posted on April 22, 2003 06:55:22 PM new
The Associated Press
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, Calif. (April 15, 2003 9:38 a.m. EDT) - Adultery will soon be legal in this small community southwest of Los Angeles.
On Monday, the City Council voted to repeal a 46-year-old ordinance that prohibited immoral conduct, which included extramarital sex. The archaic law, which could result in a $250 fine or three months in jail, was passed after the city was incorporated in 1957.
Council members weren't endorsing adultery but they took some pleasure in commenting about the ordinance. "So this is a pro-adultery thing?" Councilman James Black joked before the meeting. "Good for us!"
City officials heard about the ordinance after a resident scouring the municipal code mentioned it at a recent forum for City Council candidates. They were unsure if anyone had been cited for breaking the law and couldn't figure out why it was put there in the first place.
"Why this particular law has been dormant and allowed to remain on the books all these years is anyone's guess," City Attorney Mike Jenkins said. "I doubt it had anything to do with the rate of adultery in Rolling Hills."
The ordinance could be formally repealed at the end of May, 30 days after the repeal is given a second reading on April 28.
Rolling Hills Estates, a community of 1,900, is 25 miles southwest of Los Angel
posted on April 23, 2003 10:14:49 AM new
So, what does this do to using adultry as a grounds for divorce? Imagine having so much spare time on your hands that you can sit and read the city's ordinances. Like every city in America doesn't have a silly law or two.
posted on April 23, 2003 10:54:33 AM new
Cheryl - In CA one doesn't need to show 'cause'...just state 'irreconcilable differences'.
that prohibited immoral conduct, which included extramarital sex.
I know most don't seem to think this old law was necessary....especially if it's not been used in a number of years. But removing a law that now permits 'immoral conduct' could allow a number of different activities not to be chargeable offenses. Like wouldn't streaking naked through a neighborhood be considered immoral conduct....flashing a child...etc? Or maybe other laws cover these acts so this old one was a duplication anyway.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 23, 2003 11:04:53 AM new
::Like wouldn't streaking naked through a neighborhood be considered immoral conduct....flashing a child...etc? ::
Streaking woul be indecent Exposure. Exposing yourself to a child gets into the sex crimes range.
posted on April 23, 2003 12:50:00 PM new
There is a difference between "legalizing" something and "decriminalizing" it.
Legalizing implies some kind of official sanction, a positive statement that "x" behavior is legal in "y" jurisdiction.
Decriminalizing means that a particular law that specified a particular activity and a particular criminal punishment is taken off the books. There are a lot of reasons for doing this - changing social standards, unenforceability, etc. In this case, it would be impossible to enforce this particular law fairly without seriously violating the privacy of every married person within the jurisdiction of Rolling Hills.
A good example of an action that has been decriminalized since the start of this nation, but never "legalized", is the practice of running up bad debts. The United States does not allow for or permit criminal penalties for the simple act of refusing to pay a debt - but obviously, running up bad debt is not "legal" in this country and can lead to civil action.
All the Rolling Hills folks did was take an unenforceable law off the books.
posted on April 23, 2003 12:52:52 PM new
Just think if they kept the law on the books, you could cook your spouse's goose if they ever did commit adultery. I wonder if that would have included his/her partner in grime, I mean crime?
Cheryl