Michigan Adultery Law shows no gender preference.

Michigan is a Great Place to be from. The Law actually may decrease interest in sexual activity, or cause a migration out of the state. Legislature encouraged to look at economic effects.

Judge William Murphy wrote in a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reached here today. But we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion. Technically, any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I, the most serious sexual assault charge in the state's criminal code."

Even in Michigan, the citizenry knows nature's laws operate quite differently. Florence J. Guymond, Detroit, remarked, "Honey, the real law is this: Men get to mess-around, but women get to choose the father of their children."

The Michigan voter's patience with both the Courts and the Lawmakers is being tested.

Of course, Michigan still lists adultery as a felony, although no one has been convicted of the offense since 1971, nearly 36 years.

Nobody really expects prosecutors to go after cheating spouses, unless they are really motivated. The Appeals Court interpretive ruling give ammunition to those clearly aiming at the rulings intended target.

One theory floating around the courthouse is that the Appeals Court Judges are taking a jab at the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that lower court judges must interpret statutory language adopted by the Legislature [i]literally,whatever [i] the consequences.

Most other states let judges reject a purely literal interpretation when the result is clearly unintended, or absurd. "We'll see." Mrs. Guymond said.

Appeals Court, Judge Murphy, wrote he is suggesting that, the Legislature take a second look at the statutory language - - if they are troubled by our ruling.

A spokes person for the attoney general, who publicly admitted to adultery in November did not comment that he would press for legislative amendments to make it clear that only violent felonies involving an unwilling victim could trigger a first-degree CSC charge. Under the Law as interpreted, it takes two persons, and two persons could be charged, of course.

"This is so bizarre that it doesn't even merit a response," Gentleman Rusty Hill said.

The appeals court decision involved a person (man) convicted of trading prescription painkillers for sex, and no genders were mentioned.

To increase the jail time, prosecutors used an obscure provision of the state's criminal law to charge him with criminal sexual conduct, which occurs whenever "sexual penetration" occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony." Now from that it sounds like both the felons have to be charged found guilty and serve hundreds of years in a Michigan facility. If the trade, sex for drugs, was made, isn't the other person who bought the drugs also chargeable? Of course! Were they? Are you kidding? Sounds like the book was thrown. And there might be more!