Adultery; definition. (HB1661)

Introduced By

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas)

Progress

√
 Introduced
☐
 Passed Committee
☐
 Passed House
☐
 Passed Senate
☐
 Signed by Governor
☐
 Became Law

Description

Adultery; definition. Expands the definition of adultery to mean any person, being married, who carnally knows another person not his spouse. Currently, the definition of adultery is limited to sexual intercourse only. This bill also clarifies that a person may be guilty of adultery regardless of the gender of the person with whom he engages in such conduct. Amends § 18.2-365, of the Code of Virginia. View Full Text »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

  • 12/05/2006 Committee
  • 12/05/2006 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/07 070011396
  • 12/05/2006 Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice

Comments

Waldo Jaquith writes:

It's in the full text of this bill that it gets really funny interesting. Especially this paragraph:

For the purposes of this section, "carnal knowledge" includes the acts of sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, and anal intercourse.

Surely we can think of more sexual acts than that, can't we?

Posted 78 months ago.
Harry Landers writes:

I'm sorry, but I don't want any legislation to ever include the word "anilingus". Ever.

What is it with Delegate Marshall that makes him so fixated on private sexual acts?

Posted 78 months ago.
Jon Rice writes:

I'm not clear on what penalties Delegate Marshall proposes for adulterers. Is he proposing we bring back public stoning? Or should we "hate the sin, love the sinner" and just make them wear a large "A" whenever they venture out in public? By the way, what's Delegate Marshall's position on witches?

Posted 78 months ago.
Jon Rice writes:

I'm not sure what "analingus" means. Could Delegate Marshall provide a demonstration?

Posted 78 months ago.
Gil Clancy writes:

Ask Cartman's mom what it means.

Is this quite necessary? It's like he's trying to relive the "glory days" of Monicagate. "If only we'd had a federal law like this back in '98, we woulda had that sumbitch Clinton on adultery." Oh well. You missed that boat. Move along.

Posted 78 months ago.
Troy W. Bowie writes:

I think the law is fine as it is, as these acts are covered in "crimes against nature"

Posted 77 months ago.
Jan writes:

Will Bob Marshall EVER get out of our bedrooms? He is a very disturbed man-all of his bills are about sex-in one way or another. Hope he's being targeted for de seating next fall.....

Posted 77 months ago.
David writes:

I, for one, am delighted that Mr. Marshall wants to establish moral and legal equivalency between adultery involving sex he approves of as "physiologically complementary" and adultery involving all that other sex.

Posted 77 months ago.
Tim McCormack writes:

I, for one, am opposed to this bill unless and until it explicitly includes axillary intercourse...

Okay, I can't keep a straight face anymore.

Ahahahhaaha!

Posted 77 months ago.
TrvlnMn writes:

Adultery is a crime? When was the last time someone was convicted of it? What a stupid waste of time (meaning HB1661).

Posted 77 months ago.
Waldo Jaquith writes:

It was just a few years ago that the town manager of Luray was convicted of adultery for cheating on his wife.

Posted 77 months ago.
Cory Capron writes:

Here's my ten cents on a 3+ page dime:

http://corycapron.blogspot.com/2007/01/extensive-look-at-hb1661-adultery.html

If Bob Marshall is so concerned with protecting Marriage than why is he broadening the grounds for divorce?

Posted 77 months ago.
Paul writes:

What is the point of this to begin with? This is not what government should be concerened about. Attend to the business of the state with as little infringement upon my rights or property as possible.

Posted 77 months ago.