ChristopherPaul]

"Money cannot buy a husband's jealous eye."

Derek Webb?

 

[Simply_Nikki]

Isn't adultery a punishable crime in the military? Or did I just make that up? I know I heard it from somewhere .

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Isn't adultery a punishable crime in the military? Or did I just make that up? I know I heard it from somewhere .

When I was in the Air Force from '77 to '85 it was.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Should the State enforce laws against adultery? - Yes.

Will the State do so? - No, not until God grants repentance and faith.

And let me go ahead and "drop the other shoe". To what extend should the State prosecute those found guilty of adultery? - To the fullest extent of Biblical Law. Yes, that means the death penalty, but only in so far as the State is Biblically oriented and has the proper laws enacted (i.e. laws that align with "The Law").


*Running for cover now*

[Seriously though, I have to go out on some sales calls. Will be back later today to take my lumps. ]

Maybe not the death penalty, but one things for sure. There should be penaltys for adultery that would make your ears tingle. Maybe something along multi thouand dollar fines with jailtime and public flogging.

Let me see if I can explain my thinking. [I apologize beforehand for my poor written communication skills.]

1. It appears, from 2 Samuel 12:13, that David expected death as his punishment. But Nathan informs him that God had granted him a special dispensation of forgiveness and that he would not die.

2. Where do we get the idea that the punishments prescribed in the OT Civil Law were the only punishments available to the magistrates? Things like circumstances, repentance (or at least one's attitude toward repentance), and recidivism would have all been taken into account. Not all rebellious children were to be put to death. Only those who were unrepentant and continued in the behavior. Judges were expected to wise in knowing how to apply the Law, and the better part of wisdom is knowing when and when not to show mercy (in my opinion).

3. The reason Jesus "let the woman go" is twofold. A) He was not at that time a legitimate civil magistrate; and B) there were no witnesses left to accuse the woman. Therefore, she could not be civilly judged at this time and place, though He did pronounce spiritual judgment on her sin, forgave her of that sin, and commanded her not to ever repeat the sin.

So though the death penalty could be applied in certain circumstances, given godly and wise judges, it is not the only and certainly not the first penalty to be applied. Also, it is never the purview of the Church to civilly judge anyone. The job of the Church is to preach against sin, demand that sinners repent, instruct them how to repent, and point them to the Source of forgiveness.

I hope that makes some sense.

Blessings,

 

[puritan lad]

If a child results from this, the state already does punish the male participant. Why not just take the next step and punish both?

 

[DMcFadden]

If the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed were correct, the decalogue is a reflection of the natural law (a corollary to the republication doctrine). We don't need to appeal to Mosaic case/civil law to argue for civil enforcement of the second table.

The family is the basic, creational, natural, social unit. Adultery is a crime against nature. It violates the social contract implicit in the marriage vows (whether taken in church or before the magistrate). It weakens and essential relation and destabilizes a community. It is also a form of theft.

A marriage is a civil, not just religious, covenant. Transgression of the marriage covenant is a transgression of a civil covenant. Every transgression of the civil covenant, e.g. the reckless use of an auto or firearm is punishable by the magistrate.

We don't want the magistrate punishing sins of the heart but we dot want him punishing crimes against nature and the civil contract implicit in nature and social relations. That's why he bears the sword.

Scott, you are right again! Unfortunately, with the rise of autonomous man and the depreciation of natural law, we are left with positive law. As taught by "genuises" like Lawrence Tribe, learned by the young lawyers in their JD coursework, upheld by the lower courts, and finally enshrined in legal precedent by the SCOTUS, we are expected to believe that "right" is whatever democratic consensus or "might" says it is.

Is it any wonder in our "judge not" era that no fault divorce would be the order of the day? I'm surprised we still win convictions in criminal trials in this country. Out here in LALA land, nobody wants to judge anybody's life. [The only thing our culture remembers from the Bible is a verse they can't even get straight in the interpretation or application]

 

[ModernPuritan?]

but lala land is fun

 

[ModernPuritan?]

correct me if im wrong, but what do these phrases have in common

1) dont judge me
2) you cant judge me

it would seem in simplistic terms that saying "dont judge me" is short for saying "you (can not, may not) judge my actions of motives" which is a judgment stating what one can and cant do?

hence a more correct statement would be "im both sure and unsure that you can and cant judge me"?????

 

[MrMerlin777]

Isn't adultery a punishable crime in the military? Or did I just make that up? I know I heard it from somewhere .

The Uniform Code of Military Justice does have provisions for the punishment of adultery. In 20 years in the USN though, I've never seen them used. Most cases that I've seen that involved adultery also involved other violations of the UCMJ such as fraternization etc that were usualy charged in the disciplinary proceedings rather than the provisions against adultery.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Isn't adultery a punishable crime in the military? Or did I just make that up? I know I heard it from somewhere .

The Uniform Code of Military Justice does have provisions for the punishment of adultery. In 20 years in the USN though, I've never seen them used. Most cases that I've seen that involved adultery also involved other violations of the UCMJ such as fraternization etc that were usualy charged in the disciplinary proceedings rather than the provisions against adultery.

Agreed. The provision is there but rarely enforced by itself. The Navy would be a far different place if it were enforced...

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Should the State enforce laws against adultery? - Yes...

How about stocks, public floggings, and scarlet letters?!!

 

[MrMerlin777]

Isn't adultery a punishable crime in the military? Or did I just make that up? I know I heard it from somewhere .

The Uniform Code of Military Justice does have provisions for the punishment of adultery. In 20 years in the USN though, I've never seen them used. Most cases that I've seen that involved adultery also involved other violations of the UCMJ such as fraternization etc that were usualy charged in the disciplinary proceedings rather than the provisions against adultery.

Agreed. The provision is there but rarely enforced by itself. The Navy would be a far different place if it were enforced...

Indeed it would...

 

[mshingler]

If the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed were correct, the decalogue is a reflection of the natural law (a corollary to the republication doctrine). We don't need to appeal to Mosaic case/civil law to argue for civil enforcement of the second table.

The family is the basic, creational, natural, social unit. Adultery is a crime against nature. It violates the social contract implicit in the marriage vows (whether taken in church or before the magistrate). It weakens and essential relation and destabilizes a community. It is also a form of theft.

A marriage is a civil, not just religious, covenant. Transgression of the marriage covenant is a transgression of a civil covenant. Every transgression of the civil covenant, e.g. the reckless use of an auto or firearm is punishable by the magistrate.

We don't want the magistrate punishing sins of the heart but we dot want him punishing crimes against nature and the civil contract implicit in nature and social relations. That's why he bears the sword.

Doesn't the whole concept of natural law, or any universal law, already presuppose the Lawgiver? I'm not sure how we can appeal to natural law completely in isolation from the revealed law of God, as found in Scripture. Or, maybe I'm not understanding what you meant??

 

[DMcFadden]

When natural law still ruled in the classrooms of law schools, one could make an appeal to natural law without touching a Bible or even getting into a discussion about the Lawgiver. Common sense and a shared consensus of right and wrong made such things possible. Now, however, natrual law has been dethroned in favor of positive law, the notion that we may determine right and wrong pretty much higgily-piggily (I believe that this is the technical term for it.

 

[danmpem]

"Money cannot buy a husband's jealous eye."

Derek Webb?

Heck yes it is!

 

[Quickened]

In most states, you can get out of a 25-year marriage easier than you can get out of a contract to buy a car, put a new roof on your house, etc., etc. (Kids are usually grown and gone by then; when they're minors, they put a "crimp" in the divorce proceedings & hold up the inevitable process by a few months... )

The whole thing makes me sick.

Makes me sick too!

Truly it is amazing how far removed our society is from God.

 

[timmopussycat]

If the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed were correct, the decalogue is a reflection of the natural law (a corollary to the republication doctrine). We don't need to appeal to Mosaic case/civil law to argue for civil enforcement of the second table.

The family is the basic, creational, natural, social unit. Adultery is a crime against nature. It violates the social contract implicit in the marriage vows (whether taken in church or before the magistrate). It weakens and essential relation and destabilizes a community. It is also a form of theft.

A marriage is a civil, not just religious, covenant. Transgression of the marriage covenant is a transgression of a civil covenant. Every transgression of the civil covenant, e.g. the reckless use of an auto or firearm is punishable by the magistrate.

We don't want the magistrate punishing sins of the heart but we dot want him punishing crimes against nature and the civil contract implicit in nature and social relations. That's why he bears the sword.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Dennis,

I don't agree that appeal to creation requires the sort of commonality you seem to suggest. Paul appeals to it in Acts 17 even though that was very much a cross-cultural communication event.

Creation transcends cultures. It is the one universal that binds us all, because we're all Adam's children and image-bearers. We can appeal to those truths explicitly or implicitly -- whichever rhetorical strategy is most useful in the situation.

Paul says that everyone knows that certain things are wrong. We can illustrate the dangers of adultery by analogy and example and experience.

We can invoke the Creator in civil discourse as our founders did.

rsc

If the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed were correct, the decalogue is a reflection of the natural law (a corollary to the republication doctrine). We don't need to appeal to Mosaic case/civil law to argue for civil enforcement of the second table.

The family is the basic, creational, natural, social unit. Adultery is a crime against nature. It violates the social contract implicit in the marriage vows (whether taken in church or before the magistrate). It weakens and essential relation and destabilizes a community. It is also a form of theft.

A marriage is a civil, not just religious, covenant. Transgression of the marriage covenant is a transgression of a civil covenant. Every transgression of the civil covenant, e.g. the reckless use of an auto or firearm is punishable by the magistrate.

We don't want the magistrate punishing sins of the heart but we dot want him punishing crimes against nature and the civil contract implicit in nature and social relations. That's why he bears the sword.

Scott, you are right again! Unfortunately, with the rise of autonomous man and the depreciation of natural law, we are left with positive law. As taught by "genuises" like Lawrence Tribe, learned by the young lawyers in their JD coursework, upheld by the lower courts, and finally enshrined in legal precedent by the SCOTUS, we are expected to believe that "right" is whatever democratic consensus or "might" says it is.

Is it any wonder in our "judge not" era that no fault divorce would be the order of the day? I'm surprised we still win convictions in criminal trials in this country. Out here in LALA land, nobody wants to judge anybody's life. [The only thing our culture remembers from the Bible is a verse they can't even get straight in the interpretation or application]