Talk:Blanchflower v. Blanchflower

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Very much skewed interpretation in article.

This article grossly misinterprets and overstates the verdict. The verdict merely says extra-marital lesbian relation (two females licking and tapping each other) does not constitue adultery to heterosexual marriage. Whether sodomy (two men plugging their rods into each other's arse) makes adultery remains to be seen, since it is different, with penetration clearly being realized.

If analsex is recognized as a means of adultery, then lesbian must also, else it would be gender based discrimination, which is unconstitutional. If court finds analsex is no grounds for adultery in heterosexual marriage, then the midwest America will rise, shotgun and pitchfork in hand and cleanse the urban anarcho-liberal scum for good. The Bible clearly describes stoning punishment for anal and animal sexers and America is built on the protestantism, like it or not.

Anyhow, the SCOTUS will have a hard time deciding. 91.83.3.163 (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources report or show that the dictionary definition the verdict was based on restricted the term sexual intercourse to coitus/penile-vaginal penetration. Either way, this edit you made to the article is okay for the lead in the sense that this case is specifically about a husband, his wife...and sexual activities between his wife and another woman.

Anyway, I fixed this article up a bit with this and this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And with this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this as well. Flyer22 (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moments ago, I fixed my mistakes with regard a reference attribution; see here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this and this edit, which might further help clear up the aforementioned reference correction (GLAD instead of GLAAD). Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]