There should
be legal consequences for adultery. This would be just, right and biblical.
Everybody
knows that Romans 13 says that Christians should obey governing authorities. Far
less people recognize that it also teaches that governing authorities should
obey God, and make laws that align with his word. As we read in Romans 13,
“1
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and
those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a
terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority?
Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s
minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear
the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him
who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath
but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for
they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render
therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom
customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
8
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has
fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,”
“You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false
witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all
summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the
law.”[1]
For the sake
of simplicity, note that Paul says that all authority comes from God, therefore
all authorities should look to God. Then Paul notes that this is why it is
sinful to resist legitimate authority, because when you do you are resisting
God. Then Paul gives the proper boundaries of governing power and punishment, the authorities are to punish evil works. Then Paul states in the positive that governments
exist to protect those who do good. Hence, their proper role is to punish
evildoers and protect the righteous. This is why we should be subject, so that we
are not punished. Our taxes are meant to support these efforts to punish evil
and protect the righteous.
At no point
does Paul say that the government has the right to determine what is good. In
fact, this would be anti-God for Paul to teach this, because from the very
first chapters of the Bible, Genesis teaches that it is God who says what is
good and what is not. And to make this clear Paul notes what standard of laws
we should be judged by; the second tablet of the 10 commandments in verse 9,
and then summarizes it by noting that the guiding principle of the law is love
for one’s neighbour. In other words, God’s law, interpreted though Jesus Christ,
determines what is good.
Hence, Paul’s
argument is very simple: God has ordained government to punish that which he
calls evil, and to protect those who do what is right. Which means it is very
legitimate for the state to punish adulterers, because God says that adultery
is evil. In fact, it is illegitimate to not punish them. It is unjust not to punish
them.
Thankfully, some
jurisdictions still punish adulterers. As we read in the New York post,
“These
laws are designed to reinforce the marital bond and secure the importance of
fidelity in marriage,” Wilcox said.
North
Carolina remains one of only a handful of states that still allow
alienation-of-affection lawsuits, which permit a spouse to sue a third party
accused of helping destroy a marriage. Plaintiffs can seek massive financial
damages, and in some cases, juries have delivered verdicts worth millions.
Critics
call the lawsuits outdated relics rooted in old English common law. Supporters,
however, argue the laws recognize that infidelity can inflict devastating
emotional and financial harm that extends far beyond the couple involved.
“What
people fail to see is the way what happens in our marriages affects adults,
kids and communities,” Wilcox said.
He
pointed to research showing infidelity is one of the strongest predictors of
divorce and warned that the fallout can be especially severe for children.
“Kids
whose parents get divorced are about half as likely to graduate from college,”
Wilcox said. “They’re markedly more likely to struggle with depression. Boys
are markedly more likely to end up in prison or jail.”[2]
Adultery is
theft plain and simple. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that a husband and wife
belong to each other; their bodies are not their own. This is Paul’s teaching. He
does not say that the man owns the woman or the woman owns the man, but that
they belong to each other. When someone comes in and breaks that bond, they
commit the sins of adultery and theft, as they take the man or the woman away,
and they cause great harm to the victim, to any children involved, to the prosperity
of the injured family, and they have rebelled against the Lord God. It is not
just a sin it is a true and genuine crime, a cruel one. How is it wrong to
steal a man’s car, but permissible to steal his wife? Sure the latter crime is
worse than the former.
Ask anyone who
has gone through this. Ask someone who has faced first the humiliation of
knowing their spouse has joined sexually with someone else, then the
humiliation of knowing that their spouse is leaving them for someone else, then
the humiliation of loss of access to children, then throw on top of that the often
experienced financial ruin, and you have situation where someone has been truly
wronged and harmed. And you have someone who deserves the chance to get some
justice through the courts of law.
North-Carolina
is just for still allowing wronged spouses to sue those who interfered in their
marriages. This should be the standard practice in all Anglo-Saxon societies,
after all, it has roots in our common law heritage. And, yes I know that common
law is often overruled and replaced by modern legal rulings. I am not arguing
that there is some trick in Australian law that gives you more rights through
common law. I am simply saying, these sorts of just punishment for adulterers
should exist, and are actually part of our historical legal traditions. It was
once considered right in our systems that the person who comes between a man
and his wife should be held to account, in the same way that people are when
they interfere with other contracts in our society.
Australians
do not currently have such protections,
“Changes
were made to the Family Law Act in 1975 that did away with moralising about
infidelity. Married partners now have to be legally separated for 12 months
before they can seek a divorce.
Adultery
no longer serves as legitimate grounds for divorce in Australia, and cheating
spouses and their partners cannot be pursued legally for “emotional distress”
or any other kind of loss incurred by the breakdown of a marriage.
There
is some wiggle room when it comes to a property settlement in a divorce, where
judges do make allowances for partners if one is found to have engaged in the
“wastage of matrimonial assets” through gambling, the use of escort services or
other extreme circumstances. The judge would have to find the spouse’s spending
to be “wanton” and “excessive.”[3]
The Bible
says that people who do not commit adultery love their neighbour and should
have nothing to fear from the authorities. This means that it is legitimate and
necessary for a just court system to punish adulterers and put the fear of God
into people who commit such a despicable act. It is just for the government to
use threat of legal punishments to curb people’s behaviour in this area. I am
not a utopian, I know people will still break the law. They do in North Carolina,
but at least there will be a just recourse for legal punishments. And this is
right and good. Bring these laws back.
Note this,
these laws are popular with juries in North Carolina,
“Still,
both Ullman and Wilcox said the continued popularity of these lawsuits with
North Carolina juries reflects something deeper about how Americans still view
marriage.
“I
think it inherently is in people’s hearts that protecting marriages is the
right thing,” Ullman said. “Marriage vows are around because people believe
there’s something to them.”[4]
Give a scorned
spouse, whose husband or wife was taken from them, a chance to confront the
person who stole their spouse, and share about their situation and how they
have been emotionally or financially ruined by the adultery, with a jury of 12
of their peers, likely including housewives, working husbands and other decent
folk. And, with the guidance of a judge, let justice be served. That is just,
that is right.
Our current
system is not.
List of References
No comments:
Post a Comment