[123e1daAdfafsdf]

Military does cut spouses checks, so there is direct financial incentive to remain married (at least on paper).

Long deployments / remote spousing also leave room for other arrangements. As long as the checks come in, why not remain married in name only?

[fweespeech]

Because adultery is something you get smacked for by the military legal system.

[DaiPlusPlus]

I know servicepeople get punished for adultery under UCMJ, but do their spouses?

[esmi]

If the spouse is a civilian then no. Civilians are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[fweespeech]

They don't but it takes two people to make a marriage.

"Staying married in name only" means anyone under the UCMJ can't have sex _ever_ if its a marriage in name only.

[emodendroket]

As far as I understand it, they are not going to go digging if nobody is making a fuss.

[fweespeech]

Which means the one under the UCMJ is open to blackmail from their spouse if they fool around in a marriage in name only.

Yeah. Totally a reason to stay married in name only.

[emodendroket]

I guess, but the parent posts are describing a mutually beneficial arrangement.

[fweespeech]

I might be biased by the experience my friend from high school had up until he completed his service and got himself honorably discharged to make it stop.

It started out voluntary enough but the lack of a sex life led to that sort of problem.

[emodendroket]

Well, a vindictive spouse hardly needs the military to make your life difficult.