If Glenn Brenner’s name doesn’t sound familiar, it should. He is a member of the SD Open Meetings Commission;
Douglas Rumpca of Rapid City sued Pennington County State’s Attorney Glenn Brenner, saying Brenner stole the affections of his former wife, Kellie Rumpca.
Not only is he for open meetings, apparently he is for open marriages 🙂 To be honest with you, I think this law is silly. If your wife leaves you, that is her decision.
As for Brenner, it is important to note that he is the only member of the OMC to vote against the rest of the commission on the recent decision about the SF City Council in reference to the Debra Owen issue.
I actually like the law. If some dirtbag can’t keep his hands off of a married woman, then he should be willing to pay for the privledge. Yes it is the woman’s choice, but there have been many cases that a person in a position of power (law enforcement, judges, attorneys, and most commonly therapists) have used their influence and/or information gained during the course of their interactions with a married woman to manipulate these women into having affairs.
So long as they have laws on the books preventing two people of the same sex from getting married, then it seems they should keep laws on the books that serve to “protect” traditional marriage. In fact they should take it a step further and make adultery a crime. Anything less seems a tad hypocritical considering these very same people tell us how important marriage is.
If he should have to pay for “taking advantage” of a married woman, than the scorned wife should sue the adulterous woman. This evens things out, and is also why this is a dumb law.
Craig – Sorry, but rape and sexual abuse is already against the law, that is what you are referring to. If a woman, married or not, decides to have sex with another man, and is a consenting adult, that is her decision.
If a therapist or clergy member manipulates a woman over the course of weeks or months (effectively brain washing her) and runs off with her leaving the husband behind… it shouldn’t be ok.
I’m not talking about rape or sexual (physical) abuse. I’m talking about a mental mind-f*** that results in a woman doing something she normally would not have done. I know this sounds far fetched, but it has actually happened. More than a few times in fact.
As it sits, the worst that can happen to a therapist or psychologist who engages in this behavior is for them to have professional misconduct charges filed against them which in most cases would entail nothing more than a reprimand in their file. In the case of a member of clergy who isn’t even a licensed therapist, there isn’t a thing that can be done against them without alienation of affection laws.
Allowing a jilted ex-husband or ex-wife to sue for damages just seems fair to me. Surely there is shared responsiblity on behalf of both parties, but then the damages should reflect that. It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing thing.
The problem with such a law is that it is paternalistic. It denies her autonomy by allowing the male to blame another male, rather than the woman herself as if she is an autonomous actor in her own life.
I agree Craig, that an individual in a position of power over another, whether that power is psychological, spiritual, or economic ought to be subject to more stringent laws.
I doubt that psychotherapists are the most common offenders, but don’t have stats to support that.
I’m thinking of all the RCC priests that had affairs with parishioners, and all the company execs that forced women to have sex with them as payment for a promotion.
Like I said, no stats, just my anecdotal opinion.
The problem, as Bishop points out, is that wives are not the property of their husbands, and that essentially is what the law is saying. Is it morally wrong to be cheating, sure, but you can’t legislate that. I don’t have a problem with repercussions to her in the divorce (such as not getting 50% of everything, etc., etc.) but claiming someone STOLE your wife is far-fetched, and what is even more far-fetched is we have laws about it. Like I said, there is already laws on the books that deal with manipulation, fraud, etc.
She kinda sounds like she is confused, any woman who thinks they need their boobies enlarged to keep their husband, obviously is a bit troubled, kinda sounds like she was playing both men.
http://www.keloland.com/videoarchive/?VideoFile=120503brenner
Are women that easily manipulated? Perhaps we need to rethink what women are allowed to do in this state. Can they be trusted to vote, drive, or enter into contracts without being manipulated by a man? The legislature needs to rethink women’s rights in this state.
When I got divorced, if I could have afforded to prove alienation of affection, I would have tried it.
I don’t have a problem with what you are saying Joan, but I believe that is between the couple, not an outside party. If Mr Rumpca feels he was wronged, it wasn’t by Mr. Brenner, it was by Mrs. Rumpca.
Keep in mind this isn’t a law suggesting anyone is “property”. It can be used for both sexes and by both parties, thus Scott’s sarcasm really isn’t applicable here. Some people (both men and women) are easily manipulated aka brainwashed. The people who find themselves a member of a religious cult, those who give up their families for the affections of another person due to charisma, the type of people who subscribe to Star magazine… these are the types who are probably easily brainwashed.
It isn’t just about men suing each other and claiming their ex-wives are idiots. In fact one of the more common situations involves a woman suing the mistress of her ex-husband. The thing about these cases is that they are very difficult to prove, so it isn’t like someone can easily win a huge judgement just because his or her spouse ran off with another person. It has to be very specific circumstances and there has to be action taken upon the defendant that make it clear he or she was manipulating the spouse.