Don’t Try This At Home: New Law Would Bar Sex in Home By Couples Awaiting Divorce

Wrentham Selectman Robert Leclair believes that there is a long overdue problem that needs to be addressed on Beacon Hill: parents having sex in their homes while awaiting a divorce. One could call this the ultimate nanny state legislation except that it includes sex with the nanny or anyone else while a divorce is pending — Schwarzennegger take note.

The bill was sponsored by State Sen. Richard Ross.

Leclair and other supporters in the town of Wrentham insist that the ban could cut down on domestic abuse. Of course, it also denies consenting adults of the choice over their intimate relations. It is clearly unconstitutional and a denial of privacy rights.

Leclair hardly improved things when he was quoted as saying “It’s not intended to abridge the rights of anybody. If they want to have an extra-marital affair, just get away from the home.” Perhaps they could go over to Leclair’s house.

Here is the provision:

Section 31 of chapter 208 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:-

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.

Whether you are a libertarian or social liberal or civil libertarian (or all of the above), this proposal should have been offensive on the first draft.

What is fascinating is that last year Leclair denounced the selectmen and specifically Chairman Bob Cohen for being a “lightning rod” of discord. I am not sure if banning consenting adults from have relations in their homes is a good example of harmonious legislating.

Source: Fox Boston

Jonathan Turley

26 thoughts on “Don’t Try This At Home: New Law Would Bar Sex in Home By Couples Awaiting Divorce”

  1. Read the bill again! It’s even worse than your headline implies, Jonathan! It prohibits the parent in the marital home from conducting a “dating or sexual relationship.” Can’t even have the new girlfriend/boyfriend over for dinner and a video!

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  2. It’s dreadfully ironic that we fight the Taliban on the other side of the world while putting our own whack-job versions of it into positions of power here.

  3. Could this country be driven any more off the rails? Is that possible? I keep reassuring myself that we’ve seen the worst of it…that all of their “crazy” is out of the bag. They’ve got a deep bag.

  4. As others have pointed out, the one who stays in the family home is restricted but the one who moves out is not.
    It is usually the women that stay in the home and have the main custody of the children while awaiting divorce.
    This would impose more control on these parents as breaking the law is a great way to lose custody. How big of a step would it be for someone to threaten using this rule and get a more beneficial financial deal out of the divorce?

  5. culheath….

    Yes, you can fix stupid….but the Sct has said you can’t…..

Comments are closed.