Last week's editorial called the law against adultery a joke, claiming the government does not belong in people's bedrooms.
But, if laws are meant to protect society, and if certain acts that occur in a bedroom are proven to harm society, are not those harmful acts just as accountable to the law as harmful acts committed outside the bedroom?
We all claim to favor laws against violence, drug use, theft and other crimes. Yet broken homes are a major cause of these crimes. It's not only the jilted marriage partners who are hurt. Both of the families involved, including the children, suffer greatly from adultery and broken homes. And it is precisely those hurting children, whose parents teach by example that their promises mean nothing and that there is no accountability for a sacred vow, who will grow up to believe that they, too, are above the law. These children often further try to find relief from their hurt by turning to drugs, gang and other criminal acts. The research linking crime to broken homes is abundant.
There is one more question that needs to be raised.
If marriage licenses are entered into between couples and the state itself, and are upheld as being lawful the same as any other state institution -- such as business licenses and driver's licenses -- then why would this particular contract be any less accountable or any less subject to penalty if broken?
Could it be mankind's own sinful desire to be free to indulge in unrestricted lustful behaviors, no matter the harm they may cause to families or societies, that drives us to claim that adultery laws should be eradicated? The Roundup claimed the laws were a joke.
However, if the state issues lawful marriage licenses but lacks teeth or courage to enforce the contracts, then is it not the state itself that becomes the joke?
Jonathan Marsh and Jaime Silva Families, Payson