A newly wed, and not a divorcee

From a GOP bill in Massachusetts:

In divorce, separation, or 209A proceedings involving children and a marital home, the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home until a divorce is final and all financial and custody issues are resolved, unless the express permission is granted by the courts.

This is from a bill a Republican in MA is sponsoring. It will never pass, but, oh, “the optics”, as the kids say.

57 replies
  1. 1
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Rethuglicans, all of them, are fascist scum. Oh, let the corporatists pollute away, but we’re going to watch your bedrooms closely, serfs.

  2. 2
    catclub says:

    no big government there.
    also, what if the partners want to get back together?

  3. 3
    billgerat says:

    So the person leaving the home can screw all they want, 24/7? Typical Republican bullsh*t

  4. 4
    Mnemosyne says:

    Given that, 9 times out of 10, the person who stays in the home with the children is the wife while the husband moves out, I’m sensing a wee bit of discrimination here.

    Now if this guy wants to ban all separated-but-not-divorced parents from dating, I’ll get on board with that. Not that he ever will, of course.

  5. 5
    Ash Can says:

    Government small enough to drown in a bathtub crawl through the keyhole into your bedroom.

  6. 6
    MattF says:

    “…unless express permission is granted by the courts.” Um, yikes. What about masturbation?

  7. 7
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    So all sex must be conducted off premises?

  8. 8
    catclub says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Bill was sponsored by the hourly rate hotels. They are members of ALEC, too!

  9. 9

    “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

    Given that official Republican policies seem to involve making miserable people more miserable by removing anything in their lives that might make them happy (food, education, sex, money) so we all might find character in our suffering, I’d say this is perfectly in line with their core values.

  10. 10
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    From the link:

    Ross’ staff told ThinkProgress that the senator is “not in support” of the bill. It was filed on behalf of a constituent, Robert LeClair, as a courtesy to him.

    Ross should have told this Robert LeClair assclown to go pound sand.

  11. 11
    the Conster says:

    Ah yes, my state senator, the replacement for the other idiot Scott Brown. Fortunately, this bill stands a less than zero chance of going anywhere. The moron himself doesn’t even support it – it was just constituent service, said constituent being the head of a father’s rights org, which is all you need to know about this.

  12. 12
    Kay says:

    I’m a pollworker for the primary so I have to take an online course to learn the 500 new rules Republicans passed.

    I’m on this question:

    Curbside voting is conducted by…

    One of my choices is “1 pollworker and an attorney”

    I love that we all get a lawyer :)

  13. 13

    @Mnemosyne: Wouldn’t work.

    These people are modern day Pharisees and, as I recall, though the Law called for both parties in adultery to die, they only brought the woman to Jesus for judgment.

  14. 14
    srv says:

    What? Republicans finally do something thinking for the children, and y’all can only rain on it?

    The liberals here are so harsh the dudebro.

  15. 15
    Joshua Norton says:

    1630 called. They want their bill back.

  16. 16
    mai naem mobile says:

    Lemme guess that this Robert leclair is a rich white man who’s pissed off at his trophy wife who’s decided that she wants a younger manly man who can well…not need the blue pill.

  17. 17
    Ash Can says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Ross should have told this Robert LeClair assclown to go pound sand.

    This. Since when does a legislator introduce a bill s/he “doesn’t support” simply to do a constituent a favor? Methinks the “not in support” bit is a load of shit.

  18. 18
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @mai naem mobile: I heard the description of the bill and guessed it had something to do with custody battles. I read the comments and… confirmed. Men’s rights bullshit, natch. Predictable.

  19. 19
    Amir Khalid says:

    I just looked through the US Bill of Rights, and oddly enough it doesn’t happen to say anything about freedom of association. So would that make this bill — theoretically, at least — constitutional?

  20. 20
    Mike in NC says:

    It’s easier to understand the philosophy of the GOP by remembering that above all else, they are Calvinists who believe people are bad and need to be punished. Frequently.

    Exhibit A is Paul Ryan.

  21. 21
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Amir Khalid: “Freedom of Association” would be one of those penumbra things, probably traced back to the right to petition and the implied right of privacy, so you’d go on 1st and 4th Amendment grounds.

    With enough gymnastics, perhaps you can tie the forgotten 3rd Amendment into this.

  22. 22
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mike in NC: Paul Ryan is a pretty good example of someone who does need to be punished, frequently.

  23. 23
    JPL says:

    Another one falls. Congrats to Kentucky.

  24. 24
    LanceThruster says:

    That’s some mighty fine cock-blocking there, GOP!

  25. 25
    carolannie1949 says:

    You keep forgetting, women aren’t people to Republicans, but mere vessels for legitimately conceived fetuses. Hence women have no constitutional rights

  26. 26
    efgoldman says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: @Ash Can:
    From the MA legislature web site:

    Laws usually originate from proposals sponsored by legislators, the governor or from recommendations of a department or agency but can also emerge from an idea that a member of the public believes should become law.

    I believe, but am not sure, that the public can file a bill without any sponsorship by a member of the house or senate at all.

  27. 27
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @efgoldman: Hmmm. If that is indeed the case, then why did this Senator feel the need to shepherd this particular law through?

  28. 28
    Mike G says:

    After they abolish all agencies that regulate corporations, they’ll have plenty of laid-off staff for the Republican Sex Police.

  29. 29
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mike G: Ah, so it’s a “staffing neutral” proposal!

  30. 30
    NotMax says:

    unless the express permission is granted by the courts.

    Taking the concept of habeas corpus to an entirely different level.

  31. 31
    KG says:

    @Amir Khalid: no, it wouldn’t. The ninth and tenth amendments were intended to make clear that the rights in the first eight amendments were not an exclusive list. This has been a fight since before the constitution was ratified.

  32. 32
    NotMax says:

    @NotMax

    “Sure, let’s go back to my place. Just have to make a quick stop at Night Court first.”

  33. 33
    KG says:

    So, let me run some scenarios by the group… If a spouse leaves and takes the kids with them, the one remaining behind can’t have sex in the house? If the couple is renting, this wouldn’t apply? If the house is separate property, this wouldn’t apply? And, if the house is owned in trust, then what? Oh, best one: what if the couple owns two homes and one spouse vacates to the second home?

  34. 34
    Baud says:

    unless the express permission is granted by the courts.

    Known as the writ of habeas fuckus.

  35. 35
    tofubo says:

    also, too:

    Because nothing says small government like legislating what pets people can have based on their sexual identity.

    http://kyrasmusings.tumblr.com.....nment-like

  36. 36
    danielx says:

    …unless the express permission is granted by the courts.

    Such permission shall not be granted unless:

    a) both parties to be involved in said activities detail to the court exactly what activities are contemplated, and

    b) both parties take an oath that they will not enjoy such activities, but merely participate in them.

    See, now there’s a bill Republicans could, ah, get behind – satisfying their appetite for pantysniffing and their urge to make sure people aren’t happy (especially poor people, but let’s not clutter things up).

  37. 37
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    “Not tonight, dear, I don’t feel like applying for a writ.”

  38. 38

    Love the b boys reference Doug.

  39. 39
    Tara the Antisocial Social Worker says:

    @danielx:

    Such permission shall not be granted unless:

    a) both parties to be involved in said activities detail to the court exactly what activities are contemplated, and

    b) both parties take an oath that they will not enjoy such activities, but merely participate in them.

    c) both parties agree not to use any of that icky birth control like slutty sluts.

  40. 40
    DougJ says:

    @ranchandsyrup:

    Glad someone got it!

  41. 41
    Tara the Antisocial Social Worker says:

    I’m still trying to figure out what “conducting a dating relationship in the house” covers. If I’m looking at okcupid, do I have to do it on my laptop computer in the car?

  42. 42
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Tara the Antisocial Social Worker:

    I think it means letting the new boyfriend sleep over.

  43. 43
    Birthmarker says:

    If the wives are smart they will vacate and leave the kids with the husband!! Then see how long that lasts!

    Most people I know divorced because they became involved with a third party. They seem to tough it out til they fall in love with someone new…

  44. 44

    @DougJ: because the goopers can’t, they won’t, they don’t stop.

  45. 45
    the Conster says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    What if he was too drunk to drive home and slept on the couch?

  46. 46
    opiejeanne says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: campaign contributions?

  47. 47
    Funkula says:

    @Baud: Habeas porcus.

  48. 48
    gbear says:

    I think both parents should have to receive written permission from their children before having sex after marriage. Crayola is an acceptable medium. The children also get to pick the mood music.

  49. 49
    Ian says:

    @KG:
    The answer to each and every one of those questions is- The woman.

  50. 50
    Ruckus says:

    @gbear:
    That could be a bit harsh one might think.

    On the upside it might get some parents to at least explain sex better.

  51. 51
    YellowJournalism says:

    the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home

    Solution? Backyard sexy-time!

  52. 52
    brettvk says:

    @YellowJournalism: A tent. A gazebo. The pool. A treehouse…

  53. 53
    Tara the Antisocial Social Worker says:

    @Mnemosyne: It says “dating OR sexual relationship,” not just sexual. That could include having the boyfriend over for coffee.

    On the other hand, if it’s a one-night stand, one might argue that it’s not a relationship, so it’s ok.

  54. 54
    Betsy says:

    @KG: how about if the kid(s) are from the homestaying spouse’s earlier relationship — not the guy’s who left? And so on. Great hypos!

  55. 55
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    This is Massachusetts. There is an equal chance that we’ll pass a law mandating that all school lunches involve eating the faces off of live kittens as there is that we’ll pass a teabagger trash proposal as stupid as this one. Ross should tie a 50 pound weight around his neck and jump in the Charles River.

  56. 56
    NonyNony says:

    @Birthmarker:

    If the wives are smart they will vacate and leave the kids with the husband!! Then see how long that lasts!

    That’s actually a good way for a woman to lose custody of her kids. Judges are sympathetic towards mothers, but they aren’t sympathetic towards mothers who leave their kids behind and walk out.

  57. 57
    Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    In divorce, separation, or 209A proceedings involving children and a marital home, the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home until a divorce is final and all financial and custody issues are resolved, unless the express permission is granted by the courts.

    Yeah! So all I have to do, as a husband who’s moved out, is say my bitch of an ex-wife owes me money, and I can veto her sex life indefinitely?

    I can’t see how this could possibly go wrong…

Comments are closed.