States Should Preserve Alienation of Affection Laws to Protect Marriage and Families
Source: Beverly Willett. "NM, UT Target Laws That Protect Cheaters' Spouses And Kids." February 4, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that states are making a mistake by getting rid of laws that let betrayed spouses sue the people who wreck their marriages. She believes these laws are important because they protect families and hold homewreckers accountable for the damage they cause.
Conclusion
States should maintain alienation of affection laws rather than abolishing them because these laws provide important protection for innocent spouses and children against deliberate interference in marriages
Premises
- Infidelity and marital breakdown have devastating effects on families and communities that can no longer be seriously challenged
- Alienation of affection laws allow innocent spouses to seek monetary damages from third parties who intentionally destroy otherwise happy marriages
- These laws can deter affair partners from pursuing married individuals and potentially save marriages through reconciliation when third parties withdraw
- No-fault divorce alone provides no remedy for innocent spouses who suffer harm from deliberate interference in their marriages
- The justifications given for abolishing these laws (patriarchal origins, disrespecting free will) are inconsistent with how courts treat other relationship protections
- Family stability is crucial for society, and good marriages benefit adults, children, and communities according to research
- Only a handful of states still maintain these laws, making their preservation more urgent
Assumptions
- Marriage is a valuable social institution worthy of legal protection
- Third parties can be held morally and legally responsible for deliberately interfering in marriages
- The harm caused by infidelity justifies civil remedies beyond divorce proceedings
- Laws should prioritize protecting innocent parties over enabling those who cause harm
- Historical origins of laws do not necessarily invalidate their current utility
Analysis
Overall strength: Moderate. Argument type: Inductive.
Premise Strength
- Infidelity and marital breakdown have devastating effects on families and communities that can no longer be seriously challenged (Strong) — Well-supported by social science research on family stability
- These laws can deter affair partners from pursuing married individuals and potentially save marriages through reconciliation (Weak) — Limited empirical evidence for deterrent effect or reconciliation outcomes
- No-fault divorce alone provides no remedy for innocent spouses who suffer harm from deliberate interference (Moderate) — Identifies a genuine legal gap but doesn't address whether civil tort is the best remedy
Potential Fallacies
- Appeal to Consequences (Throughout premises about family stability and deterrence) — Argues laws should be preserved primarily based on their beneficial effects rather than their legal merit
- False Analogy (Premise about third-party interference) — Compares marriage interference to theft of property, which may oversimplify complex relationship dynamics
Counterarguments
- Core premise about third-party responsibility (High impact) — Adults have agency in their relationship choices and cannot be 'stolen' like property
- Deterrence premise (Medium impact) — These laws may encourage vindictive litigation rather than genuine protection of marriage
- Historical justification (Medium impact) — Laws with patriarchal origins that treated women as property should be reformed regardless of current applications
Suggested Improvements
- Empirical evidence — Provide data on deterrent effects and reconciliation rates in states with these laws Would strengthen claims about practical benefits
- Alternative remedies — Address why tort law is preferable to other forms of marriage protection Would respond to critics who favor different approaches
- Agency concerns — Better address how these laws respect spousal autonomy while holding third parties accountable Would counter the strongest objection to these laws
Scenario Tests
- A state with alienation of affection laws has lower divorce rates than neighboring states without them (Supports) — Would provide evidence for the deterrent effect claimed
- Most alienation of affection lawsuits are filed by vindictive spouses against innocent third parties (Challenges) — Would undermine the argument that these laws protect innocent parties
- Courts consistently find that married individuals initiated affairs without third-party interference (Challenges) — Would question the premise that third parties are primarily responsible for marriage breakdown
Coherence & Relevance
The premises generally support the conclusion but rely heavily on assumed benefits without strong empirical backing. The argument would be stronger with more evidence of practical effectiveness.
- Infidelity and marital breakdown have devastating effects on families and communities (Strong) — Doesn't directly connect to why tort remedies are the best solution
- These laws can deter affair partners and potentially save marriages (Strong) — Lacks empirical support for claimed deterrent effect
- No-fault divorce provides no remedy for innocent spouses (Moderate) — Doesn't address whether tort law is the appropriate remedy for relationship harm