tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post3549399661998614458..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Interesting comment about military lawDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-64953266274696232872007-09-29T18:43:00.000-04:002007-09-29T18:43:00.000-04:00Is not the status of the other person a considerat...Is not the status of the other person a consideration on whether or not it is UCMJ punishable adultery.Phil Cavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14474250926717405497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-89401900077987647912007-09-29T18:28:00.000-04:002007-09-29T18:28:00.000-04:00I wonder how this would play out in an Eisenstadt ...I wonder how this would play out in an Eisenstadt context -- military member has an adulterous relationship with a civilian who is not subject to the UCMJ, but who arguably has a constitutional right to engage in an adulterous relationship but has no way to enforce that right in a military court or any other court. <BR/><BR/>Now that I'm retired (on terminal leave, anyway) I have a little more time to ponder these things...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-40794317648992682142007-09-29T13:31:00.000-04:002007-09-29T13:31:00.000-04:00Query: Does Lawrence v. Texas change the adultery...Query: Does Lawrence v. Texas change the adultery rule when the an unmarried person has sex with a married person in a strictly private manner? A case from the NMCCA said it doe snot, and why it does not would surprise all of you Establishment Clause buffs:<BR/><BR/>As this court recently noted in United States v. Orellana, ___ M.J. ___, 2005 CCA LEXIS 367, No. 200201634 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 29 Nov 2005), while the primary purpose of the adultery statute under Article 134, UCMJ, is to maintain good order and discipline within the service, it does "secondarily" foster "the fundamental social institution of marriage."<BR/><BR/>United States v. Taylor, 62 M.J. 636, 636 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006). The social instituion of marirage? What social institution says a marriage MUST be monogamous? From what I know about divorce law, which isn't much, condonation (or acceptance of adultery) is a defense in most states to adultery grounds for divorce. MUST be monogamous . . . that would be the religious institution of marriage.Mike "No Man" Navarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11434921480452541955noreply@blogger.com