Kyrsten Sinema: Yes, I Banged My Bodyguard in Lots o' Places ...

[unblock]

22. i agree that these laws have an odious original and usage, and on the whole we're probably better off without such laws

because the vast majority of affairs are voluntary on the part of the cheater and it's silly to sue the "homewrecker" over the cheater's rotten ethics.

however, when there's a coercive element, i don't think it's unreasonable to say a spouse is injured by the person outside the marriage and therefore has a legitimate tort claim.

in an extreme case, if i'm kidnapped and tortured and brainwashed into being revulsed by the sight of my wife, or permanently nauseated by the thought of sex, don't you think she's injured by the kidnapper's actions and should have a right to sue for damages, independently from any claim i would have?

in this particular case, to the extent the bodyguard was a willing or even eager cheater, then i agree that the ex-wife's beef is with him and there's nothing to sue a third party over. but if she can make the case that he only did it because he thought he would lose his job, then i think she has a reasonable case.

the fact that they're now divorced does work against her; it suggests that she left him because she thought he voluntarily cheated rather than was completely coerced. if i was on the jury i'd want to see an explanation for the divorce more convincing than that she left him because he cheated. for instance, if he left her instead.