Bill would forbid divorcing parents in Massachusetts from having sex in home

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since technically its adultery and would have an effect on the divorce proceedings anyway (unless the Massachusetts definition of adultery is suspended once a divorce is filed for) I don't really see the point of the bill.

Incidentally, when I saw the thread title my thought was "They're trying to ban the divorcing couple from having sex with each other?  Why?"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since technically its adultery and would have an effect on the divorce proceedings anyway (unless the Massachusetts definition of adultery is suspended once a divorce is filed for) I don't really see the point of the bill.

Is it considered adultery when a couple have separated and filed for divorce? It seems like at that point the marriage is more or less a vestigial formality awaiting dissolution and seeking other partners is fair game.

People have been known to file and then reconcile before the divorce becomes final, or even reconcile afterward and remarry.  Considering the impact upon a family that comes from divorce when children are involved, I don't think its unreasonable for the law to lean towards facilitating a possible reconciliation, and that would mean continuing to consider it adultery when there is a chance of reconcilation.  While I haven't read the bill, the bit in the article about the bill allowing it upon express permission of the courts is probably intended to cover cases where the court has determined that a divorce will be granted, but that division of property and custody of children and pets have yet to be specified.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hey Scott, in all seriousness, are we reading this bill the same way?  Or are you reading it like TF and NCLib?  I can't imagine any lege, the holier-than-thou nanny kind, or the gun-totin', knuckle-draggin', Love-it-or-leave-it kind, to seriously consider any bill that's crafted the way TF and NCLib read it.  Not that I'd want them to seriously consider it the way I read it either, but at least that has some grounding in reality, imho.

I read the thread title that way, not the bill once I saw the quoted portion in the OP.