30 Comments

In Maryland, to get a no-fault "absolute" divorce, you generally have to have separated and had no sex with each other for <i>one year</i> first. Even one night under the same roof resets the clock. (Or at least that used to be the case; the law may have changed recently.)

I knew a woman who, well, things happened and she ended up pregnant, so she had to wait until three months after the kid was born to get the divorce. She wouldn't take my suggestion to claim Zeus had visited her in human form.</i>

Expand full comment

Are you guys absolutely, positively *sure* this is Massachusetts? Because it reeks of Utah, Arizona, or Louisiana, if you ask me.

Expand full comment

Some people should only be allowed to have shotguns.

Expand full comment

I assume we'll hear about the previous adultery committed by this fine legislator before the weekend is over.

Expand full comment

I stepped away for a few hours, but I was gonna reply to Sorosbot's remark that this was making divorce harder to do, and as it happens, the same reply applies to your comment. To wit, since the "party remaining in the home" is almost always the woman (and children), at least during the pre-final stage of the divorce, this is simply a proposed law to make divorce more of a pain in the ass for women.

Expand full comment

This <i>is</i> why God gave us motels.

Expand full comment

You see anybody calling himself a "Goldwater Republican" in the last couple of decades?

Expand full comment

It only limits what happens "within the home". Bonanza for Motel 8!

Expand full comment

It's all about being in control, about controlling people. They very much want to be authoritarians who dictate to others things like when everyone else can and cannot have sex. They want to have that power. They hate government not because they love freedom but because they view it as their chief competition.

Right wingers want some person, either themselves or someone who they regard as having "legitimate" or genuine power, to have control over nearly every aspect of other people's lives and not have any powerful institution opposing them. They want society to be guided by an authoritative, powerful and decisive leader who enforces rules and traditions that are everlasting and are never to be questioned, modified or scrapped. They very much believe in personal authority that is implemented as a patriarchy that can never be overruled or eclipsed, a single authority who never has to share power with anyone or anything else. They believe that authority must develop organically, as a natural outgrowth of established roles, for example, they revere and wish to elevate the authority of a father over his family.

They do not believe in "synthetic" authority, such as elected councils or governmental agencies, because those entities do things by compromise and consensus, represent authority that is invested in a group rather than a single individual, and is comprised of people who do not have individual authority and who can be overruled.

Expand full comment

Well, the fact that many are craven hypocrites who want rules enforced on society that they personally do not follow themselves, has always been quite apparent.

Expand full comment

Why don't we do it in the road?

Expand full comment

Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match

Expand full comment

Let he with the biggest stones throw the first rock.

Expand full comment

"<i>You</i> take the house!" "No! <i>You!</i>" "No, you! I never liked neo-Colonial." "I'll die if I ever have to look at those carpets again!"

Expand full comment

Rick Perry has a solution for the men-folk: Goats. I await Anita Perry's response to help the ladies dealing with the Burning Bush issue.

Expand full comment

The churches have buses

Expand full comment