‘Homewrecker’ lawsuits are bad, even if you don’t like Tim Moore | Opinion
North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore has been accused of having an affair with a married woman, and he is facing a lawsuit in which the husband blames Moore for the “destruction” of his marriage.
The lawsuit accuses Moore of “alienation of affection,” an antiquated statute that allows spouses to sue a third party for damaging their marriage. Such laws are often referred to as “homewrecker” laws, since the defendant in the lawsuit is typically a spouse’s lover.
It’s the kind of legal drama that could almost only happen in North Carolina, since we’re one of just six states that still allow alienation of affection lawsuits. Hundreds of them are filed in North Carolina each year, occasionally resulting in multimillion-dollar verdicts that draw national attention. One case out of Alamance County involving a woman who sued her husband’s secretary even became the inspiration for a Lifetime movie in 1999.
But tawdry details and moral conundrums aside, it’s a law that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
For starters, alienation of affection is a concept rooted in misogyny. It was originally a tool that a husband could use to sue another man for “stealing” his wife, back when women were considered their husband’s property and affection was something men were believed to be owed. But affection is not a tangible possession that can be stolen, nor should it be considered the irrevocable property of another person.
Originally, only men were allowed to seek remedies in these situations., and it wasn’t until much later that women were recognized as having the same legal rights. North Carolina also still allows people to sue for “criminal conversation,” or extramarital sex. It’s similarly rooted in the belief that a husband retains exclusive sexual rights to his wife, though it’s more difficult to prove because it requires clear evidence of sexual intercourse taking place.
The lawsuit against Moore, filed by former Apex councilman Scott Lassiter, alleges that Moore “enticed” Lassiter’s wife into an “illicit relationship” using his power and influence. But the wife, a state employee named Jamie Liles Lassiter, disputed that characterization in a statement.
“To be clear, I’m a strong professional woman, and the only person who has ever abused me or threatened my career was my soon to be ex-husband,” Lassiter said. “Our marriage was a nightmare, and since I left him it has gotten worse.”
That’s not something to be said or taken lightly, and if true, it shows how these situations are often too complex for the courtroom.
The idea that anyone could simply be lured or seduced out of a happy marriage is an oversimplification of something that tends to be far more nuanced. It assumes that every situation has three clear-cut archetypes: a scorned lover, an adulterous spouse and a seductive homewrecker. It suggests that only one person — the homewrecker — is to blame for something that occurs between consenting adults and that the couple would have lived happily ever after had a paramour not intervened.
Most states have recognized that these lawsuits have no place in the 21st century, but North Carolina has not. State lawmakers have had plenty of opportunities to repeal the law in the past, though, and many have certainly tried. Legislation to abolish it has been introduced repeatedly over the years — including this session — to no avail. The only time lawmakers acted was in 2009, when they voted to amend the law by placing certain limitations on such lawsuits.
Groups such as the Christian Action League remain staunchly opposed to changing the law, saying it “protects the sanctity of marriage” and taking it off the books would be akin to “legalizing adultery.”
There is a certain irony to one of the state’s most powerful politicians falling victim to a bad law that he and his colleagues left on the books. That doesn’t make it less unfair, though, especially since Moore isn’t the only one whose alleged dirty laundry is being aired publicly in this lawsuit.
It wouldn’t be a great look if the legislature suddenly decided to change the law now that the House speaker has been inconvenienced by it. After all, it has affected plenty of less powerful people, too. But lawmakers can still do what they should have done long ago and leave this centuries-old statute where it belongs — in the past.
