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.
Villago Delenda Est
Rethuglicans, all of them, are fascist scum. Oh, let the corporatists pollute away, but we’re going to watch your bedrooms closely, serfs.
catclub
no big government there.
also, what if the partners want to get back together?
billgerat
So the person leaving the home can screw all they want, 24/7? Typical Republican bullsh*t
Mnemosyne
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.
Ash Can
Government small enough to
drown in a bathtubcrawl through the keyhole into your bedroom.MattF
“…unless express permission is granted by the courts.” Um, yikes. What about masturbation?
Omnes Omnibus
So all sex must be conducted off premises?
catclub
@Omnes Omnibus: Bill was sponsored by the hourly rate hotels. They are members of ALEC, too!
Comrade Dread
“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.
Villago Delenda Est
From the link:
Ross should have told this Robert LeClair assclown to go pound sand.
the Conster
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.
Kay
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 :)
Comrade Dread
@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.
srv
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.
Joshua Norton
1630 called. They want their bill back.
mai naem mobile
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.
Ash Can
@Villago Delenda Est:
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.
FlipYrWhig
@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.
Amir Khalid
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?
Mike in NC
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.
Villago Delenda Est
@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.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mike in NC: Paul Ryan is a pretty good example of someone who does need to be punished, frequently.
JPL
Another one falls. Congrats to Kentucky.
LanceThruster
That’s some mighty fine cock-blocking there, GOP!
carolannie1949
You keep forgetting, women aren’t people to Republicans, but mere vessels for legitimately conceived fetuses. Hence women have no constitutional rights
Villago Delenda Est
@efgoldman: Hmmm. If that is indeed the case, then why did this Senator feel the need to shepherd this particular law through?
Mike G
After they abolish all agencies that regulate corporations, they’ll have plenty of laid-off staff for the Republican Sex Police.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mike G: Ah, so it’s a “staffing neutral” proposal!
NotMax
Taking the concept of habeas corpus to an entirely different level.
KG
@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.
NotMax
@NotMax
“Sure, let’s go back to my place. Just have to make a quick stop at Night Court first.”
KG
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?
Baud
Known as the writ of habeas fuckus.
tofubo
also, too:
Because nothing says small government like legislating what pets people can have based on their sexual identity.
http://kyrasmusings.tumblr.com/post/80500365017/because-nothing-says-small-government-like
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.
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).
Villago Delenda Est
“Not tonight, dear, I don’t feel like applying for a writ.”
ranchandsyrup
Love the b boys reference Doug.
Tara the Antisocial Social Worker
@danielx:
c) both parties agree not to use any of that icky birth control like slutty sluts.
DougJ
@ranchandsyrup:
Glad someone got it!
Tara the Antisocial Social Worker
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?
Mnemosyne
@Tara the Antisocial Social Worker:
I think it means letting the new boyfriend sleep over.
Birthmarker
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…
ranchandsyrup
@DougJ: because the goopers can’t, they won’t, they don’t stop.
the Conster
@Mnemosyne:
What if he was too drunk to drive home and slept on the couch?
opiejeanne
@Villago Delenda Est: campaign contributions?
Funkula
@Baud: Habeas porcus.
gbear
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.
Ian
@KG:
The answer to each and every one of those questions is- The woman.
Ruckus
@gbear:
That could be a bit harsh one might think.
On the upside it might get some parents to at least explain sex better.
YellowJournalism
Solution? Backyard sexy-time!
brettvk
@YellowJournalism: A tent. A gazebo. The pool. A treehouse…
Tara the Antisocial Social Worker
@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.
Betsy
@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!
MoeLarryAndJesus
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.
NonyNony
@Birthmarker:
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.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
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…