Christine O'Donnell is, apparently, an idiot

Remove all ads!

It's not even grounds for divorce in most places anymore, which is actually a bit sad when you think of it.

 

Slight correction on an error that many people make (including myself until I learned more about it recently). Apparently, the commandment against 'stealing' was actually against stealing people, i.e. kidnapping. All the commandments were death-penalty crimes, but theft is addressed elsewhere, with the penalty being to repay three times what you stole. Needless to say, that's something short of the death penalty.

Anyway, back to the program.

 

Ragusa,

I am left to wonder if people are actually prosecuted for aldultery, even if it is on the books. Granted, I do not live, nor have I ever lived, in any of the states on that list, so I don't have any direct knowledge of what goes on there. However, I have never even HEARD of someone getting prosecuted for cheating on one's spouse.

The reason I bring this up is because one of the states is South Carolina. It was big knew last year when the governor of SC, Mark Stanford, publicly admitted to having an affair. When he was out of contact with his staff and family for a weekend, he initiall claimed to the press that he was "hiking the Appalacian trail". Evidently that phrase is a euphemism for "in South America banging my Argentinian mistress". As far as I know, he wasn't prosecuted.

 

First, I am open to hiking the Appalachian trail. I like hiking

Second, apparently these laws are usually not enforced since they are likely unconstitutional. It is striking, however, that there appears to be resistance to strike probably unconstitutional laws.

They are still on the books, charges are likely filed when a particularly vengeful partner decides to have a really messy breakup or divorce (these relic laws probably have some impact during divorce - i.e. who is the guilty party; in some states an adulterer would commit a felony, iirc relevant for custody proceedings), and the crime is apparently still being occasionally enforced, perhaps whenever the prosecutor strikes the mood - i.e. he wants to punish someone but doesn't have anything better (or he is ruining for office in a heavily religiously conservative district - oh no, perish the thought):

2010, New York: Woman caught having sex in park, charged with adultery
2007, Michigan: Life sentence for adultery? Could be / Furor in Michigan when appeals judge says that's exactly what state law means
2003, Virginia: Luray Town Attorney Convicted of Adultery.

 

EDIT: I type much slower than Rags and apparently got the year wrong

After your and dmc's comments yesterday about if adultery, I looked up whether it's legal on the internet's source of all knowledge (aka Wikipedia). It links to this article, which is way too long to read, but it says that some guy in Virginia was sentenced to 20 hours of community service in 2004 for committing adultery. It also mentions that in 2003 in Pennsylvania, somebody got prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.

I'm guessing that these kind of laws are still in place because of people like Christine O'Donnell, so instead of you guys coveting her ass, maybe you can help her and people like her to pull their heads out of it

 

I'm sure those cases are anecdotal and exist for the simple purpose of f*cking with those being charged even more. (Ragusa's New York link, for example: the 'public, in front of children' part of it probably inspired the cops to give the woman extra crap.)

It may well be technically illegal, just like sodomy or even fellatio in many states, but it is essentially never prosecuted.

 

Holy salmon, can you imagine being tried as a repeated offender for fellatio?

That would probably rank among the worst reputations you could ever go in prison with .

 

Seriously, is that reasonable?

Either these relic laws are unconstitutional, or they are not. Since they very probably are, any application would then generally be a rights violation, and go beyond 'quaint local peculiarities that are to be endured'.

 

I don't think it's reasonable, no, but I would imagine a vigorous defense pointing to lack of case law would most always be effective, wouldn't it? (I'm no attorney.)

I suspect that there are numerous laws which could stand to be eliminated (isn't it illegal to plant corn after 8 p.m. in Oklahoma on Wednesdays? ), but is it worth the effort when there's other more pressing stuff for lawmakers to do? Maybe they should have an expiration clause on all laws - make them last only 50 years or so.

 

In Tennessee the only game you can shoot from a moving automobile is a whale.... but... isn't Tennessee landlocked?

 

Indeed it is. As far as I'm aware, the only major waterway in or bordering on Tennessee is the Mississippi River. Last I checked, whales were not part of the indiginous wildlife in the Mississippi.

 

Well not anymore!

 

There you have it, and all that only because the NRA successfully insisted on that the right to bear arms certainly includes harpoons mounted on automobiles, which are essential for a well armed militia - it doomed the Mississippi Sweet Water Whale to extinction. Those unintended consequences ... so sad ...

 

It's actually a misspelling and comes from a dark time. The extreme prejudice of early settlements came not from only from color of skin but also from religion and origin of the individual. This bias carried forward many years in many states. In Missouri it was legal to shoot a Mormon on sight until the 1980's. People from Wales should realize they are not welcome in Tennessee.

 

By the way, I stumbled upon this article about Christine O'Donnell. It's rather silly but I think it's true because if they invented something, it would have been a whole lot juicier...

The article is about a guy saying he had a one night stand with Christine O'Donnell three years ago. And that she stayed a virgin. So... basically the article is meant to say "oh my god, three years ago, Christine O'Donnell was tipsy and she came on to me, but we didn't have sex..."

The only thing I get of the article is : the guy is a complete idiot. I think Christine is not the brightest lightbulb ever to say the least. But when a hot woman like that comes on to you, you don't say to her that you have to go to sleep just because "the waxing trend had passed her by". C'mon...

 

I saw that. My suspicion is it's all a lie. First off, who saves pictures like that for three years? I mean, they aren't even interesting photos. Secondly, if you're that attracted to her, is hair really going to stop you? Lastly, it's all just a little too convenient.

 

NOG,
a reason to save the pics would be that he liked them and the girl, or the evening. Perhaps it was a nice evening after all? That this incident was called a 'one night stand' and that O'Donnell insists she is still a virgin makes me chuckle about American sophistry bout sex (i.e. apparently only penetration is sex, all that other interesting stuff is ... not sex. It's the same sophistry that allowed Clinton to say he didn't have 'sex' with Lewinsky.) Hilarious. So, ok, O'Donnell is still a virgin and lives chaste.

Personally, to me that story makes her all the more sympathetic. I'd probably like to meet her, or having her crash into my place to change clothes. She'd be welcome. She appears to be a nice gal on a poorly chosen career path. For all my sympathy - I still consider her unelectable.

And that guy who sold the pics is an a**hole. Gentlemen don't do such things.