How Disgusting:,,2238724,00.html

What’s most fucked up is that the Supreme Court wouldn’t even hear this case. Talk about antiquated! Laws like this shouldn’t exist anymore.

“(…)the loss of sexual relations(…)”

Does this mean his ex is bound by law to have sex with him?

I think its awesome.

That is a damn fine law. And Gap, divorce is already set up so that it fucks the man over. I see this as a counter-balance. An awesome one at that.

What do you say to a woman with two black eyes?

Nothing. You’ve already told her twice.

Train to the Courthouse Blues

I woke up this mornin’
Found my woman was gone
I woke up this mornin’
Didn’t know how I’d go on

Yeah, my baby she’s gone
A man done stole her away in the night
Yeah, my baby she’s gone
But I ain’t lettin’ her go without a fight

I looked through my civics notes
From back in high school
Yeah, I looked through my civics notes
Lord knows I found somethin’ cool

The man who stole my baby
Can be criminally prosecuted
Oh, the man who stole my baby
I hope he’s executed

I done gambled all my money away
Now that ain’t a big thing
I done gambled all my money away
But I’m gonna take him for everything

I’ll teach my baby a lesson
I sued him for like a million bucks
I’m teachin’ my baby a lesson
Suin’ for not being the man she fucks

Amazing. wtf?

She fathered an illegitimate child during her marriage. The woman isn’t exactly squeaky clean here. If she had done the right thing and divorced her husband first she wouldn’t be in this situation.

Gambling Addiction? I find it hard to believe that it was his Gambling Addiction that drove her away. There are plenty of good reasons to leave someone such as infidelity, abuse, alcohol fueled abuse, gold mining, the discovery that the Dread Pirate Roberts is in actually your old flame, Batman, and the ‘you found out that your husband had another woman in his life and what he did with her body afterwards’ fueled abuse. Gambling is really only a problem if the gambler comes home shirtless on a regular basis, otherwise it’s mostly a nuisance that can be dealt with through an intervention.

Besides, if she had such trouble with his gambling habits why the hell did she marry him in the first place?

I’m betting he won her hand in a bet.

I’d have to agree, that this law is disgusting. You can’t treat people as possessions in law, especially not in today’s world.

What? You can sue for not getting sex?


shut up

wow. that’s nice.

Yeah, you can expect a good chunk of the forum goers to tell you if you make stupid comments.

I like how the guy’s name is Johnny Valentine. The judge may have assumed he was a 20s gangster from Chicago, and awarded him damages to avoid messy entanglements.

On the other hand, she was a bitch and shouldn’t get any by’s.

Wait… why can’t you? I say if you can own a dog, you can own a human. If someone runs off with your dog, that’s theft, right? The stupid bitch didn’t go fuck another guy thinking her husband wouldn’t be hurt either. What she did is at least as bad as getting knifed in the arm or something, and will probably take longer to heal. So why shouldn’t he be able to sue her sorry traitorous ass for whatever he wants?

I dunno, I don’t really see anything wrong with this law. Maybe I’m a bad, bad man.

Edit: Or maybe I’m frustrated that every day this kind of shit seems more like the NORM for women than the exception.

Well, so far as I can tell Hades, he sued the guy, not his wife.

At least he didn’t shoot the other guy or some crazy ass shit.

Philisophically, the difference here is that many believe that animals are not on the same level as humans (PETA members aside). Animals are not held to be as intelligent on a whole as the human race. It is generally believed they do not possess the same level of cognizance as man. On the other hand, since women are a part of humanity (all jokes about them being from Venus aside), they should hold equal standing as male counterparts. It would be improper to own something that is of equal value as yourself.

Constituationally, you can’t own a person in the US. Doesn’t matter what the reasoning is. The whole “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude” part of the 13th Amendment can easily be interpreted to mean that no one may own another human in areas under US jurisdiction since that’s what slavery is. No such protection for animals exist, so we are allowed to own them.

The whole notion of ownership in this cuckolded spouse law aside (which is a rather big aside, but still), I guess the Supreme Court chose not to hear it partially bexcause the law apparently allows for either gender to sue if a spouse is “stolen.” It may be an antiquated law, but at least it’s apparently gender equal. I guess.

I’m rather surprised that the Court didn’t hear it. Under the whole rule of four, I would think there would be enough support to at least hear it. Huh. Oh well.