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. Well, I just got my first ever, caught-by-a-camera traffic ticket, so . . . .

    Thermographic human imaging from the sky might well be next.

    That oughta pick up all the in-house frivolous fornicating.

    Coming to a satellite near you.

  2. Hey Buddha, the jokes for this joke legislation are likely endless. Just when you think legislators cannot get sillier, something like this emerges.

  3. Whelp, even in Bacon, er Beacon Hill, at least aural sex will never be illegal since it clearly comes under hearsay evidence…

  4. so, if you don’t have children, then sex with the soon to be ex, is ok?

  5. Yeah this is some small government tea party freak who is also a religious nut who probably thinks it is a sin to have sex. How can people take this kind of crap serious? This State Representative needs a new job.

  6. Let’s add to the arsenal of tools available to hurt and bitter, or just controlling, ex-spouses. As the ban doesn’t end until all custody and financial issues are resolved, one could keep it going until the children have grown and moved out. I find it interesting that the spouse not in the family home will not be so restricted, whether or not the children are with that spouse. If the state has provisions making it easier for a custodial parent to retain possession of the family home–this could be an attempt to discourage utilizing those provisions.

  7. Gyges,

    Lol – thanks for the lesson 🙂

    Excellent! Wait until she she becomes aware of burping and farting … they are positively fascinated by their bodily functions! Actually, my 19 year-old is still fascinated by hers …

  8. The only thing that will not be lonely in these cases is the hand….then again…Love the One you’re with”….

    This is for real…right?

  9. *SIGH* let me guess, this moron is a “small government conservative”.

  10. Gyges,

    “Laws like this aren’t for enforcing. Unless the person in question’s made an enemy in a position of authority that’s looking for an excuse to throw their weight around.”

    It was more of a rhetorical question to such silliness …

    By the by – how’s the little one?

  11. I grew up in the blue law state….this didn’t sound odd at first take. It is sad to see that some people need to have a law to remind them of what should be common sense. Children don’t need further emotional assaults while parents are in transit…I get angry here in Florida because people drive like idiots and there are so many selfish hotheads on the roads. But you cannot cure a hothead by putting up more signs..[which is what they do…ruining the entire beautiful countryside in the process for all of us…]. In fact, more signs and longer red lights just make for more confusion, frustration and angrier people….which makes for more stupidity and clouded thinking and preventable accidents…

    You simply cannot legislate common sense.

    And why would you while there are things like the oil company tax law being blocked….and banks driving markets unnaturally like giant bloodsuckers….and agencies that cannot deal wth issues like abuse because they are underfunded…and so why would someone toss an idiot law on the fire while it is already too hot in the damn living room?????

  12. SL,

    Laws like this aren’t for enforcing. Unless the person in question’s made an enemy in a position of authority that’s looking for an excuse to throw their weight around.

  13. Sigh … I’d like to know how the police would go about enforcing this …

Comments are closed.