In bizarre news released today it has been reported that a man has won $750,000 in damages because of "spousal theft". The man, Mr Valentine (seriously, you couldn't make this up could you?), claimed under a law only present in seven states in the US that his wife was stolen from him by one Mr Fitch. Both the local and state supreme court judged in favour of the claimant and left Mr Fitch only one option, to go to the US Supreme court and appeal there against a decision that wouldn't have taken place in the vast majority of the rest of the country. The supreme court refused to listen to his request.

in the interest of protecting the marriage relationship and providing a remedy for intentional conduct which causes a loss of consortium, this Court declines the invitation to abolish the common law tort of alienation of affections in Mississippi. Alienation of affections is the only available avenue to provide redress for a spouse who has suffered loss and injury to his or her marital relationship against the third party who, through persuasion, enticement, or inducement, caused or contributed to the abandonment of the marriage and/or the loss of affections by active interference.

This is a very significant situation. Firstly it shows the supreme court is unwilling to rule against laws of individual states that have precedent already set, or at least certainly those laws that uphold the "Christian traditions" of the country. Specifically the supreme court in its announcement has effectively decided that their opinion is that a woman should not pursue a relationship other than that with her legal husband and she and her new partner *should* be severely disadvantaged for following their feelings. It also clearly puts the emphasis of rights on the male in the relationship rather than the female.

I don't consider myself property <..> Not Johnny's, not anyone's. Just my own.

Sandra, the woman involved in the middle of this, must be feeling pretty terrible right now because for all rights and purposes the highest court in the land has told her that she belonged to someone else much in the way that a table or a grandfather clock does, and that she has no right to choose her own future. The only saving grace for the country is, though I can barely scrape at a positive, that it is only seven absolutely sexist states in which this law exists.