There’s nothing that sets the mood for a romantic evening like petitioning a judge for permission to have sex at the end of the night. If Massachusetts State Sen. Richard J. Ross (R) gets his way, that’s exactly what many women (and men) would have to do if they have children and are going through a divorce. In fact, not only would permission-less coitus be banned, but so too would the romantic evening and many dating activities.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a Conservative drone on rapturously about how they’re all about “small government,” I’d retire to a country with no extradition treaty with the U.S. Yep, nothing speaks to “getting government off the backs of Americans” like Conservative orthodoxy, which, if you believe people like Grover Norquist, is about shrinking government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Oddly enough, “small government”- the concept- seems tougher to nail down than you might think. Judging by the volume and tenor of bills introduced in Congress and state legislatures, Conservatives really are all about small government- except where a woman’s reproductive functions are concerned. It seems they want to shrink government to a size small enough to fit inside a woman’s vagina and/or in the bedrooms of consenting adults. How else could you explain this madness in Massachusetts, where a Republican’s bill would force couples to ask a judge for permission to have sex (presumably with other people) if they’re in the midst of a divorce? Sen. Ross will, of course, no doubt claim that “it’s all about the children,” but I have neither the time nor the inclination to adequately address the absurdity of that claim. It’s not at all about protecting children; it that was the case, we’d be talking about laws mandating marital counseling, or waiting periods before a divorce is final, or covenant marriage, or…well, you get the point, right?
Conservatives love to complain about the “nanny state,” a fictional construct in which Big Government exerts ever-greater control over aspects of our lives. In their minds, personal choice means personal freedom. Yet they have no problem with, and fail to recognize the contradiction in, creating a “nanny state” designed to regulate and control private sexual behavior.
UPDATE: 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.
I’m not unalterably opposed to the idea of reforming and perhaps even shrinking government. Reexamining the scope and purpose of government on a regular basis is a good thing. I think there’s wisdom in not letting things remain as they are because that’s the way they’ve always been. A role appropriate for government today may not be at all reasonable tomorrow.
That said, this bill is a ridiculous assault on the personal freedoms that Conservatives claim to hold dear. What there is to be gained from inserting government into our bedrooms I find difficult to imagine…unless you believe women are the rightful property of men, who should makes any decisions regarding reproduction. What happens between consenting adults is no one else’s damned business- particularly government. There’s simply no state interest to be served by controlling and regulating private sexual behavior.
Even worse, it would be difficult to adequately state the size (and cost) of the bureaucracy required to enforce Ross’ law. The moral of this story seems to be that fiscal conservatism and “family values” are what allow Conservatives to violate the “small government” ethos they hold so dear. The truth is that Conservatives like Ross are ALL about “small government,” at least until it comes to shoring up their anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-reproductive rights agenda.
Move along, people; no hypocrisy here….
Ross can claim that he doesn’t support the bill, that all he did was introduce it for a citizen of the Commonwealth. There may be a grain of truth in that, but I find it difficult to believe Ross would introduce legislation he didn’t support. Claiming that he introduced it for a constituent is simply trying to provide his agenda with the patina of plausible deniability should things blow up.
How long before America becomes an authoritarian, anti-sex society straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale?” If Conservatives like Ross get their way, it may well be sooner than you might think.
