The moral obligation to one's spouse is very important. If a person vows to love, honor and cherish until death do them part, then this before God and all who witness that to be true. If the actions of one or the other cause a "rift" in the relationship then this could be the beginning of the end of a marriage. From a consequential point of view, the person knew what he or she was doing and also knew there would be malice results from the actions if discovered by the spouse. I believe the wife in the River Thought Experiment saw it that way. From a Deontology point of view, the individual was doing what he or she did because their spouse did not meet the "moral obligation" of marriage to them.
             Based on the above statement and with some great thinking, my standing on this topic is of a consequential viewpoint. Basically, the wife knew "the job was dangerous when she took it." This refers to both the marriage and taking on the extra marital affair she had to endure with the boat owner in order for her to get across the river to see her husband. The wife has more then likely come to the conclusion that if her husband becomes aware the affair, there will be sever repercussions. But I can't help but to relate back to the view of a Deontologist for a moment. I view the wife as a consequentialist and the husband as a Deontologist in a basic sense. The wife weighed the options that if she wanted to see her husband again she had to do what the boat owner wanted in order for him to give here a ride across the river. The option to have an extra martial affair to satisfy her isn't a factor. As mentioned earlier as to the "consequences", the outcome of what could happen if discovered by the significant other. As for the husband, this is a perfect case label for a deontologist. The husband, as any logical thinking person, should see it that when you take the vow to "love, honor...