The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

This would be funny, but, well, shit, it's still a law.

The following bill was defeated in committee today.

SENATE BILL   NO.  108  

Introduced by:    Senators Adelstein, Kirkeby, Lucas, Rampelberg, Soholt, Tieszen, and White and Representatives Magstadt, Conzet, Erickson, Hajek, Hunhoff (Bernie), Kopp, and Olson (Betty)
 

        FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to repeal certain tort liability arising out of causes of action based on seduction, abduction, and alienation of affections.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. That § 20-9-7 be repealed.
    20-9-7. 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.

You can listen to the committee testimony here.  You'll have to listen to about 10 minutes of discussion on a different bill first. Stan starts it off by making sure everyone knows he has two assistants, something that I am pretty sure no other legislator has. I say this while agreeing with him on this bill.

The Rapid City Journal said this (also reprinted below):
PIERRE | A South Dakota Senate committee has recommended that the state keep a law that allows people to file lawsuits seeking financial damages from those who allegedly seduce and steal their spouses.

The Judiciary Committee voted 4-3 to kill a measure that would repeal the law.

But the measure's main sponsor, Sen. Stan Adelstein (AD'-uhl-steen) of Rapid City, says he might ask the full Senate to override the committee and debate the bill.

Adelstein says South Dakota should get rid of alienation of affection lawsuits because the law mistakenly treats a spouse as property with a monetary value. He says alienation of affection lawsuits particularly hurt the children of those involved in the legal dispute.

But opponents say the law protects marriages by deterring people from trying to seduce married people.
The law protects marriages. Right.

[several minutes after posting what's above] I have now listened to Stan's testimony, which was pretty damned good. Amazingly, no one else spoke in favor of the bill as an initial proponent, which would repeal a crazy fucking law.

There's a lot of "if it saves one child" rhetoric. Even Stan sank to that, but with some reason. The opponents used it like throwing spaghetti at the wall. Really, you should listen to the testimony. 

[still later] Senator Vehle: "I hate to have other states look at us and say, 'It's okay to try to break up a marriage.'" 

For the record, only 6 other states still allow lawsuits based on "alienation of affection."
Vehle regularly ignores "what other states think of us." 

[still later] I'm not very committed to what Mark Kirkeby says about anything, even when he agrees with me. 

[and later again] Senator Bradford's testimony is somewhat short of constructive,

7 comments:

larry kurtz said...

So, Loy is sure lookin' hot these days, innit?

Bob Newland said...

Fuckin' A. Where did you see her?

Bob Newland said...

Oh, I get it. You're fuckin' with me.

Bob Newland said...

I am still listening to opponents as I write. Dale Hargens says, "this story will be picked up and will remind SD's husbands and wives that we value marriage."

Bob Newland said...

Dale Hargens says, "If you see somebody's wife and you want to fuck her, So. Dak. law says, 'You better turn and walk the other way!'"

caheidelberger said...

The state needs to get out of the marriage business entirely.

Bob Newland said...

See, Cory, you DO have some time on your hands. Now, how 'bout endorsing the Medical Necessity Act?