"Some argue that no law should intrude beneath the quilt"

Not unrelated to Rachel's post is this article about sex and Korean soap opera stars.

Quick synopsis: soap opera star Husband accuses actress Wife of having an affair. Under Korean law, extramarital affairs are punishable with a jail sentence. Instead of denying the affair, Wife calls a news conference, admits having an affair, and challenges the infidelity law. She accuses him of being loveless; he calls her a liar. High drama!

There's all sorts of interesting tid-bits in here, including the historical feminist support for the infidelity law, since it gave/gives otherwise powerless women leverage over their husbands. But what I wanted to bring up was governmental "beneath the quilt" interference. [See Justice Minister's comment half way down the first page.] Say what you like about the law's impact on public morality -- maybe ethics will come crashing down without governmental support, maybe they won't, maybe its none of the government's business -- the fact remains that marriage as we currently know and practice it is, at one level, a legal contract. As Rachel notes, since it is a legal contract, the government exercises authority over who can and cannot enter into that contract. Likewise, as long as marriage is a legal contract, it makes some sense that there would be legal ramifications for breaking the contract.

Disclaimer 1: I'm not saying that the government should be able to "intrude beneath the quilt," I'm just pointing out that questioning the government's right to regulate conduct within marriage also brings into question its right to oversee the contraction of marriage in the first place. If marriage is "just a contract," then the contracting parties shouldn't be able to waltz in and out of their contractual obligations willy-nilly without the overseeing entity laying the smack down. But if marriage is something other than (or, if you like, more than) a contract; if it's a relationship that cannot be controlled or regulated just because it involves the signing of a contract, then we have to question the significance, nature, and efficacy of the contractual component.

Disclaimer 2: I don't know anything about marital law, or the line and/or interaction between the cultural and legal aspects of marriage. Therefore I don't know exactly what you sign on to, in legal terms, when you get married. So perhaps infidelity isn't technically a breach of contract? Law students feel free to jump in -- I know the article was about Korea, but now I'm curious about the U.S.