Republican Texas judge orders lesbian couple to live apart or lose children

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Well....I am of the opinion, based on what little and one sided information is presented in the source story, that this is most likely the ex-husband using the law to keep his kids out of what he may think is a bad environment for the children. If he truly did not care as the story says then he would not have been involved. I have a clause in my divorce papers that makes it so my ex can't introduce our child to anyone she is dating until they have been together for at least 6 months....I don't find that odd at all. It was in order to keep my child from getting attached to anyone my ex dated until they are seriously dating which in my opinion would be around a 6 month time-frame.

If this was truly a law in TX, then the couple was actually breaking the law prior to the judge's order. The fact the clause was put in after the divorce just means that the ex-wife did not care enough to read over the divorce papers or understand them enough to make an intelligent decision.

In my experience with the law, ignorance is never an accepted excuse.

edit on 5/20/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)

These women did not have a one night stand relationship. From the OP's link:

Compton said that she and Price have been together for three years. Compton’s ex-husband rarely bothers to see the children and was previously arrested on charges of third-degree felony stalking in 2011, charges that he was able to plea down to criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

No. Heterosexual couples could get married - then this clause would have no affect. These women don't have that option. The judge was well aware of this fact.

You’re being overly sensitive and defensive IMO.

This judge has no axe to grind with homosexuals…at least none we’ve seen. All we have is the ruling - that’s it. It’s unfair to start accusing the guy of bias already. Can you provide a link to ONE SINGLE THING this judge did or said in the past that makes you think he has an anti-gay agenda?

Did you read the article?

The judge wrote that he disapproved of the two women’s “lifestyle.”

reply to post by kaylaluv


it makes no matter what the judges personal feelings are. he is only enforcing the law which both parties agreed to. he can flatout state whatever his position on others is but he cannot use his personal stance to influence his application of law. all the judge did was uphold a law.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Did you read the article?

The judge wrote that he disapproved of the two women’s “lifestyle.”

WRONG! Page Price said that on FB! That was Price's opinion.

Where did they quote the judge's ruling? Have you read the ruling?

This is propaganda!

reply to post by tothetenthpower

It's not just gay & lesbian couples, it happens to straight couples also. I had a family member get smacked with one (morality clause) when living with his fiancé. Basically the ex-wife wanted to make his life miserable, so she had it added in. And it worked, they pretty much separated for over a year before reconnecting late last year.

I think the whole idea is bullcocky and is only used as a revenge tool in divorces.

What a shame!!

reply to post by kaylaluv


Never said they did, but one of them obviously did not care to read the final divorce decree either. Had they done this then she would have known she was breaking a law and gone about getting it changed prior to breaking it.

What she is doing is the equivalent of saying she is above the law and throwing a tantrum to see how much support she can garner after the fact.

It is similar to race issues....if you break the law and don't want to accept the consequences just throw race into the mix with some media and voila...lines and suddenly you have the whole country reading about how stupid you were in the first place for not doing it right.

Again....ignorance is never an excuse in a court of law.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Did you read the article?

The judge wrote that he disapproved of the two women’s “lifestyle.”

WRONG! Page Price said that on FB! That was Price's opinion.

Where did they quote the judge's ruling? Have you read the ruling?

This is propaganda!

edit on 20-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

I don't need to read the ruling. He's a conservative Republican in Texas. He was willing to break up a stable home where the women had been together for 3 years. Nuff said.

reply to post by kaylaluv


How do you know this was a stable home? You are only reading the rantings of one person. Very one-sided.

Obviously this lady had some serious issues to begin with if she was married and had kids with a man prior to wanting to be with women....

So you think the kids will understand mom being with dad for x number of years then suddenly sleeping with another woman? Come on.....it isn't like they adopted these kids together or something. That kind of relationship change can scar a kid for life. A divorce alone can scar them but a divorce where mom starts living and sleeping with another woman would be utterly confusing and hard for a child to understand.

Stable home you say? Doubtful....

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Did you read the article?

The judge wrote that he disapproved of the two women’s “lifestyle.”

WRONG! Page Price said that on FB! That was Price's opinion.

Where did they quote the judge's ruling? Have you read the ruling?

This is propaganda!

edit on 20-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

I don't need to read the ruling. He's a conservative Republican in Texas. He was willing to break up a stable home where the women had been together for 3 years. Nuff said.

this is an unacceptable stance which displays hypocracy at its greatest. you are judging someone for their beliefs which have no bearing on their enforcement of law in this case. you are trying to use emotion to manipulate people which is the lowest of all forms of manipulation. this is a propaganda thread at best with no true merit towards any cause.

reply to post by Vasa Croe

Obviously this lady had some serious issues to begin with if she was married and had kids with a man prior to wanting to be with women....

This statement, in my opinion, represents a certain lack of understanding of human sexuality. There really is no black and white to it. Some men are hopelessly gay, and the thought of being with a woman is disgusting to them, others are bi-sexual, and can appreciate both sexes. The same goes for women.

I know of more than a few women who enjoy other women's company, both socially and sexually, who also have families and husbands whom they love.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

Obviously this lady had some serious issues to begin with if she was married and had kids with a man prior to wanting to be with women....

This statement, in my opinion, represents a certain lack of understanding of human sexuality. There really is no black and white to it. Some men are hopelessly gay, and the thought of being with a woman is disgusting to them, others are bi-sexual, and can appreciate both sexes. The same goes for women.

I know of more than a few women who enjoy other women's company, both socially and sexually, who also have families and husbands whom they love.

Totally understand. Maybe she should have thought a bit more about it before bringing kids into the equation. However, she isn't just doing what you stated....she went from one extreme to the other and is now complaining because she broke a law and doesn't like the consequences of her actions.

reply to post by kaylaluv

I don't need to read the ruling. He's a conservative Republican in Texas. He was willing to break up a stable home where the women had been together for 3 years. Nuff said.

So you allow a propaganda story to further solidify your political bias? Deny ignorance?

The judge never said he didn’t approve of their lifestyle. That was a misrepresentation on your part!

Oh well! Carry on!

reply to post by buster2010


i could be way wrong on this but i think with Clinton passing the defense of marriage act that the supreme court could not really do any thing to effect this case as gay marriage is federally illegal as it sits now(i think the SC is ruling on it) so with them not being able to legaly marry they might not be able to over rule the family court with that morality clause in effect.....not saying i like it or anything but i dobut the supreme court will rule on this matter as they are staying pretty far away from ruling on gay marriage as a whole

some info on morality clauses
www.dadsdivorce.com...

forum.dadsdivorce.com...

www.expertlaw.com...

seems the family court has the ball for this one and if they try to leave or violate the order they will be in contempt of court.....

www.marriageadvocates.com...

answers.yahoo.com...

www.dallasdivorcelawyerblog.com... specificly from texas

If the final divorce decree does contain this clause, there are a few options that you have to ensure that your ex complies with what the judge orders. After all, you follow the orders, why doesn't your ex have to do the same? The judge's orders were entered for several reasons, but one of the main issues a judge considers when determining custody and possession is the "child's best interest." To ensure that your child(ren) are safe and that your ex follows the judge's orders, you can ask your attorney to file a motion for enforcement. This asks the judge to take notice of your ex's non-cooperation and order your ex to not have that person as an overnight visitor anymore. Basically, do what the morality clause says. Also, if you are unsure as to what person this morality clause applies to, you can ask your attorney to file a motion for clarification asking the judge to spell out what the clause means exactly so that both parties of the divorce are clear as to who cannot be in the residence within a certain period of time when the children are there. That is the beauty of the morality clause--to ensure that your ex doesn't have a rendezvous with their new boyfriend/girlfriend while they are in possession of your children. If you have one, seek to do either options discussed above.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


So what is wrong with a morality clause? Are you saying that lesbians and homosexuals lack morality so its ok for them to live together???
Besides, as I read the article, this is in the DIVORCE papers...so after the divorce is finalized, then the mother can live with whomever she wants.

reply to post by Rocker2013


All people are controlled by other people. Everywhere and at all times. If no one had a right to tell someone else how to live we would not have government or society. Someone has to make the rules. I am extremely smart. Therefore I have a right to tell stupid people how to live. It is for their own good. They do not know enough to make proper decisions.

The rules I say we should follow were put down by the creator of the universe. I do not agree with all of them. But no matter how smart I am, God is smarter and He knows better than I do. Only fools think there is no God. They delude themselves so they make their own rules and be their own god. That only works for so long, then they have to answer for their delusions.

I claim authority for my proclamations from my superior knowledge and the fact that my ideas will not conflict with the greater rules of God. Therefore I have the right to tell others how to live.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Come on!! This is nothing more than an over-hyped story to keep gays in the news, bash Republicans and push the gay marriage agenda.

There was no unfair treatment in this case and the ruling had absolutely nothing to do with their "lifestyle." This clause is often used in divorce cases to protect the children and not confuse them when boyfriends/girlfriends stay the night. This type of thing happens all the time between men and woman during divorce. I wouldn’t want my kids to see their mother (my ex) with another MAN or WOMAN right away.

Agenda driven OP? I think so!

Don't believe the hype, people!

Although Seabag is 100% correct when he says that these types of clauses are used in cases of hetrosexual couples, this particular story is not "agenda driven" and the Judge makes it known that this ruling was based on the lifestyle of this couple. According to the article...

The judge wrote that he disapproved of the two women’s “lifestyle.”

Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Besides, as I read the article, this is in the DIVORCE papers...so after the divorce is finalized, then the mother can live with whomever she wants.

Not true in cases where minor children are involved. This would completely be a non-issue if there were no kids. Divorce with children is a different beast. The child(rens) welfare is what the clause is ultimately about and that is what is being debated.

OMG people. it is a provision of their divorce decree called a coehabitation clause NOT a morality clause. it is in most divorces. the judge did not even have to give the 30 days, by law he could have awarded imediate and full custody to the father. so if anything he swayed towards the ladies by giving them a grace period which is NOT required by law. it makes no matter what his personal opinion is, all that matters is weather or not he enforced the divorce decree. in this case he did as such. Grow up people, stop trying to break this nation with ignorance and special agendas.

reply to post by MrWendal


Not to be too picky but if you click on the links inside the linked source you get to the actual source which the wording is phrased a bit different and lends to the thought that the woman, Price, just stated that on her own and was her own opinion of why the judge upheld the documents:

Actual Source

Price posted about the judge’s ruling on Facebook last week, writing that the judge placed the clause in the divorce papers because he didn’t like Compton’s “lifestyle.”

Again...in my opinion she is just ticked because she was called out on a law she was breaking that she should have known about had she actually read her divorce docs. So now she is making it about her sexuality in hopes to garner media attention and force the hand of the court to make a different decision. I would like to know how this ends up. Sure the kids should not have to deal with this, but it could have all been avoided long ago had she just read her divorce docs. She is trying to place blame on the court because of her own ignorance and misunderstanding of the law and the document she signed in order to have a divorce granted.

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Besides, as I read the article, this is in the DIVORCE papers...so after the divorce is finalized, then the mother can live with whomever she wants.

Not true in cases where minor children are involved. This would completely be a non-issue if there were no kids. Divorce with children is a different beast. The child(rens) welfare is what the clause is ultimately about and that is what is being debated.

So if the father had custody of the kids (I know he hasnt seen the kids in a long time) hypothetically, then if he found a girlfriend and she moved in that would be against the morality clause as well?