Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

Americans are complaining again.

Man, what a wild bunch of people. And good luck trying to tell them what to do!

Honestly, what is it with us Americans? We just love to grumble about everything, don't we? 😢

wiredotter89 said:They’ve been spotted right at the entrance to the Suburban Town by the Walmart in the Suburban Town, out near the exit in the Neighborhood, and they frequently set up in the Suburban Area just past the overpass when you're coming from the Hillside.
He doesn't know where they're stationed if you take the route through the Suburban Area toward the Suburban Town, though I'd bet they're on the bridge.

Thanks. I always take the Bobovica exit. I rarely head into town through Sunday unless I need to hit Walmart. I almost never go through the Suburban Area or the Hillside.

So everything is blocked. What a joke. I agree with them regarding social distancing, but just watch out for this. I have a vacation house up in the hills above Suburban Town in a spot where there isn't a single neighbor in sight. I drive there alone via the highway, so there isn't a single moment where I come into contact with anyone. I'll just stock up on supplies beforehand if I need to grab something from the local corner store.

And now I can't even get to my vacation house. It's pointless. Honestly, it would be better if they did what people are discussing here and just restricted all entry and exit from the county.

After the earthquake, I took my little baby and fled to an apartment my family owns by the coast. We actually live in Washington, D.C., but we’ve been staying strictly isolated because of the baby, both back home and out here. Is it okay for us to head back to our place in D.C. since that's our official residence? I’m pretty sure that’s how it works based on what I've heard, but please confirm.

velvetraven23 said:After the earthquake, I took my little baby and fled to an apartment my family owns by the coast. We actually live in Washington, D.C., but we’ve been staying strictly isolated because of the baby, both back home and out here. Is it okay for us to head back to our place in D.C. since that's our official residence? I’m pretty sure that’s how it works based on what I've heard, but please confirm.

You can.

Sent from my Samsung

You can always head back to where you belong.

Do you actually think they'll have
normal traffic flowing again by May or June?

Matthew Jackson2 said:On what grounds are we even debating this? Božinović himself explicitly stated that returning to your primary residence isn't up for debate and won't be subject to restrictions. The only real catch is if you happen to be stuck in an area currently under quarantine—which, at this moment, only applies to Murter and Betin. If you're there, you're effectively grounded. Other than that, returning home is permitted, except in the specific case of... Family reunions... man, where do you even begin with that? It’s one of those things people talk about like it’s this beautiful, Hallmark-movie moment of pure connection, but if you actually live it, it can be an absolute minefield of old grievances and awkward silences. You spend all this time thinking you’ve moved past the drama of your youth, only to find yourself sitting across a dinner table from an uncle who still treats you like you’re ten years old, or a cousin who hasn't stopped talking about their crypto portfolio since the Obama administration. It’s funny, really. We spend our whole lives trying to carve out our own identities, trying to distance ourselves from the chaos we grew up in, and then suddenly, some holiday or milestone rolls around and you’re right back in the thick of it. It’s like being pulled back into a gravity well you thought you’d escaped. I remember once, back when I was living in Chicago, my entire extended family decided to descend upon my tiny apartment for what was supposed to be a "simple" gathering. I had three different aunts trying to give me life advice I didn't ask for, while my brother was busy arguing with my father about politics—which, let's be honest, is a recipe for disaster in this country. There's a certain weight to it, isn't there? This obligation to bridge the gaps that time and distance have created. You want to connect, you truly do, but you also realize that some bridges were burned for a very good reason. It’s a delicate balancing act between honoring where you came from and protecting who you’ve become. Sometimes it works, and you feel that warmth, that genuine sense of belonging. Other times, you’re just counting the minutes until you can retreat to your own space and breathe again. It’s complicated, messy, and entirely human. So, look, here’s the deal regarding the current situation: if you happen to find yourself stuck outside the quarantine zone, even though your actual residence is inside that perimeter and your family is waiting for you back home, you actually have the legal right to return. It’s pretty straightforward when you break it down, really.

Quote : dark Fat

It seems to me that a vast number of people possess an inherent predisposition toward either heightened or diminished mental health struggles. Under normal circumstances—without some sort of massive, external catastrophe forcing our hand—these tendencies would likely remain entirely undetected; there simply wouldn't be any real opportunity or necessity for such predispositions to ever be clinically diagnosed.

When you implement these kinds of restrictions—where basic human interaction is stripped down to almost nothing—you aren't just isolating people; you're essentially creating a perfect storm for mental health crises. It’s a vicious cycle. These measures act as a constant trigger for psychological distress, yet at the exact same moment, they make it nearly impossible to catch those issues before they spiral out of control. Because we've lost that regular, day-to-day contact with one another, those subtle, early warning signs that someone is struggling simply go unnoticed. We're losing the ability to perform timely diagnoses because the very social fabric needed to spot the symptoms has been torn apart by the isolation itself.

Of course, we aren't just talking about depression or the risk of suicide here. That’s only one part of the equation. There are so many other issues surfacing that are becoming increasingly frequent. You really only have to take a quick look at the comment sections on Facebook or dive into some of the online forums to see the sheer amount of hysteria and those various symptoms of psychological instability popping up everywhere. It’s constant. Honestly, the only real distinction is that people dealing with these other types of disorders aren't necessarily facing an immediate threat to their lives, unlike the more acute cases.

🙏

Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

Gerald Kern77 said:Could you please cite the specific regulation stating that a community ceases to exist after a year of separation?

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

Edward Fisher86 said:hollowmason64, what exactly are you talking about here, the definition of marriage?

Are you suggesting the government should be auditing residency applications just to annul marriages😁?

There is absolutely no prohibition on people in that sense, and you can't drag this out like some endless debate; the state can't just file a request to terminate a marriage, so writing what you're writing is completely pointless.

Just cool off and stop seeing enemies of the state lurking around every corner. Honestly... it is completely beneath my dignity to sit here and explain why I am in my current situation when idiots clearly can't grasp very simple rules in this context.
Go ahead and imagine how much I've clashed with the government; think whatever you want, because you aren't seeing any reason beyond tax hikes and other nonsense.

It’s great to see how much you all enjoy relishing in other people's problems while simultaneously not caring at all about, say, the neighbor next door who spends his days socializing with everyone under the sun; as long as you're busy worrying about who got hit by an unpaid tax bill, that's apparently your top priority.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

nimblescout50 said:So, it looks like the pass effectively dictates who's contagious, and then the contagion dictates the pass,
it’s a bit of a loop—if you don't have it, you're considered a risk.
Instead of actually looking at whether someone is physically capable of self-isolating in their own space.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

You claimed we could count on being forced into isolation, rather than saying one *might* receive an isolation order due to arriving from a high-transmission area. You also completely ignored the question of how anyone is supposed to prove where they started their journey if they are just heading toward their primary residence and don't actually need a permit. You didn't address any of that.

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

Oh really? And what about those people who are harassing folks who just went for a stroll in accordance with the National Headquarters guidelines, denying them access to a ventilator if they get sick, or hurling insults at them... Is that not hysteria?

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

Source

Under the American legal framework regarding domestic relations, there isn't a specific concept called "legal separation." An Analogue to "legal separation," based on current statutes, would be the term "termination of the marital community." The Family Law doesn't explicitly list conditions for the "termination of the marital community" because the marital union is considered a legal standard representing the essential substance of a marriage. This termination occurs when spouses sever all mutual ties that characterize a shared life—essentially, if they no longer have the will to live as spouses or share the contents of such a union (for example, by ceasing all communication). In practice, the termination of a marital community most often manifests when one spouse moves out of the shared home and leaves the other behind.

Look, here’s the thing: if a husband and wife are living at different addresses but they’re still communicating regularly, visiting whenever life allows, sharing their extra income—usually because one of them had to move for work—and making all those big, crucial decisions together, then the marriage hasn't actually ended. It's still intact. On the flip side, you have these couples who are fighting tooth and nail but stay under the same roof, acting more like bitter roommates than partners; in that scenario, the marital union has effectively ceased, even if it’s a nightmare to prove in a courtroom. In cases like that, it’s much easier to just argue that the relationship has suffered an irreparable breakdown.

In plain English, your interpretation of the law just doesn't hold water.

Hmm...

They’ve got fences up now to make sure nobody bypasses the police checkpoints, plus all those heavy concrete blocks ready to go...

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

… with children.

🤦

The Family Law also dictates that spouses are obligated to be faithful to one another (Article 31).

It’s honestly sad that you’re exhausting the very concept of a "community" just by focusing on a single shared residence, regardless of how long someone is away.

Damn, I’m just now realizing what a ridiculous piece of legislation we have here in the US.

Nobody ever suggested the state would start nullifying anything, nor that they’re monitoring who lives with whom; rather, once you started insisting so stubbornly on "where does it say that," I simply answered your question by pointing out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

If you claim something isn't allowed, then it follows logically that I should ask where exactly that prohibition is written.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; it's just unbelievable to me that people are so angry at those who were simply careless regarding how they handle their registered addresses....

Fine, tax evasion, sloppiness... maybe by the end of this madness, you'll finally hit the mark.

Yeah, you guys are moralizing and enjoying yourselves.

wiredotter89 said:They’ve been spotted right at the entrance to the Suburban Town by the Walmart in the Suburban Town, out near the exit in the Neighborhood, and they frequently set up in the Suburban Area just past the overpass when you're coming from the Hillside.
He doesn't know where they're stationed if you take the route through the Suburban Area toward the Suburban Town, though I'd bet they're on the bridge.

They're on the bridge.

Edward Fisher86 said:… with children.

🤦

The Family Law also dictates that spouses are obligated to be faithful to one another (Article 31).

It’s honestly sad that you’re exhausting the very concept of a "community" just by focusing on a single shared residence, regardless of how long someone is away.

Damn, I’m just now realizing what a ridiculous piece of legislation we have here in the US.

Nobody ever suggested the state would start nullifying anything, nor that they’re monitoring who lives with whom; rather, once you started insisting so stubbornly on "where does it say that," I simply answered your question by pointing out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

If you claim something isn't allowed, then it follows logically that I should ask where exactly that prohibition is written.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; it's just unbelievable to me that people are so angry at those who were simply careless regarding how they handle their registered addresses....

Fine, tax evasion, sloppiness... maybe by the end of this madness, you'll finally hit the mark.

Yeah, you guys are moralizing and enjoying yourselves.

No, nobody is "enjoying" anything or acting superior—most of this was just about people who straight-up admitted they were negligent and now they're facing the music...

If someone has a legitimate reason—like that lady who posted earlier, or even you—that’s a completely different story...

But if someone missed an obligation because they were just being careless and now they're demanding their rights? Well, they just have to suck it up.

And wouldn't you know it, in the end, we all saw who was actually talking nonsense...😉

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

Well, living under the same roof isn't the sole defining feature of a marriage—it might be a reason to divorce, certainly, but it’s hardly a prerequisite for being married. Though, you clearly have us all fooled with your deep expertise in Family Law...

Matthew Jackson2 said:You claimed we could count on being forced into isolation, rather than saying one *might* receive an isolation order due to arriving from a high-transmission area. You also completely ignored the question of how anyone is supposed to prove where they started their journey if they are just heading toward their primary residence and don't actually need a permit. You didn't address any of that.

Oh really? And what about those people who are harassing folks who just went for a stroll in accordance with the National Headquarters guidelines, denying them access to a ventilator if they get sick, or hurling insults at them... Is that not hysteria?

Source

Under the American legal framework regarding domestic relations, there isn't a specific concept called "legal separation." An Analogue to "legal separation," based on current statutes, would be the term "termination of the marital community." The Family Law doesn't explicitly list conditions for the "termination of the marital community" because the marital union is considered a legal standard representing the essential substance of a marriage. This termination occurs when spouses sever all mutual ties that characterize a shared life—essentially, if they no longer have the will to live as spouses or share the contents of such a union (for example, by ceasing all communication). In practice, the termination of a marital community most often manifests when one spouse moves out of the shared home and leaves the other behind.

Look, here’s the thing: if a husband and wife are living at different addresses but they’re still communicating regularly, visiting whenever life allows, sharing their extra income—usually because one of them had to move for work—and making all those big, crucial decisions together, then the marriage hasn't actually ended. It's still intact. On the flip side, you have these couples who are fighting tooth and nail but stay under the same roof, acting more like bitter roommates than partners; in that scenario, the marital union has effectively ceased, even if it’s a nightmare to prove in a courtroom. In cases like that, it’s much easier to just argue that the relationship has suffered an irreparable breakdown.

In plain English, your interpretation of the law just doesn't hold water.

What's the difference there? What did I say differently the second time? And where exactly in our country hasn't local transmission been recorded?
How are they going to figure out where you're coming from? Maybe by asking you?

Yeah, but what about the people who were harassing folks for just taking a walk in accordance with the instructions from the National Headquarters, denying them the right to a ventilator if they get sick, or calling them names... Isn't that hysteria?

Nope. In my book, those are just consequences being applied.

In other words, your interpretation of the law doesn't hold water.

Well, at least you think you've interpreted it correctly. Honestly, everyone thinks they're some kind of expert, and then when they hit a wall and mess up big time, they act shocked that things turned out differently because they chose to interpret 😁
differently.

Edward Fisher86 said:… with children.

🤦

The Family Law also dictates that spouses are obligated to be faithful to one another (Article 31).

It’s honestly sad that you’re exhausting the very concept of a "community" just by focusing on a single shared residence, regardless of how long someone is away.

Damn, I’m just now realizing what a ridiculous piece of legislation we have here in the US.

Nobody ever suggested the state would start nullifying anything, nor that they’re monitoring who lives with whom; rather, once you started insisting so stubbornly on "where does it say that," I simply answered your question by pointing out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

If you claim something isn't allowed, then it follows logically that I should ask where exactly that prohibition is written.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; it's just unbelievable to me that people are so angry at those who were simply careless regarding how they handle their registered addresses....

Fine, tax evasion, sloppiness... maybe by the end of this madness, you'll finally hit the mark.

Yeah, you guys are moralizing and enjoying yourselves.

Look, for private individuals, anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed. On the flip side, there's another law that requires you to report a new residence if you've moved.

Honestly, nobody is actually profiting here, but unless someone is a tenant whose landlord refused to register them—making it impossible—there's no excuse for not updating an address other than laziness or looking out for one's own interests.
Anyway, people like that shouldn't be taking their frustrations out on others just because they're in a bind themselves.
And the local government is what it is; I didn't write the rules. 😁

Nicholas King said:When—or if—that judge's ruling on the fine actually shows up at your front door, what then? What's the plan? Are you just going to stop breathing? Start kicking your feet in protest? Close your eyes and pray you don't exist? Or maybe just complain about it all the way to the top of the food chain?

I am genuinely curious, though—what do these "I-don't-care-about-rules!!!!1!" heroes actually intend to do when their little displays of bravado are finally put to the test?

Proving your innocence through the legal system.

driftingfox6 said:Then you have some individual or even the government just cutting you off from your partner indefinitely. And then they act surprised when young people don't want to start families here, especially when so many people lack any sense of financial security. You never know when you might find yourself unemployed.

I’m currently stuck away from my own home—just a ten-minute drive away—because this law won't let me pass through.

Which law?

hollowmason64 said:Nah, it’s not really about fear. I wouldn't call myself a fearful person by nature—though, obviously, I’m definitely not indifferent to what's going on.
It all comes down to how much harder everything has become lately. Honestly, just trying to live and work under these conditions is exhausting. I find myself constantly wishing this whole thing would just wrap up already. Your entire existence starts feeling like a repetitive cycle of washing and disinfecting yourself and everything you touch, which is just draining when you're actually trying to get things done. You end up spending half your energy just managing that, or just standing around outside the store waiting for a break, or trying to make sense of your day off. It’s a lot.
If we actually want this whole thing to wrap up sooner, there's one simple thing a certain number of people could do: just stay home. That’s it. No need to head out to the front lines, no need to pick up a rifle, and definitely no need to go out there risking your neck. Honestly, nothing dramatic is required—just staying put at home would make all the difference.
Look, I get it. In actual war zones, when things are falling apart and people are under fire, split-second decisions happen—people shoot because they have to survive. But if someone starts opening fire just because they want to go for a stroll, hang out with their buddies at a pub, or grab some food? Honestly, that’s a different story. As far as I'm concerned, you're either completely mentally unstable or just a spoiled brat.
I really need to be home right now... honestly, life just keeps throwing these little dramas my way.

That’s pretty much how it goes. Everyone who managed to "scrape by" or pull some fast one just points the finger at someone else when things inevitably blow up in their faces. It’s the same old story. It reminds me of that department head back in the day—she was constantly cutting corners with housing paperwork and address filings, playing fast and loose with the rules, but the second she got caught in the mess, she acted like it was everyone else's fault but hers. People just love to dodge accountability.
That's just the mindset for you.

Look, there isn’t an actual ban on anything here, but there is a legal definition for what constitutes a marriage. Under the law, marriage is— community.
Strictly speaking, if you have two people living at two different addresses, they aren't considered a household or a single unit.
Actually, if you look at how most people see it, once partners stop living under the same roof for more than a year, that’s usually the line where the relationship is considered over. It's like the community itself has effectively dissolved at that point.

Honestly, my favorite type of people are the ones who try to dodge that 18% withholding tax—believe me, I’d love to skip it too, but duty calls—and then they just stay registered somewhere else entirely and wonder, "Wait, is this going to be an issue?"
I mean, what on earth possessed you to move your registration out of Washington, D.C. if you actually live and work right here?

That’s just not true. There have to be specific grounds for ending a marriage; the court isn't just going to decide that on its own whim. There has to be a legitimate legal interest for the people involved in the proceedings.

So, what, you actually think there’s some kind of marriage inspector out there checking up on all that?

My favorite people are the ones who refuse to pay that 18% withholding tax—honestly, I feel the same way, but hey, duty calls. Now you've all left yourselves logged in somewhere, who knows where... is this going to be an issue?
I mean, why on earth did you even drag yourself all the way out of Washington, D.C., if you’re just going to live and work here anyway?

That’s not entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (registered residence), but you still have to pay taxes based on where you are officially domiciled.

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

Got a specific example for that claim?

John Doe:

All I see online is people whining about how "unbearable" this is because they want to see their partner, go for a walk, hit up a lake house, or visit family for Easter... Just pure entitlement and acting spoiled—thinking everything should happen exactly when and how they want it.

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is this much against the Constitution.

Jack Cook7 said:Americans are complaining again.

Man, what a wild bunch of people. And good luck trying to tell them what to do!

Honestly, what is it with us Americans? We just love to grumble about everything, don't we? 😢

I bet we even managed to confuse Kim with those digital passes.

hollowmason64 said:What's the difference there? What did I say differently the second time? And where exactly in our country hasn't local transmission been recorded?
How are they going to figure out where you're coming from? Maybe by asking you?

Yeah, but what about the people who were harassing folks for just taking a walk in accordance with the instructions from the National Headquarters, denying them the right to a ventilator if they get sick, or calling them names... Isn't that hysteria?

Nope. In my book, those are just consequences being applied.

In other words, your interpretation of the law doesn't hold water.

Well, at least you think you've interpreted it correctly. Honestly, everyone thinks they're some kind of expert, and then when they hit a wall and mess up big time, they act shocked that things turned out differently because they chose to interpret 😁
differently.

Look, for private individuals, anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed. On the flip side, there's another law that requires you to report a new residence if you've moved.

Honestly, nobody is actually profiting here, but unless someone is a tenant whose landlord refused to register them—making it impossible—there's no excuse for not updating an address other than laziness or looking out for one's own interests.
Anyway, people like that shouldn't be taking their frustrations out on others just because they're in a bind themselves.
And the local government is what it is; I didn't write the rules. 😁

Based on everything I’ve seen from people over the years, when you finally make that trek back to your hometown, nobody actually asks you any questions—you just show up, and that's that. You simply arrive home.

Where we see those absolute hotspots—the areas where things have truly spiraled out of control because either the contact circles among the infected can't be pinpointed or they're just way too massive compared to the general population—there’s absolutely zero movement being made. As it stands right now, we're looking at nothing but total stagnation in places like the Island, Betin, and Kornat Island.

If you’re going to keep digging your heels in on that particular claim, the least you could do is back it up with a concrete example or, better yet, an official statement from someone who actually has the authority to speak on the matter.

hollowmason64 said:What's the difference there? What did I say differently the second time? And where exactly in our country hasn't local transmission been recorded?
How are they going to figure out where you're coming from? Maybe by asking you?

Yeah, but what about the people who were harassing folks for just taking a walk in accordance with the instructions from the National Headquarters, denying them the right to a ventilator if they get sick, or calling them names... Isn't that hysteria?

Nope. In my book, those are just consequences being applied.

In other words, your interpretation of the law doesn't hold water.

Well, at least you think you've interpreted it correctly. Honestly, everyone thinks they're some kind of expert, and then when they hit a wall and mess up big time, they act shocked that things turned out differently because they chose to interpret 😁
differently.

Look, for private individuals, anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed. On the flip side, there's another law that requires you to report a new residence if you've moved.

Honestly, nobody is actually profiting here, but unless someone is a tenant whose landlord refused to register them—making it impossible—there's no excuse for not updating an address other than laziness or looking out for one's own interests.
Anyway, people like that shouldn't be taking their frustrations out on others just because they're in a bind themselves.
And the local government is what it is; I didn't write the rules. 😁

Honestly, this says more about you than anyone else. You’ve got an epidemiologist literally telling us that getting some fresh air is healthy and actually helps boost the immune system, yet you’re sitting here acting like you have some divine insight, hysterical over people who are simply following professional guidance. And then, to top it off, you turn around and start lecturing everyone else as if they’re all self-proclaimed experts just because they aren't panicking like you are. If we're being real, you’re far more likely to end up needing a ventilator due to the sheer physical toll of the stress you're inducing in yourself through this constant hysterics, compared to someone who just went for a walk and followed the instructions laid out by the National Headquarters.

If you’re sitting there wondering why they won't just sign some official declaration stating that stepping out for a walk isn't actually a high-risk activity, let me break this down for you. Look, maybe taking a stroll through the park isn't inherently dangerous—hell, maybe a bit of fresh air and movement actually does wonders for your immune system. I’m all for getting outside, really, I am. But that doesn't change the fundamental reality of the situation. It doesn't matter how "safe" the walk itself feels when you consider that tomorrow, you could be standing in the middle of a Walmart aisle and have someone who's carrying a virus sneeze right into your face. That's the part people seem to be glossing over in this whole debate.

hollowmason64 said:What's the difference there? What did I say differently the second time? And where exactly in our country hasn't local transmission been recorded?
How are they going to figure out where you're coming from? Maybe by asking you?

Yeah, but what about the people who were harassing folks for just taking a walk in accordance with the instructions from the National Headquarters, denying them the right to a ventilator if they get sick, or calling them names... Isn't that hysteria?

Nope. In my book, those are just consequences being applied.

In other words, your interpretation of the law doesn't hold water.

Well, at least you think you've interpreted it correctly. Honestly, everyone thinks they're some kind of expert, and then when they hit a wall and mess up big time, they act shocked that things turned out differently because they chose to interpret 😁
differently.

Look, for private individuals, anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed. On the flip side, there's another law that requires you to report a new residence if you've moved.

Honestly, nobody is actually profiting here, but unless someone is a tenant whose landlord refused to register them—making it impossible—there's no excuse for not updating an address other than laziness or looking out for one's own interests.
Anyway, people like that shouldn't be taking their frustrations out on others just because they're in a bind themselves.
And the local government is what it is; I didn't write the rules. 😁

Regarding that quoted text, I actually provided the specific source for you—it’s the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to streamline cross-border legal access and ensure the public can actually find information regarding their various initiatives and general European Union policies. It is, quite frankly, a much more relevant and reliable source than that rather bleak interpretation you've pulled from somewhere where the sun never shines.

Don't even sweat it, people aren't constantly hooked up to ventilators. It's usually more about bacteria or a virus

They trap us within four walls and then tell us to work on our immune systems. Just get out into nature—stay home. It’s nothing but constant contradictions. Honestly, you guys can't even decide if you're sending us away or bringing us in. This whole thing is going to wreck everyone's health, leaving us totally vulnerable to whatever beast decides to strike next.

It won't be that bad. Summer is right around the corner, and those warmer days are coming—which always does wonders for your immune system, especially if you just crack a window open and let some air in.