Delegates Luiz Simmons (D-17) and Ben Kramer (D-19) have filed a bill allowing a divorce to be granted if the parties are not having sex. No, we are not making this up!
Current Maryland family law allows a divorce if the parties “are living separate and apart without cohabitation.” Simmons and Kramer would delete that language and replace it with “are not engaging in sexual relations.” In other words, get it on or get out!
This bill raises all kinds of questions, folks. With due respect to our former President, what does “sexual relations” include? Are we talking about first base? How about second or third base? Or is it just grand slams? Do toys count? What about surrogates? What evidence will be admissible in court? Would it have to be sterilized first?
Let no one accuse Delegates Simmons or Kramer of being chauvinists because their bill is not gender-specific. That means an awful lot of country club husbands with trophy wives should be trembling with performance anxiety. They will have to put out or pay up! This will be a real boon for prenup lawyers with imagination. The pharmaceutical industry will also see a bump-up in profits. Will this guy be testifying for the bill?
What if the spouse who says no to nookie is the one demanding a divorce? Imagine a couple marries way too quickly, and on the wedding night, the bride discovers why her new husband’s college nickname was “Stumpy.” Is she entitled to a quickie divorce? Or just a quickie?
In the event that this bill is passed, we would like to see a Blue Ribbon Commission write the implementing regulations. Here are our nominees.
Tiger Woods
Wilt Chamberlain
Madonna
Bret Michaels
Narain Dutt Tiwari, the 86-year-old former Indian Governor whose three-girl sex video has had more viewers than the Olympics
And of course, the butt-busting, bubbalicious babes of Cathouse.
Giddyup!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Simmons-Kramer Hump-or-Dump Bill
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If the Enzyte guy comes in to testify, then I'm going to re-introduce my No So-Called Sexual Stimulants Bill!
No, wait. Come to think of it, I will be re-introducing that bill anyway...
- Saqib Ali
Marriage is a cash cow for the state, in filing fees and court costs of extricating oneself from the likely destructive experiment. The state has no other stake in it - it is a misconception that marriage is good for society, that it keeps families stable, or helps kids be healthy. It is the parents ability to navigate the challenges of personal relations, sex and raising offspring that are most important. Individual emotional stability, cooperation, dedication and ability to make money are greater factors in raising healthy children, and being stuck in a relationship you no longer want is contrary to those traits.
Because of the income and religous influence it is probably a ways off, but the state would better serve us by extricating itself from negotiating and enforcing the private contract of marriage. If you must engage in this likely-to-fail contract, do so within your church and follow their traditions including how to get out of it. Now, if your contract says you must have sex at least once a year, ok, then you have a case for court. But if you don't have that in writing, hope you have some out clause.
A contract between people does not need state endorsement or enforcement and should be written to have an accessible out clause and terms.
Post a Comment