So…the “dating class” seems to be made up of people who…well, date. The Legislature – mostly under the pressure of Speaker Greg Stumbo – is desperately trying to protect anyone who feels threatened by someone he/she is dating. The editorialist called this “domestic violence,” which means that just about anything that happens in an untoward way anymore is simply domestic violence. Two people go out on a date, get a little soused, have a dustup of some kind, and the one who hates the other the most or acts the fastest goes down to the judge and gets a protective order of some kind against the other.

Of course, it all goes back to the Amanda Ross murder a short time ago, for which Steve Nunn is alleged to be responsible and has even been undergoing tests to see if he has all his marbles. Ross was a state-worker and Nunn a former legislator and unsuccessful governor-aspirant. It seems that Ross and Nunn had been engaged at one time, but were not even dating at the time of the alleged murder, which happened one morning just as Ross was leaving her apartment and headed to work.

Get the connection? No? That’s because there isn’t any. Ross had already requested and received a protective order against Nunn account some former skullduggery on his part. Like most protective orders, it would have been worth no more than the paper upon which it was written if the other party decided to wreak havoc, as Nunn allegedly did. Whatever happened was not “domestic violence” because Ross and Nunn did not live together, with or without marriage documentation.

HB 189 would create a database of “intimate partner crimes,” according to the editorialist. Apparently, an “intimate partner crime” has not been defined as yet, so the lawmakers will have to decide just what it is. Is a dustup between two daters (or maybe even among a threesome) a crime if the partners haven’t been intimate? Apparently not! But, then, of course, “intimate” will have to be defined.

As of now, if a guy slaps his “dating partner” on the way home from the movie and dinner but does not become “intimate” in the usually considered way, his name won’t go into the database. But, if they go all the way and she doesn’t scream “rape” she can get a protective order, even though the slap happened before the hanky-panky. Make any sense? Of course not, but this is the Kentucky legislature, remember?

Well…this might discourage some of the frat boys over at the university from feeding the drug “ecstasy” to their dates and then, when the ladies of the night become zombies, take advantage of them. When the lady screams “rape” under those circumstances, she’s likely to be unsuccessful in evening the score with her boyfriend (or intimate partner…who knows?), never mind that she had no business getting herself into that predicament in the first place.

But these electronic ankle bracelets being considered under HB 189 for offenders might slow a guy down since his every move would be on somebody’s radar, not to even mention that worrisome database. Having that siren go off on the bracelet when he’s an “intimate partner” with another “significant other” could be embarrassing and might even cause another “intimate partner crime” when she creams him with a beer bottle.

One supposes that an “intimate partner crime” wouldn’t be as bad as a “hate crime,” the going thing right now among the social engineers, but why not just lump it in with that category – if the state has it – and let it go at that? Whoever gets the HB 189 protective order probably would hate the “dating partner,” anyway, at least until the next possible outing for hanky panky, so what’s to lose?

Of course, as the case with a lot of protective orders, the one who gets it against a “dating partner” could decide to kiss and make-up, in which case, if the law doesn’t hear about it down at the City Building or Courthouse, a deputy or policeman might make somebody mad trying to enforce it…and get shot. Happens all the time.