wow...this is really stupid

Jezebel! Hussy!

''What's this poor kid supposed to think when mom and dad divorce and two months later she's living with this other person?''

Mommy is a ho?

''What's this poor kid supposed to think when mom and dad divorce and two months later she's living with this other person?''

Right. You should put her in jail instead, reinforce the whole "role model" thing.

slut!

Next them they'll remember to get their state sex permit.

I feel safer - now that this woman is taking up a cot in a jail/prison that could be used to not give a rapist, murderer, or mugger an early release.

I am ..... stunned.

What century are we in again?

I thought all sex was illegal in the USA?

/can't wait to be in Europe in the fall
//didn't RTFA

What kind of farked up state do I live in? That's rhetorical, don't answer because I know.

While I think it's stupid to prevent the woman from sleeping with her boyfriend while the kid's around, let's kep in mind that she agreed to this little arrangement in the divorce, so I really don't have sympathy.

miscreant

Soweth this on thy frock!

Stacie and Timothy Meadows agreed under their parenting plan in the divorce that neither of them "would have overnight companions to whom they are not related by blood..."


That's where she went wrong. Should have kept her lovin' in the family.

What, no tag?

This really deserves an tag.

Hillbilly retards...

WTF? If she was divorced in November isn't she a free woman? This would be asinine enough if the divorce wasn't final, but if it is then once again WTF??? So if I travel to this backasswards state and want to shag a girl, I have to make sure that not only is she not married, but that she also doesn't have a restraining order against sleeping with me? WTF? Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Please people. She was sentenced for violating a court order 5 times, and all but 5 of those 50 days were suspended.

Not to sidetrack, but this is the same reason Clinton should not have even been in the situation to lie under oath. She was obviously in the same spot.

When discussing adults, keep the government out of the bedrooms of the nation.

Tennesee: Come for the Mountains, stay for the Putitanical values!

Serioulsy, fire up the giant bulldozer. Its time to push the South into the sea and start over.

it maybe a stupid law, but she was aware of it, signed to uphold it, and then broke it. She could have just had sex at his place and she wouldn't be in this situation.

She is now finding out that her word needs to be true.

Regardless of being in violation of her court order, what I want to know is, how does this "crime" get reported? Nosy neighbors? The fiancee? The daughter?

/read half of TFA

Frequently a standard clause in a divorce down here in the backward south. Usually men try to get it included, since they have the kids the least and figure they can make things hard for the ex. Then after the ex gets married they try to drop it so they can have overnights when the kids are around. My ex's ex (long story) tried to do just that. We forced the lawyers to keep in. Pissed him all off.

RTFA. She violated a court order. It's that simple.

Gee, am I the only one who finds this headline a little misleading?

In later news - the child cut into two, with half given to each parent in access rights squabble.

Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket. What the fark is wrong with people? What do they think caused the kid in the first place, sitting on a warm toilet seat? Your tax at work, Tennessee citizens!

WTF? Your tax dollars at work. It's funny how the divorce is acceptable, but sleeping with someone is not. Who hasn't done this? I'll bet every lawyer and judge presiding is guilty. Incarcerate them all!

"Sex for all!"
"Boo!"

"Sex for none!"
"Boo!"

"Sex for some, tiny American flags for others!"
"Yea"

/guess the reference

Because SEX is IMMORAL!

Remember that boys and girls.

Oh, by the way: where exactly in the consititution does it say the state has a right to govern my "morality"?

This is asinine. You can't legislate morality. Let new daddy and mommy get thier groove on for fark's sake.

she made an agreement.

final.

just like you pay your car payments or have the car taken away.

What an amazingly fu<king stupid judgement. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

One more reason why the government should just stay out of the marriage business. It's a religious institution, and should have stayed thus. Civil unions make far more sense, and the government should only be handing those out, i.e. - If you and your partner want to get married, you go and get a state/federally issued civil union license, and then go to your church and get married. There shouldn't be a "marriage tax", it should be a civil union tax. If religious people want to be married and have children and not have the civil union, then they shouldn't get the associated tax benefits (if there are any, I'm not married, so I don't know).

At least she didn't try to teach evolution...

according to the article, she lied under oath

I guess you could call her love interest a Mother Farker

These neocons are scary.

What is this, the dark ages?

    nobodycaneatfiftyeggs

    Tennessee. I bet it's legal for her to sleep with her brothers.

From the article:

    In this case, the law was spelled out in black and white.
    Stacie and Timothy Meadows agreed under their parenting plan in the
    divorce that neither of them ''would have overnight companions
    to whom they are not related by blood or by marriage in the
    presence of the minor child under inappropriate circumstances.''

So, it would indeed be OK for her to sleep with her brothers, sisters, parents, or even her child.

I can see the reasoning behind the restraining order but....

THIS IS HER FRIGGING FIANCEE.

I can understand that it's wrong to have kids subjected to the "This is mommy's friend, uncle Rick" explanation. Especially when mom or dad suddenly discover new uncles and aunts that stick around for a couple months and then disappear forever. Family trees don't just expand and collapse like that. And kids shouldn't be exposed to their parents' frenetic sex lives.

However, that doesn't apply to this case. The judge in question was just trying to make an example out of this woman.

"If I find you in contempt, you can get married in the jail if you need to"
Get a life, phukwad.

Yes, she made an agreement and yes, the agreement is the height of ridiculousness.

But this thread's over. Crossbuster gets the prize.

Shouldn't have agreed to it if you didn't want to do it. I would never have agreed to such a stupid restriction on my private life...

That'll teach the slut!

/sarcasm

SpinzGirl

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.