I'm betting our august Supreme Court justices were wishing the state would get its nose out of marriage this week. The South Dakota Supreme Court Wednesday overturned the trial judge's dismissal of Douglas Rumpca's lawsuit against Glenn Brenner for stealing the affections of Rumpca's wife (now Brenner's wife) Kellie.
Stealing the affections... hmm... stealing implies property, right? So I own the feelings of my wife? My wife and I did promise our affections to each other ten years ago (ten?! it still feels like yesterday!), so I guess she and I owe each other the continuance of those feelings. If she were to choose to take those feelings away and give them to someone else (already the language feels sloppy), I guess I'd be entitled to express my displeasure and seek legal recourse of divorce.
But is a feeling something that another person can steal? When we are talking love, do we not all choose who gets it and who doesn't? I have difficulty viewing affection as property that the law and the courts can address.
Alas, the court had to, thanks to South Dakota's exceptional law prohibiting the enticement of a spouse from a partner. Andrea Cook tells us that just six other states (Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina and Utah) have laws allowing spouses to sue homewreckers for damages. And under that law, that court had to suffer through testimony about Glenn and Kellie spending 13.5 hours on the phone together each month (problem), running marathons together (not a problem... but maybe all that running is a metaphor), meeting at a Rapid City motel to lie in the same bed and discuss Kellie's marital woes but not have sex (big problem), and finally spiriting themselves off to Buffalo, Wyoming, for their first admitted nookie (problem! you leave your husband for a man who thinks the place for your grand consummation is Buffalo?!)
These matters and Doug and Kellie's love notes and marriage counseling and past infidelity (the court had to utter the phrase "made out") are not worthy of the state's attention. But attend we must with SDCL 20-9-7 on the books. In its ruling, the Supreme Court avoided passing judgment on the nature of the Rumpcas' rupture and Brenner's beguilement. They simply ruled that their former high-court colleague, Judge Robert Miller, had improperly dismissed the suit. The justices said there is enough evidence on both sides to warrant letting a jury hear the lurid details and decide who's to blame for busting up the Rumpcas' marriage.
I suppose our having a law telling us not to hit on married people signifies our respect for the sanctity of marriage. But the real damage to the sanctity of marriage has already been done. Two people made a promise; their feelings changed, and they chose (or at least one of them chose) not to uphold that promise. Asking the state to now quantify the value of that broken promise in dollars and sense does nothing to restore the lost sanctity of that marriage.
If the state can outlaw (or at least subject to civil suit) Casanovary, why doesn't the state also outlaw divorce to discourage spouses from giving in to the advances of other wandering, wolfish hearts? Why not outlaw pornography, which takes the eyes of too many men off the prize in their own household (or does it)?
Our alienation of affection law seems to stem from an outdated fussbudgetry that sticks the state's nose in personal business. There are two people who can uphold the sanctity of your message: you and your spouse. If you can't do it, the state can't do it for you.
Skipping into your metaphorical minefield as a serial adulterer and sex worshiper myself would be far too gratuitous, Cory: great post, though. Sharia Law's got nuthin' on southern dakota.
In regards to the "stealing" part, the phrasing, outside legal proceedings, is very well established, as of course everyone knows. So the phrasing isn't all that questionable to me. To me, it implies the same meaning as "that girl stole my boyfriend, so I hate her!" kind of thing. I feel that carefully avoiding a phrasing that's used in common speech simply because it can be construed poorly is a bit too PC.
The laws themselves, on the other hand, are ridiculous, and too many states have them. There are six states you mention, but I think many states have bizarre sexual laws. In Minnesota, for example, you can't do the deed with a live fish. Take that, Led Zeppelin!
As a country so focused on religion, we've made it (and continue to make it) our business to be morality police. As most things, this is really a symptom of a larger issue: religion in politics, possibly. I don't really know for sure, and it's probably quite complex, but I don't think these types of laws will change much until peoples viewpoints change.
Thanks, Larry... and keep your eyes off my wife. ;-)
Carter: fish? Eeewww! (Wait... what about dead... double-eeewww!)
On law: As states attorney for Pennington County, Brenner would know this law. The law apparently didn't stop him from lying in that motel bed. Same on abortion: laws don't work in this realm.
Well, from the point of view of law enforcement, right or wrong, the law is the law. Clearly Brenner as head of Pennington County law enforcement has locked up plenty of folks for breaking laws a great many of us feel are unjust. Just ask Bob Newland.
p.s. Cory, your point on laws dealing with procreation is well taken. Lawmakers should be conscious of the potential consequences of the laws they pass (both intended and unintended).
A "personhood" amendment, for example, whereby a fertilized egg is considered a fully realized human being with all accompanying human rights could have a profound effect on society.
And, once passed, just as with alcohol prohibition, marijuana use, and Brenner's case here, the legal system would have no choice but to enforce it.
All sorts of tests on the definition of marriage in a state where polyandry is rampant but polygamy is illegal. Sodomy is illegal but serial bestiality is practiced openly at Dakota War College.
Stay away from our goats, Kurtz. ;^)
Old Homer and Jethro lyric (sung to the tune of 16 Tons):
"My wife ran away with my friend Jim,
I don't miss her but I do miss him"
Can a woman sue another woman for the same reason? It seems I only hear of men doing it, as in this case. Anyone know?
D.E.B> Yes, as per Cory's link:
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=20-9-7&Type=Statute
It's short, so I'll paste it here:
20-9-7. Abduction, enticement and seduction forbidden by rights of personal relation. The rights of personal relation forbid:
(1) The abduction or enticement of a husband from his wife or of a parent from a child;
(2) The abduction or enticement of a wife from her husband, of a child from a parent, or from a guardian entitled to its custody;
(3) The seduction of a wife, daughter, or orphan sister;
(4) The seduction of a husband, son, or orphan brother.
Source: SDC 1939, § 47.0302; SL 2002, ch 97, § 1.
I wonder, as does D.E., if we can find an example of a woman filing a suit like Pumpca's against some brazen husband-stealer.
Cory, I'd honestly be surprised if there were more than a handful of this type of case, ever. The law is a bit too ridiculous for almost everyone. Not that most people would oppose, I might add, but they wouldn't necessarily spend the time and money to sue someone over love-stealing.
The guy can't catch a break. When it rains, it pours, huh Glen? Good thing that "driving-while-texting-and-stuff" law didn't pass.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/state-s-attorney-cited-after-crash/article_bbf75e74-965f-11e1-87ac-001a4bcf887a.html
Me thinkst this law needs to go off the books. One would think we could be more creative and vindictive than taking the offending person to court. Oh....which one? Personally....I can think of a few, which are alot less expensive and time consuming for the already frivioulous law suits. ;-)
Evidently, there have been several efforts made to try to get the law off the books, but to date, none successful. (google: "alienation of affection, South Dakota)
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/affection-law-dubbed-obsolete-antiquated-heads-to-full-senate/article_e370296a-56b6-11e1-a8e7-0019bb2963f4.html
...and: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/Bill.aspx?Bill=181
Carter: agreed, it seems ridiculous. I'm betting the abandoned husband who sues the wife stealer does more harm to himself than any punitive damages may compensate. Let it go, dude.
Bill: nummy links! I'm not trying to start a Brenner poopstorm... but he's not having a good week. Now why was he cited for following too closely instead of the distracted driving that he admitted?
And give Stan my best for backing that bill! I'm sad to see that Senator Russell Olson, who takes pride in trying to get rid of useless laws, voted to keep this useless law.
ummm... because SD doesn't have any distracted driving law?
Does SD have a law preventing a group to run as one candidate?
Wait a minute: I thought legislators said we didn't need texting and driving bans because we already had distracted driving laws.
If I can sue a man for stealing my wife's affections, can I sue Nokia for stealing the other driver's attentions?
They're probably referring to one of these, Cory. I don't know... should texting and looking for your phone, then hitting the gas instead of the brake go under "reckless" or "careless?"
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=32-24&Type=Statute
That's what I was looking for. Thanks, Bill! Reckless: "without due caution or cirumspection"—that sounds like the right charge to me. Reckless driving is a Class 1 misdemeanor; following too closely (SDCL 32-26-40) is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
SDCL 22-6-2 sets maximum penalty for Class 1 misdemeanor at one year and/or $2000; Class 2, 30 days and/or $500.
It would be interesting to know with whom Glenn was texting. Brenner's wife has nothing to worry about in their marriage, right?
Put it this way. I can't imagine Brenner's wife is jumping up and down happy right now. Things will probably be pretty tense between now and the GOP primary. Can't be much fun having your whole life suddenly go under the microscope. Better to leave her out of it, I think, Larry... to the degree that's possible considering...
wonder what her cell number is....
I think "following too closely" is kind of an understatement, don't you, Cory? I mean how far into the back end of someone else's vehicle does one's car have to penetrate before it's not "following" any more? LOL.
Sioux Falls and Billings make list of smuttiest US cities: Men's Health. RT @Jezebel
Sen. Adelstein: sodomy laws discriminate, too.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_eea89261-ecda-52af-b7d9-2bf5f5fa7502.html