A Different Narrative on the New Hampshire Lesbian Adultery Case.

This column by Jeff Jacoby just goes to show that howsomuch ever I want to pretend that I inhabit a little bubble of the 14th Century, I am actually fairly infected by the 21st Century ethos. I thought that the New Hampshire decision holding that lesbians could not commit adultery was "moonbat nuts." Of couse, they can. In fact, they do and there is an entire industry which makes exorbitant profits on exactly the mechanics involved in that possibility.

But the court's reasoning, according to Jacoby, was:

The court rejected that argument for the straightforward reason that "the plain and ordinary meaning of adultery" under New Hampshire law is sexual intercourse between a married man and another woman or between a married woman and another man. That is what adultery has meant "for over a hundred and fifty years [to] judges, lawyers, and clients" in New Hampshire, the court said; until the state legislature changes that definition, that is what it will continue to mean. The justices didn't mention the churning controversy over same-sex marriage in their brief opinion. But the implication of their ruling ought to be clear to other courts -- like the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts -- that are considering the issue.

How refreshingly ante-diluvian. And, as Jacoby points out, if adultery can only be between a man and a woman, that offers a basis for a defense of marriage.

Great. In our upside-down world, vice is the great bulwark for virtue.