Was Bill Clinton Telling the Truth
About Monica Lewinsky?

Consenting adult(ery)?

by Sean Carter
12/01/03

There are certain days that will forever live in infamy – December 7, 1941 (the attack on Pearl Harbor), September 11, 2001 (the destruction of the World Trade Center), and June 6, 1992 (my wedding day). And who could forget January 26, 1998? This was the day Bill Clinton uttered those now infamous words, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman … Miss Lewinsky.”

Of course, when the truth of Clinton’s relationship with “that woman” came to light, Clinton was immediately branded as a liar. Over time, the name “Bill Clinton” became synonymous with lying. People now say things like, “You’ve got to be Clinton me” or “That’s a Bill-faced lie.”

However, it now appears that Clinton may have been telling the truth after all. Recently, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that oral sex is not really sex. As a result, Clinton’s denial of a “sexual relationship” with Lewinsky may have been, at least technically, truthful.

In the New Hampshire case, David Blanchflower filed for divorce on the basis of adultery after his wife, Sian, had a sexual relationship with another woman. Of course, for many men, this is not cause for divorce but rather cause for celebration. In fact, I know of a man who has gone so far as promise to buy his wife a new car for engaging in such a “betrayal.”

NOTE TO MY WIFE: The new Mercedes SUV comes in your favorite color.

NOTE TO MY PASTOR: I’m kidding! But you might want to say an extra prayer for me just in case.

In any event, Sian objected to her husband’s claim of adultery. She argued that since her affair was with another woman, she hadn’t committed adultery. By the narrow margin of 3-2, the members of New Hampshire’s highest court agreed with her.

It’s important to note that, unlike electricity and indoor plumbing, the concept of no-fault divorce has made its way to New Hampshire. You don’t need a good reason to divorce your spouse in New Hampshire. A simple “I don’t like you anymore” will suffice.

However, New Hampshire law also provides for fault-based divorces. The major difference is that in a fault-based divorce, the court may consider the “guilty” party’s actions in dividing the marital assets. Therefore, the spouse at fault stands to lose considerably in any divorce settlement.

There are nine different grounds for a fault-based divorce, one of which is adultery. Interestingly, the term “adultery” is not defined under the law. Therefore, in this case, the court had to create its own definition. In doing so, the majority ruled that adultery means sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other.

The court gave two reasons for this restrictive definition of adultery. For one, New Hampshire’s criminal adultery statute only punishes sexual intercourse. Second, the court feared that including oral sex in the definition of adultery would lead to the dreaded “slippery slope.” We must all understand that judges live in constant fear of the slippery slope. They often lie at wake at night asking questions like “What if my last ruling results in a slippery slope?” or “What if I’m overturned on appeal?” or “What if my clerks discover that I don’t wear any clothes under my robe?”

In this case, the court worried that if they expanded the definition of adultery to include oral sex, the next judge might decide that kissing was an act of infidelity. Then the next judge might decide that flirting was cheating. And before you know it, all human interaction would be as unexciting as marital sex.

Sadly, in their haste to avoid the slippery slope, the New Hampshire Supreme Court negated the purpose of fault-based divorce, which is to provide relief for the innocent spouse and to punish the guilty spouse. In addition, they have unwittingly provided a financial incentive for married people to engage in homosexual affairs. In essence, this ruling tells a married person that if you are going to cheat, then it had better be with someone of your same sex. Otherwise, your spouse can take you to the cleaners in court. Much like marriage itself, that doesn’t make sense to me.

After all, is it any less wrong to cheat with someone of your same sex? Or is it somehow better if you don’t “go all the way”? Or what about if you were really drunk and “it just happened”? Is it okay then?

My wife has assured me in no uncertain terms that it is NOT okay and I suspect your spouse feels the same way. This is something that Bill Clinton and the New Hampshire Supreme Court should have been able to determine all by themselves. Now, if you will excuse, I need to run out and get some more new car brochures for my wife.

________________________________

Sean is a practicing attorney who writes a weekly humor column on current legal events called "Lawpsided." Lawpsided pieces appear in a growing number of general circulation papers across the country, including The Los Angeles Times. Moreover, his musings on the law appear on nationally recognized websites, such as jewishworldreview.com, findlaw.com, newsmax.com and etherzone.com, and legal publications, such as The National Law Journal and The Los Angeles Daily Journal. Lastly, he is a regular contributor to national magazines like Razor and Tirade. If you would be interested in publishing this piece or seeing other samples of his work, please feel free to contact him by e-mail, by phone at (626) 786-2095, or through his website at:

www.lawpsided.com

Return to the Table of Contents of "The Aldrich Alert"