Plan B Forum

My grand daughter is married to young man of Mexican descent. One thing I admire about their culture is that they think of their marriages as a sacred thing from God. They tend to make very good husband, at least the traditional conservative types do; ones like my grand daughter’s Husband. Messing around with their wives could get one hurt, maybe even killed.

Do you think an injustice was done here?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... ative_2_na

Marine veterans sentenced for brutally beating man who had an affair with one of their wives

By Lindsey Bever
August 30
3 Marines kidnap, assault man after alleged affair

Play Video1:03
Three former Marines were sentenced August 24 for attacking a man who had an affair with a Marine’s wife while he was deployed. The men wore hockey masks to conceal their identities and beat the victim so badly his kidneys failed. (KERO TV)
Norman Early III pulled up to the Southern California house one night in September 2015 and sent a Snapchat message to the woman he went there to see, saying he was parked a short distance away.
The two, who had known each other for several years, had crossed the line between friendship and flirtation while her husband was serving overseas.
The woman responded, “Come in the door is unlocked.”

The account from court documents reads like the start of slasher movie.
Minutes after midnight on Sept. 20, 2015, Early walked into the modest corner house with a white iron fence and concrete pillars.
It was her husband, however, who was using her cellphone to talk to him.
Almost simultaneously, Early later told police, a car alarm started to scream and he saw a man running toward him, according to a criminal complaint filed in the case.
He slammed the front door, locked it and turned around, and there stood three Marines.
The men, wearing Jason Voorhees-style hockey masks, started to punch, kick and push him to the ground, according to the court documents.
Early later told police that he struggled to fight but that his assailants pinned him down on his stomach and zip-tied his wrists, then continued to punch and kick him in his face and body. He said he tried to shout but they stuffed a sock into his mouth and sealed it with tape. He said they wrapped a belt around his neck so tightly he almost passed out.

It never ceases to amaze me, that when someone finds out their spouse has been cheating, that their reaction is to take it out on the other man/woman, rather than on their own spouse.

The other man/woman owes you nothing. He/she did not take a vow to forsake all others, your spouse did that. If you want to beat someone up, beat the crap out of your spouse, not some third party who got caught in the middle of your already doomed marriage.

The marines deserve whatever criminal punishment they get, and the victim should institute a civil claim for whatever material assets they have, and put their sorry asses out on the street. They are a disgrace to the uniform they wear.

What about the cheating wife? She's the one who should have been beaten and kicked in the kidney.

Joe Guy wrote:What about the cheating wife? She's the one who should have been beaten and kicked in the kidney.

Joe, did I say that I endorsed what these marines did; I just ask the question? But I have noticed in the course of my life time what appears to be a reduction in respect for marriage. Hell there is even a club now where the members get points for each married woman they seduce. I wonder if they get extra points for marriages they break up? And extra points if the family has children?

It's great if you have friends and family who support your marriage, but nobody is obligated to do so and certainly no spouse would be tempted to stray if s/he were not so inclined. The vows are the married person's to keep, Satan and temptation are everywhere (sarcasm) and cannot be blamed for a person's free choice to sin. Some single AND married persons prefer married lovers because they don't push for messy complex intimacy. Hell people aren't biologically built for lifelong monotony (oh I meant monogamy) and so affairs happen. Do they suck? Sure. But infidelity in a marriage isn't even in the top five awful things that can happen to a person in life. Why is marriage so damned sacred?

BoSoxGal wrote:It's great if you have friends and family who support your marriage, but nobody is obligated to do so and certainly no spouse would be tempted to stray if s/he were not so inclined. The vows are the married person's to keep, Satan and temptation are everywhere (sarcasm) and cannot be blamed for a person's free choice to sin. Some single AND married persons prefer married lovers because they don't push for messy complex intimacy. Hell people aren't biologically built for lifelong monotony (oh I meant monogamy) and so affairs happen. Do they suck? Sure. But infidelity in a marriage isn't even in the top five awful things that can happen to a person in life. Why is marriage so damned sacred?

Well it appears that a lot of people if not most don‘t consider it sacred. It might be different in Mexico, but not here. To me it is sacred because the Bible says it is.

When I was a young getting into a woman’s knickers was a high priority, but I never went after a married woman.

liberty wrote:... When I was a young (man) getting into a woman’s knickers was a high priority, but I never went after a married woman.

Well, duh! If you're getting into women's knickers and it was such a high priority, any woman -- married or single -- would think you were a bit too strange for any kind of relationship. Cross-dressers are so misunderstood.

Hey, I don't judge.

Why is marriage so damned sacred?

Because it is. If one does not want to hold it sacred, they should not get married. It's a moral contract. I did not promise to stay with my wife until things got tough or until I got mad at her or we had an arguement. A marriage takes work. If one abondons it at the small (or big) problems, they should not have entered into that moral contract in the first place. Marriage is not all about the single person. It is not a business deal. It's two people coming together who want to spend their lives together.
To me it is sacred but it seems it is becoming "less sacred".

And yes, I know there are some marriages that should be dissolved but I think there are some (many?) that would rather bail than do the hard work to keep it together.
I am grateful every day, that my wife didn't take the "easier" way out (which she had every right to). I will spend the rest of my days making it up to her.

Scooter--this just goes back to the old idea that the wife is the property of the husband, and that stealing someone's property is a disrespect of the person that demands retribution. So the guy stole the marine's property, and he and his buddies just did what their idea of the natural law demanded. So sure, by all means prosecute them for assault (and if we can bar the adultery as a defense that is too prejudicial (not a given) all the better). But somehow I would be concerned about a civil jury in a battery suit; they will learn the entire story and regardless of the law, when they hear of the adultery might just disregard it and say it was the victim's fault. The idea of just retribution for theft runs very deep.

Rule #1 - men must never hit women

Rule #2 - no cowardice

Rule #3 - cowards get two buddies to help beat up one man.

As in so many issues, 'sacred marriage' conflates at least two different issues: religion [which should be highly personal] and law [which should be highly social]

The bible says so is of importance only to the degree that one finds that collection of books and stories assembled over a period of four thousand years, give or take, authoritative. IT HAS NO AUTHORITY at all in law. The authority of the bible rests on individual religious beliefs. The authority of the law rests on joint agreement among the people of that society. I may think the law as inforced by a certain sheriff in Arizona is absolutely wrong, and I have absolutely no skin in the game--I am not in Arizona.

Yes, Liberty, I believe these Marines were properly convicted for crimes of violence against a person. Mr. Liberty, do you think these Marines could have brought some kind of civil case for damages they had suffered by their victim's actions? Then why is it just for them to inflict physical harm and pain?

They did not consider marriage sacred. They considered the husband's 'honor' something they should avenge. The husbands property--his wife--had been stolen by a male person who took advantage of the weakness and inferiority of a female belonging to their friend.

That is not the kind of sacred marriage I participate in as a husband, nor the religious sacrament I officiate in as an ordained minister.
The words of the sacred marriage contract in my religious tradition are specifically and only: "You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to the condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other and from all others, during your lives.?" This was made an official part of our liturgy more than 180 years ago. Two years ago it was modified by instructions that it be considered gender neutral and the biological plumbing of the two people to be married is irrelevant.

snailgate.

snailgate

Burning Petard wrote:Mr. Liberty, do you think these Marines could have brought some kind of civil case for damages they had suffered by their victim's actions?

There are some states that still recognize the tort or alienation of affection. I find the entire notion to be bogus, because if your spouse is fucking around on you to the point that he/she decides to leave you, then any affection was alienated long before any third party got into the picture.

Big RR wrote:Scooter--this just goes back to the old idea that the wife is the property of the husband, and that stealing someone's property is a disrespect of the person that demands retribution. So the guy stole the marine's property, and he and his buddies just did what their idea of the natural law demanded. So sure, by all means prosecute them for assault (and if we can bar the adultery as a defense that is too prejudicial (not a given) all the better). But somehow I would be concerned about a civil jury in a battery suit; they will learn the entire story and regardless of the law, when they hear of the adultery might just disregard it and say it was the victim's fault. The idea of just retribution for theft runs very deep.

If it had just been the husband and the horny dude and I were seated on the jury, I would possibly agree with the idea of "the cuckolded husband acting in the heat of the moment" too.  But since the guy gathered two of his friends to make it a pre-meditated three-on-one beatdown, that's something else again.

-"BB"-

oldr_n_wsr wrote:

Why is marriage so damned sacred?

Because it is. If one does not want to hold it sacred, they should not get married. It's a moral contract. I did not promise to stay with my wife until things got tough or until I got mad at her or we had an arguement. A marriage takes work. If one abondons it at the small (or big) problems, they should not have entered into that moral contract in the first place. Marriage is not all about the single person. It is not a business deal. It's two people coming together who want to spend their lives together.
To me it is sacred but it seems it is becoming "less sacred".

And yes, I know there are some marriages that should be dissolved but I think there are some (many?) that would rather bail than do the hard work to keep it together.
I am grateful every day, that my wife didn't take the "easier" way out (which she had every right to). I will spend the rest of my days making it up to her.

Okay, sure - it's sacred between those two people, and perhaps within their church/spiritual community, among people who share the same ideals.

But it's not an obligation that extends to every person who meets you or your wife over the course of your marriage. Those people have no obligation to help you keep your vows - those vows are your obligation, not theirs.

Outside religious context, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two parties like any other (largely) economic arrangement, and that contract can be modified and/or broken by the parties involved at will, either in fair or unfair fashion, with legal recourse available to the parties as necessary/required.

BoSoxGal wrote:But it's not an obligation that extends to every person who meets you or your wife over the course of your marriage. Those people have no obligation to help you keep your vows - those vows are your obligation, not theirs.

This. Thanks, that's what I was trying to say.

I have no religion, but I do treat my marriage as more than a "legal contract" .
But that's just me.

Marriage is what you want it to be. The hard part is agreeing on what that is, and living by that. Sure, there are legal and religious definitions (which don't necessarily agree with each other) but it still comes down to a commitment to another person.

Of course, that's coming from someone who has never married and is highly unlikely to ever do so.

Relationships are so confusing. As for me, I never dated any woman unless she was legally or momentarily separated. And fortunately, I never had to confront an emotionally unstable husband or his goon squad.

Marriage is what you make it -- nothing more, nothing less. Once around the park was good enough for me.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Rule #1 - men must never hit women

Rule #2 - no cowardice

Rule #3 - cowards get two buddies to help beat up one man.

Well Mr. Meade, marine cowards you say. They go into combat because they are cowards. Well, I will have to think about that. Do you think there might be another for his desire for back up.

liberty wrote:

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Rule #1 - men must never hit women

Rule #2 - no cowardice

Rule #3 - cowards get two buddies to help beat up one man.

Well Mr. Meade, marine cowards you say. They go into combat because they are cowards. Well, I will have to think about that. Do you think there might be another for his desire for back up.

This time I agree with Meade.  If there can be bad cops there can be bad jarheads.

And since you raised the point, what other reason would this shitwad have had for needing two other guys for backup, especially since he had set up nothing less than an ambush for his wife's paramour?  Not to mention that it sounds like they took an active part in the butt-kicking rather than just standing by 'in reserve' in case they were needed.

-"BB"-