Owens v. Owens
| Decision Date | 11 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 36951,36951 |
| Citation | 247 Ga. 139,274 S.E.2d 484 |
| Parties | OWENS v. OWENS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Charles Hyatt, Decatur, J. Stephen Clifford, Kingloff, Clifford & Travis, Atlanta, for Sarah Waller Owens.
Archer D. Smith, Atlanta, for William Edward Owens.
The appellant wife sued the appellee husband for divorce on the ground that their marriage is irretrievably broken. The husband answered, admitting that the marriage is irretrievably broken. Judgment on the pleadings was granted on the issue of divorce, the remaining alimony and property settlement issues being reserved for jury trial. During discovery, the appellant testified to certain admissions by the appellee that he is bisexual or homosexual, and she testified to certain instances during their marriage in which he had displayed homosexual tendencies. The appellee filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any evidence of his admissions or instances of homosexual behavior. The trial judge ruled that under Code § 38-1606 one spouse is prohibited from testifying to any tendencies toward, or admissions or instances of, adulterous heterosexual or homosexual behavior on the part of the other spouse. We granted the appellant's application for interlocutory appeal. We affirm.
1. "Code § 38-1603 allows a party to be a witness for himself on all relevant issues; but Code § 38-1606 creates an exception for proceedings 'instituted in consequence of adultery,' with the result that in such proceedings a party is not competent to testify to his own or his spouse's adultery." Bryan v. Bryan, 242 Ga. 826, 830, 251 S.E.2d 566 (1979). Bodrey v. Bodrey, 246 Ga. 122, 124, 269 S.E.2d 14 (1980). An alimony trial following the grant of a no-fault divorce is a proceeding "instituted in consequence of adultery" within the meaning of § 38-1606. Bodrey v. Bodrey, supra; Bryan v. Bryan, supra.
2. A person commits adultery when he or she has sexual intercourse with a "person" other than his or her spouse. Code Ann. § 26-2009 (Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1300). Therefore, both extramarital homosexual, as well as heterosexual, relations constitute adultery. See Patin v. Patin, 371 So.2d 682 (Fla.App.1979); Adams v. Adams, 357 So.2d 881 (La.App.1978).
3. We reject the appellant's argument that to construe "adultery" as that term is used in § 38-1606 as including homosexual relations would deny her due process of law. In our opinion, the construction which we place on the term "adultery' is more rational than the construction urged by the appellant, and it is, therefore, fully consonant with the due process clause.
4. We also reject the appellant's argument that under Code Ann. § 30-201 (Ga.L.1979, pp. 466, 472) she should be allowed to testify to, and question the appellee concerning, his homosexual admissions and behavior.
Section 30-201 does provide that a party shall not be entitled to alimony if it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that the separation between the parties was caused by that party's adultery, and it also provides that in alimony cases the court shall receive evidence of the factual cause of the separation and the conduct of each party toward the other. However, it still remains that under § 38-1606 neither spouse is competent to testify to facts showing or tending to show his or the other spouse's adultery, even if such facts would also be admissible under § 30-201. See Bodrey v. Bodrey, supra; Lowry v. Lowry, supra. To the extent that the adultery of either spouse is admissible under § 30-201, it must be proved through evidence other than the testimony of the parties.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except CLARKE, J., who dissents.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shropshire v. State
...definition of prostitution included anal intercourse. Id. at 96-97 (1), (2), 316 S.E.2d 500. See also Owens v. Owens , 247 Ga. 139, 140 (2), 274 S.E.2d 484 (1981) (concluding that "sexual intercourse," as used in former Code section defining "adultery," includes "both extramarital homosexua......
-
Shropshire v. State
... ... of prostitution included anal intercourse ... Id. at 96-97 (1), (2). See also Owens v ... Owens , 247 Ga. 139, 140 (2) (274 S.E.2d 484) (1981) ... (concluding that "sexual intercourse," as used in ... former Code ... ...
-
In re Blanchflower
...of other courts that have considered this issue. See Patin v. Patin, 371 So.2d 682, 683 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) ; Owens v. Owens, 247 Ga. 139, 274 S.E.2d 484, 485–86 (1981) ; S.B. , 609 A.2d at 126–27; RGM v. DEM, 306 S.C. 145, 410 S.E.2d 564, 566–67 (1991). In Patin, 371 So.2d at 683, for i......
-
S.B. v. S.J.B.
...under the Georgia statute a homosexual relationship is equivalent to having sexual intercourse with another person. Owens v. Owens, 247 Ga. 139, 274 S.E.2d 484 (1981). It is not the intention of this court to judicially add a new cause of action for divorce; a responsibility left specifical......
-
Georgia's Children on Our Minds - Nicole Sheppe
...27. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 192 (1986); see also Gay v. Gay, 149 Ga. App. 173, 253 S.E.2d 846 (1979). 28. See Owens v. Owens, 247 Ga. 139, 274 S.E.2d 484 (1981). 29. 270 Ga. 327, 510 S.E.2d 18 (1998). 30. Lawrence, 123 S. Ct. at 2473. 31. See City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 265 Ga. 1......