Adultery

Re “Woman Leads Uphill Battle to Make Adultery a Crime,” June 21: Is this 1999--or the 9th century? Laura Onate Palacios’ proposition calls for the punishment of both the unfaithful spouse and the consenting sexual partner. This sounds alarmingly medieval. In antiquity, it was not unheard of for an unfaithful wife to be murdered and her sexual partner to be castrated. Are those the good old days that she longs to return to?

MARIELLE E. SMITH, Long Beach

*

Re the attempts to make adultery illegal, as a means of punishing the adulterer and providing financial relief to the “victim”: Is there not a “contract” at the heart of the marriage ceremony, validated by the mutual consideration provided by either party to the relationship? Surely breach of this contract by a party to it would render said party liable for a simple breach-of-contract suit, regardless of the state’s no-fault divorce doctrine.

CHARLES SHAUGHNESSY, Santa Monica

*

I believe that Palacios has it backward. The real source of pain is not infidelity, but our society’s blind, hypocritical obsession with monogamy. Some people want to have one partner, others want to have more. Fine. However, we are brainwashed into thinking that we’re supposed to want monogamy, even though many people clearly do not.

If we were able to be honest, first with ourselves and second with our partners, those who want one partner could find each other, as could those who want more. We would stop equating fidelity with sexual exclusivity. We would be spared at least one ridiculous, unconstitutional proposition.

KAY M. GILBERT, Santa Monica

*

This is yet one more assault on the work ethic, cloaked under the guise of morality. By boiling everything down to money, it will encourage more fighting.

If Palacios were truly interested in punishing unfaithful spouses, she would have started a campaign to repeal no-fault divorce.

JON TYSON, Los Angeles