2. The state senator who introduced the bill is Richard J. Ross, a Republican.
3. After Think Progress called attention to this in a post titled "Bill Forces People Going Through Divorce To Get A Judge’s Permission Before Having Sex In Own Home"...
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.4. What?!
5. Googling, I see that back in 2011, one Robert Leclair — identified then as a "local Massachusetts lawmaker" — was proposing the law himself (and not as a constituent of Ross's). We're told: "Leclair is a divorcee himself and also the former president of Fathers United for Equal Justice."
6. I'm very sympathetic to children caught in the upheaval that is divorce, and a new man in the home — stepping into Dad's old role — may sometimes/usually make life harder for them, but: a. Maybe if ex-husband weren't so intent on using raw power to control his ex-wife, she'd still be married to him, b. Just because something is recognized as a problem doesn't mean that your solution is better than the problem, c. Laws that on paper oversolve problems and that in reality cannot/will not be enforced at all make a mockery of the rule of law, d. Legislators who introduce bills that they don't even support should be banned from engaging in sexual activity in the home or anywhere else until they withdraw that bill.
Posts
82 comments:
I like that MA allows citizens to give bills to Representatives to submit. Very interesting way to have a democracy work.
But I could easily see Mobys asking garbage submitted to damage a Representative's good reputation (if such things exist in Representatives).
Imagine a Democrat being asked to submit a bill that, oh, I don't know, taxes abortions at the request of someone who is actually a relative of a neighbor of someone who wants to run against that Representative.
Thats ok. Back seast of the car works fine anyway.
The proposed law is stupid. Laws can't fix everything. Sometimes, they make things worse. I don't see that there is anything else to say.
What is this new media phenomenon of coverage of bills introduced? Anyone who watches an entire session of a state legislature will witness a multitude of silly bills that go nowhere.
2. The state senator who introduced the bill is Richard J. Ross, a Republican.
Oh. So this means everyone should stop whining at perfectly normal governance. No matter what it is.
@Phil, if a Democrat had introduced the bill it would not have been covered by think"progress" at all.
Websites have to write something to generate hits. Thus the proliferation of posts about, essentially, nothing.
Maybe if ex-husband weren't so intent on using raw power to control his ex-wife, she'd still be married to him...
Assume much, huh, prof?
When we assume, it makes and ass out of u and me.
c. Laws that on paper oversolve problems and that in reality cannot/will not be enforced at all make a mockery of the rule of law,
HUZZA! That sums up 75% of the Federal legislation that Congress has dreamed up, paid off opponents of, misled the public about, and callously passed anyway for the last 50 years.
Are Republicans really that stupid?
- Under the state Constitution any citizen may file a proposed piece of legislation with the General Court through his or her representation or senator. This "right of free petition" is unique to Massachusetts. In addition, there is no prohibition upon an individual's right to continually refile a bill year after year.
- Equally important was the sharing of this lawmaking responsibility with the citizens of the Commonwealth. This new Constitutional tenant provided that all persons have the right to file legislation. The "Right of Free Petition" was formally established by Article XIX of the Massachusetts Constitution. This portion of the "Bill of Rights" states:
"The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the cannon good: to give instruction to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer."
Althouse said: "a. Maybe if ex-husband weren't so intent on using raw power to control his ex-wife, she'd still be married to him, b. Just because something is recognized as a problem doesn't mean that your solution is better than the problem, c. Laws that on paper oversolve problems and that in reality cannot/will not be enforced at all make a mockery of the rule of law, d. Legislators who introduce bills that they don't even support should be banned from engaging in sexual activity in the home or anywhere else until they withdraw that bill."
a.) Why presume it's the husband? The only reason to say "husband" is the presumption of systematic bias in divorce and child custody proceedings, which is the cause of Fathers United for Equal Justice.
As SOJO points out, are judges presently prevented from exercising such discretion on their own initiative in such proceedings? If not, why shouldn't the no-sex in the home with kids rule during pendency of divorce be uniform?
Isn't filing for divorce with virtual certainty that the male will be thrown out of the marital home yet still required to pay for it not an exercise of "raw power" by the "ex-wife"?
By the way, under the bill, the spouse residing with the children during the pendency of the divorce is NOT an "ex-wife" or "ex-husband".
b.) No kidding.
c.) The law doesn't require police enforcement, but could be handled within the on-going divorce proceedings, as are all "best interest of the child" motions.
d.) Stop using sex as a weapon.
Getting divorced is quite an experience for normal people.
And it tends to make you do stupid things regardless of race, religion, sex, or political affiliation.
HUZZA! That sums up 75% of the Federal legislation that Congress has dreamed up, paid off opponents of, misled the public about, and callously passed anyway for the last 50 years."
Equally true at the state and local level.
SOJO I suspect that your friend probably isn't paying the mortgage. If that is the case who's house it really?
The bill isn't a bad idea. Afterall in cases like the bill attempts to address it's the kids home and if asked I rather doubt that the kids involved wouldn't want either parent screwing someone other than the other parent in their home.
This democracy. Constituent offers bill which will be defeated. Good for everyone
Better than nothing is a high standard.
This is already pretty much the law, at least in California. Here is a discussion of it:
http://www.claerygreen.com/Family-Law-Blog/2014/March/Overnight-Dates-Could-Damage-Your-Custody-Case.aspx
It is not unreasonable, especially under a "best interests of the child" standard.
The ex-wife never uses her raw power?
A Woman scorned?
Please.
Blue state Cali, blue state MA.
If it's good enough for Cali, what difference, at this point, does it make?
And if the stupid party wasn't stupid, they'd point out, when asked, Cali already has this law, and Cali isn't known for being republican. Look the journo in the eye and ask if it's ok for Cali, why isn't it ok for MA?
At least it wasn't exactly in the "house".
Married Georgia teacher had threesome with students in classroom, another tryst at local Waffle House: police
"c. Laws that on paper oversolve problems and that in reality cannot/will not be enforced at all make a mockery of the rule of law, d. Legislators who introduce bills that they don't even support should be banned from engaging in sexual activity in the home or anywhere else until they withdraw that bill."
I see a certain inconsistency here.
"Maybe if ex-husband weren't so intent on using raw power to control his ex-wife, she'd still be married to him"
Hmm, or maybe if the woman wasn't an adulterous slut, he wouldn't be divorcing her.
Oh, but that's right, everything a woman does is OK.
Children are abused by the male lovers of single women far more than single women not in casual sex relationships.
And, yea, if you are in the middle of a divorce, you shouldn't be dragging random people into your house in front of your children to fuck them. If you are a single parent, you shouldn't be bringing your casual sex partners home to your children. It damages the children.
No decent man would screw around with a woman getting divorced who has minor kids. But you can't legislate morality or stop stupidity. Just don't subsidize it.
But seeing it with a Harvard grad and her genteel bf living in a quaint university town in 2014 is just spooky, so I would no longer hold that opinion under any circumstances. It's obviously inhumane to force an adult to not have sex in their place of residence for years on end, effectively stunting their ability to form new relationships (or turning them into a liars) just because they are a divorced mother or father, receiving alimony, or getting public assistance. (Even felons can be allowed conjugal visits.)"
SOJO the crux of your argument is me-ism. In this country no one is forced to or required to be a parent. It's a choice and when the choice is made along with it comes the obligations and responsibilities of being a parent. In the child's home the rights of the parent are subordinate to the rights of the minor child. When choosing to become a parent that is what you sign up for.
Apparently Republicans are that stupid.
Amazing these Republicans, always messing around in peoples' bedrooms. They just.won't.fucking.stop.
Unbelievable. It's like the GOP is committing slow-motion suicide.
Dems are cackling in glee.
And, yea, if you are in the middle of a divorce, you shouldn't be dragging random people into your house in front of your children to fuck them...
Fuck you fascist, trying to tell consenting adults what they can do with each other. Always for the childRUN of course. Hitler did it for the childRUN to....
What's amazing is that there are people on here who support these laws. I'm convinced by now Evangelical Christians are the same as liberal fascists. They just approach their fascism from a different angle. The thing they have in common is an insatiable desire for power and to control people.
Whatever happened to "mind your own fucking business"?
Actually, as a child of divorce I would have loved this bill when I was a kid. The first time my mom had her boyfriend spend the night my brother came and woke me up the following morning to inform me mom's bedroom door was closed. Mom's door was never closed. To make matters worse, HIS car was still parked in the drive. I tried coming up with excuses as to why the door was closed (maybe she was sick and didn't want to disturb us) and why the car was still in the drive (maybe he got a ride home). We crept around and finally decided it was okay to turn on the tv. How awkward when HE finally came out of the bedroom and made himself something to eat.
Divorce sucks. Having your boyfriend spend the night when you have kids sucks even more.
I guess there are only "Republican" judges in Calif and Mass?
Oh, right, if a judge is a Democrat all they need is a pen and a phone, not a law that's equally applied.
I'm convinced by now Evangelical Christians are the same as liberal fascists.
For God's sake, what a stupid rant!
Whatever happened to "mind your own fucking business"?
I've watched liberal woman dragging their children along through a series of male lovers, each time dumped on their kids as their new dad.
The disaster that this creates for the children becomes everybody's problem.
ST - fuck you and the fascist horse you rode in on. Legislating morality, yeah that really works.
Douchebag.
Kelly - this guy should parade your sob story to pass this law. So we should interfere with consenting adults because YOU had a trauma?
Fuck you.
The couple is not divorced yet and adultery is still a crime in Massachusetts.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section14
Just because the law isn't enforced, the act is still a crime.
XMas - sorry but that MA law would not hold up under scrutiny. Sounds like a violation of the 4th amendment.
"Why presume it's the husband?"
Because LeClair.
Anyways, keep at it fundies! I'm sure the American people are all for laws poking into our bedrooms!
Double down, no TRIPLE-down on it!
"Actually, as a child of divorce I would have loved this bill when I was a kid. The first time my mom had her boyfriend spend the night my brother came and woke me up the following morning to inform me mom's bedroom door was closed. Mom's door was never closed. To make matters worse, HIS car was still parked in the drive. I tried coming up with excuses as to why the door was closed (maybe she was sick and didn't want to disturb us) and why the car was still in the drive (maybe he got a ride home). We crept around and finally decided it was okay to turn on the tv. How awkward when HE finally came out of the bedroom and made himself something to eat."
Why do you imagine that this law would have solved your problem? You can't believe that the existence of a law causes the law to be followed.
What's needed is social pressure. Not law.
ST - fuck you and the fascist horse you rode in on. Legislating morality, yeah that really works.
No, but public shaming of whoring does work on women.
We just stopped doing it. To our regret.
Somehow, women getting off trumps the interests of their children.
ST - why do conservatives hate the idea of women having mind-shattering orgasms? This is the greatest triumph for modern feminism, FORCING men to give their women orgasms. Before that it was 'slam, bam thank you maam' with no thought to HER pleasure.
It sure is nice to see the victory against the forces of Neanderthal darkness.
@Alex
Your comment is stupidity squared.
I've spent most of my life in San Francisco and New York City.
I've experienced just about everything in terms of sex that you can imagine. I'm a professional musician. When times are good, and I'm in the spotlight, strange woman invite me into the back room for a blow job.
You don't have any sense at all.
We always need to approach any liberal rabble-rousing that goes on daily at Soros' Think Progress skeptically.
As they often do in all their opinions, they chose to ridicule a Republican, rather than research the MA constitution. Lying by ommission is big in all Soros-sponsored publications - and there are many of them.
"Maybe if ex-husband weren't so intent on using raw power to control his ex-wife, she'd still be married to him..."
Maybe if you weren't such a shrew you would still be married to your ex husband, instead of taking in lawn workers in search of a meal ticket.
Amirite?
Laws against sex in Massachusetts Bay is no surprise. This guy really wants a law against Runaway Brides.
The Saudi police could let him borrow some Sharia Laws. Take away all that bowing to a god and diet restrictions and men should all like Sharia Laws especially the ones allowing owning underage sex slave brides.
Women are herd animals. They hate being singled out of the herd.
Back when I was a kid, women were shamed for whoring. It worked. Few women wanted to risk the public disgrace of whoring.
Women are still herd animals. All that has changed is that the rules governing the herd. Public disgrace is now conferred on women who don't coarsen themselves and screw around. Few women want to risk this disgrace.
My guess is that the same number of women are orgasmic as back in the dark ages of the 50s.
Shame women for whoring again and most of them will stop whoring.
slut-shaming, that's what conservatives do.
When I got divorced 35 years ago, my ex-wife included just that stipulation in he proceedings and it was e by the judge. The only effect it had was causing me to marry my significant other as I had custody of my son who was alienated from his mother.
So, it's OK for women to do this ?
slut-shaming, that's what conservatives do.
I suspect that the real issue for you is fear that you'll lose access or experienced diminished access to women.
My wife is a divorce attorney in TX and I can tell you that this is basically already the law, at least in TX (and from the comments, it sounds like CA as well). It is extremely common for temporary orders in a divorce to require that no 3rd parties stay overnight in the house at the same time as the children and generally, judges frown upon overnight visitors in general custody battles as well.
At the end of the day, 3rd parties are unknowns to the judge and aren't someone that the judge can examine to determine fitness to leave with the children. Therefore, even if the custodial parent is deemed suitable for custody, the judge can't know if they are bringing over dates that will leave lines of coke on the coffee table for the kids to discover (this is a true story). Therefore, as my wife tells her clients, as long as the government is involved in your family life (and it is for all divorces and custody fights), you can't live your life normally and have to be squeeky clean. Things that normal parents do when the court isn't watching can get your kids taken away from you if you're in court.
One final true story (Though a bit of a tangent) - my wife had a client who had told her that she was clean in court on a simple, agreed, divorce. The judge casually asked both parents if they used drugs. After the opposing party lied and said never, my wife's client said "that's not true, we smoked marijuana together last week". Just like that, kids were headed to foster care for a minimum of 6 months. If you don't want the government in your life, don't have kids or don't get divorced.
Wow Alex, actually I don't think this bill is a good idea. I don't see how it's enforceable for one thing. I'm saying as a kid I would have liked the bill. Kids think differently, see things differently. Jeez dude, why so passionate over something that is never going to happen?
"Why do you imagine that this law would have solved your problem? You can't believe that the existence of a law causes the law to be followed.
What's needed is social pressure. Not law."
Amen to that. I hope it really is true that almost everyone knows this to be true.
It should be the norm in divorces that you can't bring your boyfriends or girlfriends home overnight if your kids are there. I don't think it needs to be a law, but I think it should be a standard part of custody agreements.
"Why do you imagine that this law would have solved your problem?"
While I don't agree that it should be a law, I do think it would solve the problem for most people. Most people probably wouldn't bring boyfriends or girlfriends home with children present if it were illegal.
"Most people probably wouldn't bring boyfriends or girlfriends home with children present if it were illegal."
I will stipulate to that, just as I am sure we will both agree that there still would be very widespread lawbreaking. I would imagine that "most people" follow marijuana laws too, after all. Or hell, even jaywalking laws.
Freeman, I agree with your point about custody settlements 100%.
The problem is that in every Statehouse and in Congress, there is a Legislative Service Bureau (the name or acronyms probably change) whose sole job is to write up whatever weird bill a legislator asks for, complete with whatever amendments to current law are required to make it happen, so any constituent or his legislator with a lamebrain idea can get a law. Where do you think the 2,400 pages of the Affordable Care Act came from?
I've experienced just about everything in terms of sex that you can imagine.
Shame on you, you slutty whore. Immoral pieces of trash like you are wrecking our society and destroying our country.
(You DID say we should be shaming whores, no? Or is it another one of your double standards that only apply to females while males get a free pass?)
I think women undergoing divorce sometimes engage in spite fucking. They take as their conjugal partner whatever guy (or gal) who will cause that lousy prick husband the most distress. Children are sometimes collateral damages in these war games. If the bombing of Dresden was acceptable in order to defeat Hitler, then surely a week end with a biker gang is a tolerable price to pay to make that stinking pile of horse shit understand how contemptible and unworthy of love he truly is......There should be a law against spite fucking.
Believe it not, responsible adults can interact with each other in a home environment without having sex from the chandeliers. But this country is afraid and screwed up over the potential of a little sexy time. And all women are sluts unless proven otherwise. Ultra-strange society we live in.
Or is it another one of your double standards that only apply to females while males get a free pass?
What you call a double standard is just common sense. Fairness has nothing to do with this shit.
That common sense will return with a vengeance, I promise you.
But this country is afraid and screwed up over the potential of a little sexy time.
Bullshit.
It's time to return to putting the interests and safety of the kids over the selfish desires of women.
Nobody's afraid of anything.
The leftist pretense to sexual rebellion is incredibly stupid and dull.
Look at Althouse. She's a believer in state sponsored hedonism. That's where we are at now.
The herd of women has been converted to state sponsored hedonism, along with state sponsored birth control and abortion.
garage, your bit is so damned stupid. You are on the side of orthodoxy and government control. There is nothing sexy about that.
""Most people probably wouldn't bring boyfriends or girlfriends home with children present if it were illegal."
I agree. All my ex-wife's action did was make my arrangement permanent sooner than it might have been. My second wife also had kids so it was a moot issue.
A friend of mine was paying alimony while his ex-wife's boyfriend lived with her. The alimony was incentive for them not to marry as it would end if she remarried. My partner got divorced about that time and included a bonus of $10,000 if his ex got married within five years.
Surgeons running trauma centers had problems with wives. Too much night call and stress. I got divorced again a few years later and that was it for me.
All my ex-wife's action did was make my arrangement permanent sooner than it might have been.
As far as kids go, that's likely preferable if it prevents a string of different girlfriends being brought home instead.
Divorce sucks. Having your boyfriend spend the night when you have kids sucks even more.
Maybe your mom should've thought more about your needs than her own. Needn't be a law.
What is this new media phenomenon of coverage of bills introduced? Anyone who watches an entire session of a state legislature will witness a multitude of silly bills that go nowhere.
The "War on Women".
garage: "And all women are sluts unless proven otherwise.
Well, that was certainly the lefty line when Palin was a VP candidate.
Even though nothing in her past ever remotely suggested such a thing.
Actually, the fact that she wasn't and isn't only spurred the left onto dizzying heights of "slut" accusations.
Fen's Law.
Alex said...
ST - fuck you and the fascist horse you rode in on. Legislating morality, yeah that really works.
Douchebag.
3/22/14, 12:27 PM"
Man you're on a comedy gold roll. This from a guy who thinks single-payer nationalized health care is a moral imperative.
Can't the parent just have their new partner over, when the kids are visiting/staying with the other parent?
Many former couples I know have a rule, that they can not introduce their new partner to their child until they introduce them to the other parent. Parents shouldn't be learning of new partners from their kids.
Imagine a husband/father tring to collect a few personal items from his home due to a restraining order,and with police presence there is a guy sitting on the couch drinking a beer as mom's new boy friend. Hard not to go ballistic. Most couples are not married, where I live.
Once again, we as society should mind our own fucking business.
"Many former couples I know have a rule, that they can not introduce their new partner to their child until they introduce them to the other parent."
That's a great rule for most. Every functional divorced couple should adopt that rule.
geez, Alex, why do you hate children?
Why do you imagine that this law would have solved your problem? You can't believe that the existence of a law causes the law to be followed."
Wow! What an amazing point of view from a law professor. Imagine if every rule making and legislative body in the country were to embrace this point of view.
Newly seperated mom banging boyfriends at home is just such a wonderful teachable moment for her kids. Dad doing a parade of woman on visitation nights is equally instructive. I can scarcely believe that anyone here commenting that that's ok behavior is serious.
Is there no pity for judges?
It's plainly unconstitutional, surely? But aside from that, why drag judges into having to decide whether or where someone is entitled to have sex? Isn't that what we are moving away from as a society?
I hope it is just a phase of the moon, but the sweep of comments suggests a certain lack of charity and civility.
I live in Mass and I like the idea that our Reps can introduce bills for us. It means that those of us who are Republicans have a chance to have our voices heard, given we don't have enough Reps or Senators in the General Court to sustain a veto.
And Sgt Ted makes a good point about the "other parent". Statistics from Canada (close enough) show that kids are at higher risk in their first few years with a new Father in the house. This bill wouldn't solve that, but it would provide a more orderly way to introduce the new parent.
Regards — Cliff
As for public shaming, it doesn't seem to be working here. Poor Ms Lonna Kin.
Regards — Cliff
Alex,
The Massachusetts Bar Association disagrees with your assessment. Adultery laws could survive SC review. Though the last time the law was used was almost 30 years ago, the conviction survived judicial review.
http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2004/v6-n2/is-adultery-still-a-crime
Unfuckingbelivable...
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/trs/trslaw/lawidx3.htm
Very interesting topic and presentation. One comment perked my thoughts, if we do not assume the spouse being denied to have new amour sleep over is male or female, I can think of one instance I heard about that does pose a threat to the children. In this case, the mom is a registered escort and has done that in the past. She happened to kidnap her children so her legal standing is beyond "iffy", but in the grey area where a divorce opens up one of the spouses to accusation of prostitution, I see where this could make the divorce proceeding further complicated...and the saftey of the children would make it another bone of contention for child custody. How can you prove that a sleep over partner is not paying for the priveledge somehow, maybe even as a good samaratin, and then accusations of prostitution muddy everything? I see these are good areas for debate, but my true favor automatically goes against this bill. I think it oversteps privacy, and I think there must already be laws surrounding the divorce process that offer protection to children. We can not take away children from either parent because one of the parents cheats on the other either, that is up to the couple to file for divorce or not, so if you are legally allowed to "forgive" your spouse for cheating in your own home, then i guess you can't legally control what they do in the privacy of the bedroom with consenting adults after you officially leave the home. Seems to me it is water under the bridge. If there is reason to believe mother or father is involved in prostitution, that already has laws to deal with it.
Post a Comment