Normally I'd take as a given it existed but considering the source I'd kinda want an actual copy of the law with analysis form a third party saying so.

However, keep in mind that a lot of old laws discussing alimony are only discussing women because we just didn't have a mental concept for men getting money form their ex-wives. So a lot of alimony laws revolved around whether or not a woman could get it and often said 'well, if she had an affair, no, hell, its her new guy's job to support her, you can't go asking the guy she put horns on for cash' and so they tended to be one-sided because they were based off an existing double standard. I'd like to see the text of such a law he voted for before accepting that as a given, and I'm not really seeing a problem here, men, generally speaking, do not get alimony, they pay it, adultery's a pretty good basis for the court to tell a lady to take her alimony demands and shove them. In our era of no-fault divorces and equal gender right the concept of alimony (but not child support) is pretty weird anyway. Most divorces, pre-90's, (and IIRC the convenant marriage thing he worked on was in 1990), involved the husband paying alimony unless she specifically did something wrong, and oftne even then, so it wouldn't really matter what he'd done. "Hey Maam, you're getting divorced, and the good news is you won't pay alimony, $0 in alimony, but you have photos of your husband with his secretary, and that means you won't pay in alimony, half your previous payment of $0." "Hurrah" Says she.