General Discussion

Raksha

(7,167 posts)

65. I hope everyone read the update at the end of the article:

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:30 PM

Mar 2014

"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."

Someone posted this on Facebook earlier and I pointed that out. So even the senator who introduced the bill isn't in favor of it; he only did it as a courtesy to a constituent. I don't know why he wants to make the Republican Party look even more ridiculous than they usually do, but that's his business. I'm certainly not going to cry about it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GOP Bill Would Force Divorcing Women To Get Permission Before Sex [View all] Tx4obama Mar 2014 OP

We have something like 4 Republicans left in our state government MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #1

That's what they specialize in. Arcanetrance Mar 2014 #2

Honestly, it looks to me like they're saying all this crazy shit mindwalker_i Mar 2014 #4

Bingo! Scuba Mar 2014 #18

First no smoking with children in the car or house yeoman6987 Mar 2014 #26

Where's Newt when you need his saggy ass? mindwalker_i Mar 2014 #3

This is nothing short of MEDIEVAL. CaliforniaPeggy Mar 2014 #5

Let's hope women will find nothing better to do in 2014 than vote them out of office! What a world! freshwest Mar 2014 #17

That's ridiculous. Separation Mar 2014 #6

Its wonky but not crazy eyed wonky Token Republican Mar 2014 #7

It's just really fucking creepy to butt into people's lives to this extent. nomorenomore08 Mar 2014 #12

A divorce petition is asking a court to butt into pipoman Mar 2014 #37

Yes, misleading reporting. ManiacJoe Mar 2014 #13

See post #4. Scuba Mar 2014 #19

There was just that case in NYC about the woman who lost custody because she had sex. cui bono Mar 2014 #8

The woman who also Lunacee_2013 Mar 2014 #49

Yeah, and iirc the judge granted custody and reimbursement of the child care cui bono Mar 2014 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #9

+100 CFLDem Mar 2014 #10

Someone is grinding an ax in the legislature over a tough divorce. marble falls Mar 2014 #11

what the holy hell is their problem? uppityperson Mar 2014 #14

Republicans: keeping women servile and in chains since they arose as a party. Warpy Mar 2014 #15

This has nothing to do with women specifically pipoman Mar 2014 #38

actually it does left is right Mar 2014 #40

Cause vs. effect.... Thor_MN Mar 2014 #42

File that under.. Cha Mar 2014 #16

Why did you change the headline of the article in your OP to frame it as gender specific? MadrasT Mar 2014 #20

+1 n/t n2doc Mar 2014 #22

good question Duckhunter935 Mar 2014 #52

See Comment #57 Tx4obama Mar 2014 #58

Actually, it is a real headline. I was going to post the Alan Colmes article... Tx4obama Mar 2014 #57

So what happens when "getting some strange" quaker bill Mar 2014 #21

What really galls me is that Whisp Mar 2014 #23

Or people like the OP are stirring shit pipoman Mar 2014 #39

Take it up with Alan Colmes at Liberaland, it is his headline - I've added the link to the OP Tx4obama Mar 2014 #59

Can you imagine the checklist they woud need to fill out? Nanjing to Seoul Mar 2014 #24

Really? This is what they waste time on? chrisa Mar 2014 #25

And the OP changing the headline leads pipoman Mar 2014 #32

While it's obviously a bad bill, the headline is also deeply misleading. N.t. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2014 #27

I can't believe this shenmue Mar 2014 #28

No, that was the OP changing the story to something it isn't. . pipoman Mar 2014 #31

I thought this was polihood Mar 2014 #29

Probably the number one complaint pipoman Mar 2014 #30

Less government in your lives. Unless you might be having sex. tanyev Mar 2014 #33

This current war on women sure has intensity and persistence. ananda Mar 2014 #34

Except this has nothing to do with gender. .. pipoman Mar 2014 #36

1. it's not gender-specific. 2. it is specific to "in the home." 3.it's where custody is involved magical thyme Mar 2014 #35

That's exactly what it's about! pipi_k Mar 2014 #41

They could add this to Sweet Freedom Mar 2014 #46

I'm stunned to see someone defending this here. Shoulders of Giants Mar 2014 #54

So, I'm pretty sure pipi_k Mar 2014 #60

It's a bad idea because it will make divorces more messy and painful more often than less. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2014 #62

I'm not defending it. The title is extremely misleading. magical thyme Mar 2014 #63

That should be grounds for expulsion from the state house Takket Mar 2014 #43

Would that penalty also be for Republicans having sex? MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #44

Lock 'em up. PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #45

This is just creepy. Lunacee_2013 Mar 2014 #47

Did you read it? pipoman Mar 2014 #50

Yup, and I still find it creepy. Nt. Lunacee_2013 Mar 2014 #61

snip*unless the express permission is granted by the courts. WTF? The courts are going to love Jefferson23 Mar 2014 #48

I would bet more time is wasted pipoman Mar 2014 #51

When will they get the F Faux pas Mar 2014 #53

Will the issuance of Chastity Belts be controlled by the state or contracted out? Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #56

Republicans claim to not like big government unless it's in people's bluestate10 Mar 2014 #64

I hope everyone read the update at the end of the article: Raksha Mar 2014 #65