My husband filed on grounds of Adultry

[Ohiogal]

I believe the OP said they had never met in person. I could be wrong.

Saw that. That just makes her a fool to call a man she has never met her boyfriend. Gotta wonder if he is even a male. CATFISH.

 

[Zigner]

Because sex is not a requirement.

But sex IS a requirement. There must be intercourse for it to be adultery. What we are discussing is the standard of proof that will be required to prove that intercourse occurred .

And she is cheating on her husband by having a boyfriend. HER words -- boyfriend. The fact that she has a BOYFRIEND she has never met just makes her a fool.

No argument on this.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Saw that. That just makes her a fool to call a man she has never met her boyfriend. Gotta wonder if he is even a male. CATFISH.

What people consider boyfriends and girlfriends these days amaze me. It reminds of people who had never had a BF or GF saying they met someone during the summer in some far off place. I understand up North, Canada was a popular location.

 

[Ohiogal]

But sex IS a requirement. There must be intercourse for it to be adultery. What we are discussing is the standard of proof that will be required to prove that intercourse occurred .

No argument on this.

Actually SEX is not a requirement. Opportunity and disposition for sex are required per the law. That is a distinction. A big distinction. They may say intercourse but intercourse is NOT required. Proof of the disposition of OP to sleep with someone else (I'd say since she is a cheater with a boyfriend that is there). If her "boyfriend" and her meet, hubby could prove that she committed adultery because then there is opportunity -- so opportunity and disposition for sex = adultery.

 

[Zigner]

Actually SEX is not a requirement. Opportunity and disposition for sex are required per the law. That is a distinction. A big distinction. They may say intercourse but intercourse is NOT required. Proof of the disposition of OP to sleep with someone else (I'd say since she is a cheater with a boyfriend that is there). If her "boyfriend" and her meet, hubby could prove that she committed adultery because then there is opportunity -- so opportunity and disposition for sex = adultery.

Maryland state law REQUIRES intercourse.

Again, from the same website you referred to earlier:

Adultery
Adultery laws are important to unmarried cohabitants if one of the partners is still married to another person. Generally, adultery is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person other than that person's husband or wife. The sexual intercourse necessary for adultery must involve some penetration of the female organ by the male organ, but a “completion” of the sexual intercourse is not required. Adultery is a ground for divorce in Maryland. Therefore, the married person who has sexual intercourse with another person could be sued for divorce.
[SUB]https://www.peoples-law.org/crimes-against-marriage[/SUB]

Furthermore, adultery is actually a crime in Maryland: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcr&section=10-501&ext=html&session=2017RS&tab=subject5

As I mentioned before, intercourse is required.

The very link you posted states that, per Black's Law, adultery is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse.


What you are arguing is not what adultery is, rather, you are arguing how adultery is proved. Adultery (ie: sexual intercourse) needs to be proven by a certain standard of proof. In my opinion, that standard is a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Ohiogal]

Maryland state law REQUIRES intercourse.

Again, from the same website you referred to earlier:

Adultery
Adultery laws are important to unmarried cohabitants if one of the partners is still married to another person. Generally, adultery is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person other than that person's husband or wife. The sexual intercourse necessary for adultery must involve some penetration of the female organ by the male organ, but a “completion” of the sexual intercourse is not required. Adultery is a ground for divorce in Maryland. Therefore, the married person who has sexual intercourse with another person could be sued for divorce.
[SUB]https://www.peoples-law.org/crimes-against-marriage[/SUB]

Furthermore, adultery is actually a crime in Maryland: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcr&section=10-501&ext=html&session=2017RS&tab=subject5

As I mentioned before, intercourse is required.

The very link you posted states that, per Black's Law, adultery is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse.


What you are arguing is not what adultery is, rather, you are arguing how adultery is proved. Adultery (ie: sexual intercourse) needs to be proven by a certain standard of proof. In my opinion, that standard is a preponderance of the evidence.

And you don't need to proven penetration. That is the point. You need to prove OPPORTUNITY and DISPOSITION.

 

[Zigner]

And you don't need to proven penetration. That is the point. You need to prove OPPORTUNITY and DISPOSITION.

Adultery=sexual intercourse (and, for the record, sexual intercourse is defined as penetration.)
Adultery must be proven in Maryland.
Opportunity and disposition are evidence that is used to prove adultery (by a preponderance of the evidence).

 

[Zigner]

And you don't need to proven penetration. That is the point. You need to prove OPPORTUNITY and DISPOSITION.

No, opportunity and disposition are both pieces of evidence used to prove adultery. Adultery must be proven in Maryland.

 

[Zigner]

Let's say I see Joe shoot Mary. I become a witness at Joe's trial. The prosecution must prove that Joe shot Mary (the crime) and uses my testimony (the evidence) to prove it.

 

[Ohiogal]

Let's say I see Joe shoot Mary. I become a witness at Joe's trial. The prosecution must prove that Joe shot Mary (the crime) and uses my testimony (the evidence) to prove it.

You don't need to have anyone say they saw penetration. That is the point. it is a thin line. But it is a line. You don't need to prove penetration in order to prove intercourse in order to prove adultery.

 

[Zigner]

You don't need to have anyone say they saw penetration. That is the point. it is a thin line. But it is a line. You don't need to prove penetration in order to prove intercourse in order to prove adultery.

What I said is you have to prove adultery and that the evidence that may be used to prove it includes disposition and opportunity.

 

[Ohiogal]

What I said is you have to prove adultery and that the evidence that may be used to prove it includes disposition and opportunity.

Zig, I love you.

 

[Zigner]

Zig, I love you.

Ditto!