World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Blanchflower v. Blanchflower

Article Id: WHEBN0002487302
Reproduction Date:

Title: Blanchflower v. Blanchflower  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: LGBT rights in New Hampshire, Adultery, Sexual intercourse
Collection: 2003 in Lgbt History, 2003 in New Hampshire, 2003 in United States Case Law, New Hampshire State Case Law, United States Lgbt Rights Case Law
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Blanchflower v. Blanchflower

Blanchflower v. Blanchflower, 150 N.H. 226, is a landmark decision by the New Hampshire Supreme Court which ruled that sexual relations between two females, one of whom is married, does not constitute adultery because it is not technically sexual intercourse.[1]

Contents

  • Background 1
  • Ruling 2
  • Reactions 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5
  • Further reading 6

Background

In 2003, David Blanchflower, a professor from Dartmouth College, filed for divorce from his wife on the grounds that she was having an adulterous affair with Ms. Robin Mayer of West Windsor, Vermont. As in most cases of divorce involving alleged adultery, the professor was seeking an "at fault" ruling against his wife. His wife admitted that she was having an affair with Mayer, but Mayer argued that the affair did not constitute adultery under New Hampshire law.[2]

Ruling

After a lower court initially sided with David Blanchflower, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in favor of the two women, concluding that adultery must meet the definition of sexual intercourse under New Hampshire law. In the 3-2 ruling, the majority determined that sexual relations between two females cannot constitute sexual intercourse and, therefore, the affair was not adultery. The decision was based on the 1961 edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, which defines sexual intercourse as coitus (penile-vaginal sex).[1][3][4]

Reactions

Reactions to the ruling were mixed, with some gay-rights groups condemning the ruling for its failure to recognize sex between people of the same gender. Other gay rights groups viewed the ruling as a victory under the law for one lesbian couple after many years of discrimination. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), an LGBT legal rights advocacy group, stated: "Both the majority opinion and the dissent made clear that this case was not about the status of same-sex relationships in society or any formal recognition same-sex relationships receive, and the opinions were both, on the whole, respectful of same-sex intimacy."[3]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b "New Hampshire high court says lesbian sex not adultery".  
  2. ^ "New Hampshire High Court Tackles Gay Adultery Question".  
  3. ^ a b "Blanchflower v. Blanchflower and Mayer".  
  4. ^ "In the Matter of David G. Blanchflower and Sian E. Blanchflower". New Hampshire Judicial Branch/courts.state.nh.us. November 7, 2003. Retrieved August 9, 2013. 

Further reading

  • Catron, Bethany (2005). "If You Don't Think This Is Adultery, Go Ask Your Spouse: The New Hampshire Supreme Court's Faulty Interpretation of Adultery in In re Blanchflower".  
  • Nicolas, Peter (2011). "The Lavender Letter: Applying the Law of Adultery to Same-Sex Couples and Same-Sex Conduct".  
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.