PDA

View Full Version : Mass. Bill Would Ban Sex At Home For Divorcing Parents




green73
03-25-2014, 03:51 AM
A Massachusetts state senator has filed a bill that could prohibit a divorcing parent from having sex in their own home.

Senator Richard J. Ross, a Wrentham Republican, filed by request Bill 787 (https://malegislature.gov/Bills/BillHtml/122340?generalCourtId=11)which would pertain to the divorcing parent still living in the family home. It states:


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.

.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/03/23/bill-would-forbid-divorcing-parents-massachusetts-from-having-sex-home/LNdv86n7K86w1ioJ3Jp4FO/story.html

Warrior_of_Freedom
03-25-2014, 03:54 AM
Richard J. Ross doesn't get much sex does he lol

tod evans
03-25-2014, 03:54 AM
But, but, think of the children!

How is the divorcee supposed to supplement her state awarded child-support and government freebies if it's illegal for her to bed prospective wallets?

Mini-Me
03-25-2014, 03:56 AM
At first I thought it was next Tuesday morning...but no, he's serious. WTF?

DamianTV
03-25-2014, 04:32 AM
Govt wants into your bedroom. Make no mistake about that. They want to control EVERY aspect of your lives and not just make you conform, but turn every Citizen into a fucking Borg Drone.

Voluntarist
03-25-2014, 05:29 AM
xxxxx

specsaregood
03-25-2014, 05:55 AM
Having been involved in Fathers' Rights for years and years, I can attest that there are a number of ideological factions to the movement, including a libertarian faction and a socially conservative faction. The socially conservative faction seems hell-bent on punishing women who dare attempt to tear apart what God hath brought together. This is one of those attempts. BTW: Ken Cuccinelli (in Virginia) was associated with that socially conservative faction - introducing bills to give a custody disadvantage to the parent who filed for divorce/custody (it's the same approach as the one in this article).

I don't think one needs to be a social conservative hell-bent on punishing women to think that while still married and going through a divorce that the mother of your children shouldn't be having other men over to bang in the bed/house you both still own. I don't have a real problem with this, seeing as how courts have swayed in favor of the female all these years...

tod evans
03-25-2014, 06:01 AM
I have a problem with more laws...

Ethics, or lack there of, should never be state mandated.

I also have problems with government being involved in child custody and mandated support payments...

This then leads to the government providing free food/housing and medical "for the children".........

Everything government gets involved in it fucks up..........................Everything!

specsaregood
03-25-2014, 06:07 AM
I have a problem with more laws...
Ok, yeah I'm with you there; I'm just saying I can see the positive intent from this proposed legislation and don't see it as "punishing". As long as the couple is married and property is joint owned then there shouldn't be any new romantic relationships introduced until all that stuff is ended or BOTH parties agree to allow it.

kathy88
03-25-2014, 07:56 AM
[QUOTE=specsaregood;5466776]Ok, yeah I'm with you there; I'm just saying I can see the positive intent from this proposed legislation and don't see it as "punishing". As long as the couple is married and property is joint owned then there shouldn't be any new romantic relationships introduced until all that stuff is ended or BOTH parties agree to allow it.[/QUOTE

And decent people will do this voluntarily :)

Origanalist
03-25-2014, 08:11 AM
[QUOTE=specsaregood;5466776]Ok, yeah I'm with you there; I'm just saying I can see the positive intent from this proposed legislation and don't see it as "punishing". As long as the couple is married and property is joint owned then there shouldn't be any new romantic relationships introduced until all that stuff is ended or BOTH parties agree to allow it.[/QUOTE

And decent people will do this voluntarily :)

"Decent people" in today's parlance means those that do what the state says they should.

kathy88
03-25-2014, 08:24 AM
[QUOTE=kathy88;5466836]

"Decent people" in today's parlance means those that do what the state says they should.

Unfortunately, yes in most cases.

moostraks
03-25-2014, 08:31 AM
After divorcing in Georgia I had a curfew where after I believe it was 11pm until 7 am I could not have an unrelated male in the house to whom I was not married. No joke, and this was from a divorce in the late 1990s. It was a large reason of why I am married now as my ex husband, an abusive drug addict (hard core drugs), was going to use it to get custody for children he refused to care for when it was his visitation period and would have me pick them up at the spur of the moment when he had something better come up as well as refused to notify and would not show as scheduled. No he was not financially responsible to the children either. I love my husband who is my best friend but was not interested in having the state in my life as control over my decisions were a relationship to go south again.

JK/SEA
03-25-2014, 08:45 AM
now mandatory....

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Achastity%20belt%20for%20women

Root
03-25-2014, 08:53 AM
Define "dating" in the home? What exactly does that mean? Can't use eHarmony or online dating sites? No texting or phone calls with the opposite sex? What about self gratification?

Such fail in voluntary human relationships, smh.

Philhelm
03-25-2014, 09:02 AM
now mandatory....

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Achastity%20belt%20for%20women

Probably NSFW.

jonhowe
03-25-2014, 09:19 AM
Ok, yeah I'm with you there; I'm just saying I can see the positive intent from this proposed legislation and don't see it as "punishing". As long as the couple is married and property is joint owned then there shouldn't be any new romantic relationships introduced until all that stuff is ended or BOTH parties agree to allow it.

So should adultery before a divorce is planned be outlawed as well?

What if the married couple liked to "swing" before the breakup?

specsaregood
03-25-2014, 09:30 AM
So should adultery before a divorce is planned be outlawed as well?

What if the married couple liked to "swing" before the breakup?

I thought adultery was outlawed already in a quite a few states. I don't think their status before the breakup should matter, as long as the property is jointly owned and the marriage is in place I think both parties should have to agree before you start inviting others to start coming over for such relationships. My understanding is that divorce is already hard on the kids; a decent person wouldn't be bringing people over to confuse them like this. It's a shame that we would even consider needing laws for this.

I would probably reword the proposed legislation so that instead of "unless the express permission is granted by the courts" that it would be "unless the express permission is granted by all property owners" or something similar. Make it a pro property rights law.

tangent4ronpaul
03-25-2014, 09:36 AM
Anyone know a stock ticker for hotels or motels in Mass that rent rooms by the hour? :D

-t

V3n
03-25-2014, 10:10 AM
I thought it meant they couldn't date each other, and was really confused why they wouldn't be allowed to try to reconcile 'romantically'.

Now I wonder if it does apply to 'with each other'... :confused:

tod evans
03-25-2014, 10:12 AM
Wonder if this fine piece of legislation applies to ***** too?

Isn't Taxachusettes one of the states that lets ***** marry?

pcosmar
03-25-2014, 10:13 AM
So much for keeping government out of the bedroom. :(

surf
03-25-2014, 11:44 AM
Senator Richard J. Ross, a Wrentham Republican, filed by request Bill 787 which would pertain to the divorcing parent still living in the family home....


Ross did not sponsor the bill, and he does not support it. In fact, the bill has no legislative sponsors, no support, and is in no way under consideration by anybody.

image problem for republicans?

when I saw this it was easy to believe that a republican would come up with something as pathetic as this.

and that's a bad image.

ZENemy
03-25-2014, 11:49 AM
lol!!


Government really IS the worlds most dangerous superstition there is.

Philhelm
03-25-2014, 11:59 AM
It's a shame that we would even consider needing laws for this.

It certainly is a shame, as there should never even be consideration of creating an intrusive law such as this.

specsaregood
03-25-2014, 12:14 PM
It certainly is a shame, as there should never even be consideration of creating an intrusive law such as this.

Should a spouse in the midst of a divorce but still listed as title holder and mostly owes money on the house have a say in who/what goes on in that house even if they aren't currently residing there? I think so.

Tod
03-25-2014, 03:04 PM
How about we just get government out of marriage altogether?

tod evans
03-25-2014, 03:06 PM
How about we just get government out of marriage altogether?

They'd figure out a way to fuck that up too.....

Kill it with fire?

Voluntarist
03-25-2014, 08:22 PM
xxxxx

Voluntarist
03-25-2014, 08:32 PM
xxxxx

euphemia
03-25-2014, 08:34 PM
Unfortunately, it seems people want the liberty without the responsibility. If people want liberty to do what they want, they should be prepared to assume responsibility for it. Pay for your own birth control, children, hospitalization, and disease treatment.