An author at Reason is unhappy that a former U.S. Senator is being sued for "alienation of affection." One of the problems with the sexual revolution is that it has divorced sexual intimacy from obligation. The marriage contract, which was once viewed as a legally binding agreement, is now disposable if it conflicts with "happiness." This libertine view of sexual behavior ignores real harms done by the violation of the marriage contract.
One of the worst aspects of the sexual revolution is "reform" of divorce laws that leave an abandoned partner with no legal recourse if the spouse decides to abandon a marriage without cause such as abuse, adultery or abandonment. If both parties are part of the same church, that church can intervene with moral instruction and can even excommunicate the at-fault party, but they have no legal authority to enforce their efforts to keep a wayward spouse in a marriage. (Nor should they.)
This does not exist in other contract law. You cannot fail to build a fence if you have a contract to do it, for example. With the marriage contract, the harms are just as real and are much more intense. This does not simply involve monetary damages (although those exist) but can cause deep emotional wounds and significant harm to any children in the home.
This is why interfering in someone's marriage, knowing the harm you are doing, should be subject to legal damages. Senator Sinema knew her security guard was married and had three children with his wife, and she carried on a sexual relationship with him anyway. Senator Sinema even pursued a married man. No, this does not mean the husband or wife is the "property" of the other spouse. It means they have made a legal commitment and a U.S. Senator is infringing on that contract and causing harm to his wife and children. The fact that a marriage contract - the building block of a functional society - has fewer legal protections than a contract to build a fence reveals we are a deeply sick society.
Senator Sinema's behavior is truly abominable here. She is relatively young and attractive, and held significant political power. Finding a romantic partner would not have been difficult for her. She decided to blow up a family and harm innocent children. There was a time when this behavior was universally condemned and considered disqualifying for public office. The fact that her security guard broke his marriage contract does not reduce Senator Sinema's moral responsibility.
So yes, the fact that these torts are allowed in a few states is a very good thing. Every state that has "reformed" (actually deformed) its laws to remove "alienation of affection" torts should correct that error and put legal protections for abandoned spouses back into their legal codes. Indiana can lead the way in reforming our laws to protect marriage.
Sexual libertinism should not deny true harm
Divorcing sexual intimacy from moral obligation has done great harm to our society.
