|
 |
 |
 Saturday, December 24, 2005
Who Owes Faithfulness?/Maggie Gallagher
Lynne's post reminded me of another key part of marriage norms that we are in danger of losing: not only do married people owe each other a duty of sexual fidelity, but other people also owe "fidelity" to the couple. In a marriage culture, people understand: You have an obligation not only to be faithful to your own wife, but also (whether married or single) not to have sex with anyone else's wife. (ditto: husband). In privatized, contractual schemes of marriage, this element gets lost or downgraded. (If adultery is wrong only because it violates a private understanding of two people, then that's their business, not any one else's.) A judge in New YOrk, in the middle of quite properly punishing a man for killing a friend who had become involved with his wife, was apparently operating on this deep understanding: "Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Berkman noted that Elio Cruz 'made this selfish, emotional decision to punish Mr. [German] [Dionisio Cabrera], when, in fact, it was his wife doing bad things.'" JUDGE CAGES KILLER - RIPS CHEATER WIFE DAREH GREGORIAN. New York Post. New York, N.Y.: Dec 14, 2005. pg. 017 A man who gunned down his cheating wife's lover in a Chelsea subway station was sentenced to 18 years to life in prison yesterday - as the judge suggested the hubby retaliated against the wrong person. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Berkman noted that Elio Cruz "made this selfish, emotional decision to punish Mr. [German] Cabrera, when, in fact, it was his wife doing bad things." "She is the one who was unfaithful," Berkman said. Cruz, 34, a room-service waiter, was convicted last month of killing the brash rival for wife Belkys Pena's affections in February 2004. The judge noted that even before the shooting, Cruz would vent his anger over the affair at Cabrera instead of his wife - and Cabrera would just goad him on. Prosecutor Peter Casolaro had asked the judge to sentence Cruz to the maximum of 25 years to life, but Berkman refused, noting he had no criminal record and "was on some level provoked." Still, Berkman said, the goading aside, she didn't understand why Cruz made Cabrera the target of his anger. "I suppose one might add salt to the wounds of the victim's family by saying, 'Gee, he wasn't perfect.' He was a young man, and he acted like young people sometimes do," Berkman said, wondering why Cruz "addressed the victim rather than his wife." Cabrera's cousin, Dionisio, and dad Roberto were in the courtroom for the sentencing. The cousin said the grieving father had wanted Cruz to get 25 years. "He was the only child he has," Dionisio Cabrera said. But Cruz's lawyer, Carlos Perez-Olivo, pointed a finger at the victim, saying the word "taunting does not even come close to the manner of speech and behavior he dealt out to Mr. Cruz." Pena was not in court for the sentencing of the father of her three children and could not be reached. She was with Cabrera when Cruz shot him in the chest at the 1- train subway station at West 18th Street. But she stood by her husband during the trial, testifying that the shooter wasn't Cruz, but someone "taller" and "bigger" than him. She initially said the shooter was "African." Cruz insisted yesterday that he was on the sidewalk above station at the time of the shooting. "I still maintain my innocence," he said. posted by maggie at 1:17 PM | link 
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
People are often surprised that the adultery law here in Massachusetts applies to the unmarried interloper as well as the one that is married. You don't have to make a vow to break a vow, you can break someone else's vow.
Also, wide-spread divorce, and the understanding that every marriage might be unfulfilling and about to break up, means that it doesn't matter what a person's marital status is. Everyone might need someone to help them out of their marriage, it's almost presented as an obligation these days.
In a culture that supports marriage, as it did when I was young, going after somebody else's husband or wife was considered appalling - because a home could be broken up. The idea of seducing a person whose marriage is a bit shakey was considered the pits. But, of course, there were always the exceptions and folks didn't think much of their actions.
A lot of the difference now is the large numbers of people we know who don't also know the spouse back at home. There is also the new idea that if a couple is living separately, for whatever reason, then they are as good as no longer married.
I was a divorce lawyer and became appalled at the new generation that treats marriage like "going steady". I did 2 divorces for one of my son's classmates before he was 30.
Another young (22) woman came in wanting to get married to her baby's father and needed to get a divorce from her first husband in another state before they could tie the knot. Complicating matters was that ex-hubby was co-habiting with a pregnant girlfriend. Client got really angry when she was informed at how much time and red-tape would have to be expended to clear up her mess. Her baby was legally the child of the ex-husband and he would have to pay child support unless we involved the courts in two states. Intended husband was also still entangled in an old relationship but I declined fixing his situation up, too, on the theory that they might lose interest in each other before I got it all straightened out.
In law school criminal law class I was the only one who could answer the professor's question concerning the crime of bigamy: why does the state care who sleeps with whom? Because the state does not want to end up having to support the children who fall through the cracks (and the women who previously would have had great difficulty supporting themselves). Avoiding the consequences of divorce (child and maybe spousal support and division of property) is the motive for most me running away and for folks who prefer shacking up. It's not just a "piece of paper" - that idiotic mantra that started in the 1960s and has done incalculable harm to real live people.
There are already starting to be gay-marriage divorces. The editor of the Blade is to be commended for his thoughtful opinion piece. Marriage not only brings privileges and govt benefits; it also imposes legal obligations. These obligations are there not only to make it difficult to get out of a marriage - they are there to protect vulnerable children and spouses.
Great website.
Intended husband was also still entangled in an old relationship but I declined fixing his situation up, too, on the theory that they might lose interest in each other before I got it all straightened out.
Darn good theory!
You know that question: why should the state care who sleeps with whom?
Is the key question you have to answer before you can get to a theory of what marriage, as a legal institution, is and should be.
In my experience, most SSM theorists elide over this step and go straight to: well, we've got marriage so it should be equal, without plausible working theory of why the government gets involved at all
—
It's important to remember that that the biblical teaching is that aduterers could be stoned to death. A husband or wife killing both his/her adulterous spouse and the one with whom he/she is committing adultery was, and I think still is, frequently not prosecuted in certain countries. These are seen as "crimes of passion" that have been provoked. Certainly Jesus allowed only the person without sin to "cast the first stone" but admonished the adulteress to "go and sin no more." Adultery is truly a horrendous crime.
I'm a pacifist and do not condone killing of any sort. Yet, in this case, taking it only on face value, without knowing any of the details, I would have given Mr, Cruz a lighter sentence, perhaps two years in jail. His wife may have also been repentant as she seems to have been defending him.
Post a Comment
<< Home