GOP Bill Would Force Divorcing Women To Get Permission Before Sex

[Tx4obama]

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

GOP Bill Would Force Divorcing Women To Get Permission Before Sex
http://www.alan.com/2014/03/22/gop-bill-would-force-divorcing-women-to-get-permission-before-sex/

Bill Forces People Going Through Divorce To Get A Judge’s Permission Before Having Sex In Own Home

There’s nothing that sets the mood for a romantic evening like petitioning a judge for permission to have sex at the end of the night.

If Massachusetts State Sen. Richard J. Ross (R) gets his way, that’s exactly what many women (and men) would have to do if they have children and are going through a divorce. In fact, not only would permission-less coitus be banned, but so too would the romantic evening and many dating activities.

Ross’ bill seeks to amend Massachusetts divorce law with the following provision (emphasis added):

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.

The legislation, S787, was first filed in early 2013. On Thursday, it received an extension for consideration in the State House until June 30. In its current state, the bill does not specify what the penalty is for pre-divorce copulation.

-snip-

Full post here: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/21/3417400/massachusetts-judge-sex/

[MannyGoldstein]

1. We have something like 4 Republicans left in our state government

And still they have to do the craziest #%^*ing things they can think of.

Mind blowing.

[Arcanetrance]

2. That's what they specialize in.

[mindwalker_i]

4. Honestly, it looks to me like they're saying all this crazy shit

to keep people from focusing on important things, like who pays taxes, unemployment and such.

[Scuba]

18. Bingo!

[yeoman6987]

26. First no smoking with children in the car or house

And now no sex with children in the house. What is next?

[mindwalker_i]

3. Where's Newt when you need his saggy ass?

I wonder if this could be applied to Tender Vitter...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. This is nothing short of MEDIEVAL.

What insanity.

Don't they have better things to do than think up this shit?

[freshwest]

17. Let's hope women will find nothing better to do in 2014 than vote them out of office! What a world!

[Separation]

6. That's ridiculous.

I had the honor of dating a nurse that was going through a divorce and we got a little freaky in the shower. A nice sized hole ended up in the wall, thankfully the hubby fixed it before next weekends visit.

[Token Republican]

7. Its wonky but not crazy eyed wonky

The article is misleading. The bill applies to both men and women. Plus it doesn't apply to every divorce, it would only kick in when children are involved. I'm assuming the intent is to prevent people from having sexual relationships in the home when there are children before mommy and daddy get divorced.

It strikes me as falling into a "for the children" kind of thing.

Its still stupid, but poor reporting is at play too.

Still, I'd love to see how they would enforce this proposal. Maybe they could hire the unemployed mattress tag police and retrain them to watch mattresses for the horizontal bop.

[nomorenomore08]

12. It's just really fucking creepy to butt into people's lives to this extent.

But I guess that's what the so-called "pro-life" way of thinking gets you - everyone's body is public property.

[pipoman]

37. A divorce petition is asking a court to butt into

People's lives. ..that is what every divorce is about...third party mediation. .

[ManiacJoe]

13. Yes, misleading reporting.

[Scuba]

19. See post #4.

[cui bono]

8. There was just that case in NYC about the woman who lost custody because she had sex.

I forget the details exactly, I remember there was a thread about it on here a few weeks ago I think.

[Lunacee_2013]

49. The woman who also

Had to get an abortion because she accidentally got pregnant with her b.f. and the ex-husband wanted his child support payments back? That case is messed up too.

[cui bono]

55. Yeah, and iirc the judge granted custody and reimbursement of the child care

that had already been spent to take care of the child.

Sooooo messed up.

[CFLDem]

10. +100

How do these freaks get elected in the first place?!

[marble falls]

11. Someone is grinding an ax in the legislature over a tough divorce.

[uppityperson]

14. what the holy hell is their problem?

[Warpy]

15. Republicans: keeping women servile and in chains since they arose as a party.

While I think it's poor practice to screw around while waiting for the decree, it's also entirely too human to condemn or have to ask another male owner for permission first.

Ross must be one of those typical bitter divorced men you find at MRA sites.

[pipoman]

38. This has nothing to do with women specifically

[left is right]

40. actually it does

women with children are much more likely to stay in the family home until at least the divorce is settled and the home is sold

[Thor_MN]

42. Cause vs. effect....

The proposed law is goofy and stupid, but not sexist in any way, as it does not distinguish between men and women. The fact that is more likely for the mother to remain in the house with the children is the sexist portion of the equation.

[Cha]

16. File that under..

"You have Got to Be Shitting Me".

fooking Neanderthals.. need a time out.

[MadrasT]

20. Why did you change the headline of the article in your OP to frame it as gender specific?

The actual headline of the article is about "PEOPLE GOING THROUGH DIVORCE". The ruling is about PEOPLE.

You changed it to "DIVORCING WOMEN" which makes is seem like the bill is gender specific.

It is not gender specific.

[n2doc]

22. +1 n/t

[Duckhunter935]

52. good question

It would be nice to know the answer

[Tx4obama]

58. See Comment #57

[Tx4obama]

57. Actually, it is a real headline. I was going to post the Alan Colmes article...

... so I put Liberaland's headline as the subject line...

.... then in the mean time I had read the other article and ended up putting the other article in the text box.

I simply forgot to change the subject line.

I added the link to the subject line's article up in the OP.

I hope that answers your question sufficiently.

[quaker bill]

21. So what happens when "getting some strange"

is the reason for the divorce in the first place. In short, what if the new relationship was in place before the divorce papers were filed?

Does it need to stop until the court process is finished?

It seems as if you make out of wedlock coitus illegal during a divorce, it would be even more illegal before the divorce is filed.

In that extra-marital affairs are one of the most common proximal causes for divorce filings (obviously the affair can have causes that reach farther back in time), it seems that the State would be taking on a rather large and colorful enforcement challenge.

Of course, the republicans have no intent of actually taking on the challenge, as they would never hire the people or fund such a program, as this would be Big Government writ large. What they would like to do is to pick a case or two and pin a scarlet letter on some woman in the public square.

It is just more bread and circus to keep us distracted while the 1% cleans out our bank accounts and retirement plans.

[Whisp]

23. What really galls me is that

these GOPers are running around doing this kind of evil shit and there are DUers running around calling the president names Ted Nugent calls him and sucking up all the oxygen while the GOPers gets a pass.

Shit like what is being done in this OP gets little attention because some ******** on DU is starving for attention like a spoiled child.

[pipoman]

39. Or people like the OP are stirring shit

And making this something it isn't. ..

[Tx4obama]

59. Take it up with Alan Colmes at Liberaland, it is his headline - I've added the link to the OP

Also, please see Comment #57 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024707239#post57

[Nanjing to Seoul]

24. Can you imagine the checklist they woud need to fill out?

And if they don't answer it correctly, will a cop be there in the bedroom saying things like:

"You're not doing it according to your agreement. He isn't having fun."
"You said you would only do it for 15 minutes. It's been 35. Time to stop."
"Will the oral follow the vaginal sex? If so, for how long?"
"Your agreement said nothing about BDSM. . .I'm afraid you're both under arrest for unapproved sexual contact."

Wow. . .Orwell was only off by 30 years.

[chrisa]

25. Really? This is what they waste time on?

There are people starving, people shooting each other, and rampant corruption, but let's make sure that people need permission from their spouse before having sex while going through a divorce (not that this is even valid in the first place).

This is beyond creepy.

[pipoman]

32. And the OP changing the headline leads

to erroneous assumptions. They only need permission from the court to use the kid's home for their love pit in the wake of separation prior to divorce. Sounds to me it doesn't prohibit anyone from having sex.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. While it's obviously a bad bill, the headline is also deeply misleading. N.t.

[shenmue]

28. I can't believe this

Of course, it's the women who will have to ask. Not the men.

What the hell is this?

[pipoman]

31. No, that was the OP changing the story to something it isn't. .

[polihood]

29. I thought this was

.... a joke

[pipoman]

30. Probably the number one complaint

heard by divorce lawyers and judges is that the custodial parent is carrying on in the family home with the kids there. Further, i would wager it leads to more violence and arguement than any other divorce related problem. It doesn't look to prohibit dating, just bringing a third party into the home while emotions are running high. If only people going through divorce could consider the impact on their minor children above their own desire to hurt the estranged spouse.

That said, I too don't know why you felt it is important to change the storyline to something it isn't.

[tanyev]

33. Less government in your lives. Unless you might be having sex.

[ananda]

34. This current war on women sure has intensity and persistence.

It's worse than anything I've seen or experienced in my lifetime,
and women's oppression was never good.

[pipoman]

36. Except this has nothing to do with gender. ..

[magical thyme]

35. 1. it's not gender-specific. 2. it is specific to "in the home." 3.it's where custody is involved

4. it's just until the divorce is final. 5. it's not "can I go on a date please, Mr. Judge -- it just makes it automatically part of the process unless one or the other or both parties specifically agree.

IOW, you can date, you can fuck, but just don't do it at the home where the kids are until after the divorce is final.

I'm betting it's not even about the kiddies, but about one party or the other petitioning for custody due to the other's dating behavior. It just takes that out of the custody equation.

And it probably is in response to that recent highly publicized custody battle mentioned above, where the rich, cheating, prostitute using ex got custody because his wife dated during the proceedings.

[pipi_k]

41. That's exactly what it's about!

Because some people are just too clueless to realize that their behavior in the home can be used against them in order for the estranged spouse to gain custody of the children.

and maybe even the home, if it's in the best interests of the children to remain in the home but with a different parent.


This bill isn't about people having sex.


It's about parents dating and having sex in the home where children are living before the divorce becomes final.


And I suspect that more people commenting on this thing in a negative manner would actually be able to see some of the reasoning if this were proposed by a Democrat.

1. It's to protect the children
2. It's to protect the (current) custodial parent


and really...is there anyone here making negative comments about this thing who would be OK with his or her estranged spouse conducting a dating/sexual relationship in the home, in front of his or her children???

Want to date? Be discreet about it. Go out with a group of friends.

Want to have sex? Get a freaking babysitter and go to a motel. Don't screw around in the home where the kids live while the divorce is pending. Unless losing custody of the kids isn't all that important.

[Sweet Freedom]

46. They could add this to

the mandatory parenting class instead of making it a law.

(In my state, and any couple going through a divorce who have children are required to take a parenting class. Not sure if that's the case elsewhere.)

[Shoulders of Giants]

54. I'm stunned to see someone defending this here.

Even with all the conditions you mentioned, its still terrible.

[pipi_k]

60. So, I'm pretty sure

that most of those "defending" it gave reasons why.

In order to be taken seriously, it's probably a good idea to give cogent reasons why it's a "terrible" idea.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. It's a bad idea because it will make divorces more messy and painful more often than less.

It gives divorcing couples more reasons to spy on and sue one another.

[magical thyme]

63. I'm not defending it. The title is extremely misleading.

I neither agree nor disagree with it, because I don't pretend to know what the fallout will be. I don't think it's the horrible, mysogenist thing some people make it out to be, though, and I doubt it will make messy divorces any messier.

People prone to spying and treating divorce as war are going to do that with or without this law.

[Takket]

43. That should be grounds for expulsion from the state house

If you can propose something that is such a blatant violation of someone's rights to be made into law, then you must be truly ignorant of the law you are supposed to be defending and therefor are unqualified to hold the position. He should be kicked out by his peers.

[MrMickeysMom]

44. Would that penalty also be for Republicans having sex?

You'd have to consider a WHOLE DIFFERENT variety of coitus for that one…

[PowerToThePeople]

45. Lock 'em up.

[Lunacee_2013]

47. This is just creepy.

Whether its the wife or the husband who has to get permission, it's still wrong. The marriage is over and no one, least of all the courts, should be telling adults who they can/cannot have consensual sex with. Even if the couple's divorce isn't finalized, it's no one's business but their own. WTF is wrong with R.J. Ross? Hey Pervert! Stay out of other people's bedrooms!

[pipoman]

50. Did you read it?

Nobody is telling anyone who they can or cannot have sex with. They are being told where they can't have sex. That is in the children's home. It doesn't extend beyond the finalization of the divorce. Nobody has to ask anyone to have sex with anyone they wish.

[Lunacee_2013]

61. Yup, and I still find it creepy. Nt.

[Jefferson23]

48. snip*unless the express permission is granted by the courts. WTF? The courts are going to love

this. LOL

Why don't they just say, we don't want to talk about real problems and be done with it.

[pipoman]

51. I would bet more time is wasted

Arguing about this one topic than any other single topic in divorce courts. ..no, it will speed up the process.

[Faux pas]

53. When will they get the F

out of our bedrooms and vajayjays? I'm sick of the so-called moral police that started with raygun. You know, the guy that was screwing around with nancy when he was married to Jane Wyman.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Will the issuance of Chastity Belts be controlled by the state or contracted out?

[bluestate10]

64. Republicans claim to not like big government unless it's in people's

bedroom.

[Raksha]

65. I hope everyone read the update at the end of the article:

"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. Massachusetts law allows legislators to put forth a citizen’s piece of legislation, as Ross did in this case, though there is no requirement that they do so."

Someone posted this on Facebook earlier and I pointed that out. So even the senator who introduced the bill isn't in favor of it; he only did it as a courtesy to a constituent. I don't know why he wants to make the Republican Party look even more ridiculous than they usually do, but that's his business. I'm certainly not going to cry about it.