Another observation about your post.

Do you know the status of his relationship with his wife? I mean, other than the fact that the Seattle Times reporter has checked public records and discovered that legally, he is married? I've been following discussions on this in a couple of places, and the fact that he is married gets mentioned a lot. The purpose of the mention generally seems to fall into two categories: People who bring up his marital status to support the claim that she would not have consented to sex with him. The second group is folks like you, who mention it to show that even if they had consensual sex, the guy is still a dirtbag because he's cheating on his wife. The former category, I can only shake my head and speculate that they are not living in the real world, the one in which it is not all that uncommon for women to have sex with men who are married to other women. As far as the latter, well, I'd agree that a person who is unfaithful to their spouse when that spouse has been led to believe that they will be faithful is a low-life. The thing is, not all people who appear on the public records as married have such a relationship. At a former employer, I had a co-worker who had not lived with his wife for decades, had been living for a long time years, maybe a decade or more with his girlfriend, yet was still legally married to the wife and had no indention of divorcing. Why, I never really understood, but there it was. Far more common is couples whose marriage has ended in all ways but legally, because the divorce process was dragging out due to inertia, legal squabbling or whatever. Yet, a search of the public records (especially one which didn't include a court search of pending divorce filings) would show them to be married. It could be said that it's better to sleep alone until your divorce is finalized, but that's a judgment call, not a moral imperative.