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

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Why are you asking me?

Clearly I am an advocate of enforcement for BOTH parents.

What's good for one should be equally administered to the other.




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
It is probable... that the divorce custody agreement ties the divorcee to the locale in the general area of her ex-husbands residency.
edit on 22-5-2013 by dasman888 because: zombie kittens



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by redoubt
 


No I agree his being republican has little or nothing to do with it, but it was the title of the story.

I do think that Conservatives are far more likely to show this kind of behavior though than Democrats are to be honest.

You see Conservatives IMO, have been lied to and think that meddling in people's personal lives is somehow a conservative value, when in fact, it's a liberal one.

~Tenth


No, darling, the lie is the one that makes you divide the world into "liberal" and "conservative" in the first place. Once you relieve yourself of that systematic Orwellian conditioning, it'll surprise you how many lies are actually being told.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by requires1231
 


You should probably go read any and all of my posts and threads, and you'll soon realize I've been calling the left vs blue paradigm nonsense for a long, long time
.

~Tenth



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dasman888
It is probable... that the divorce custody agreement ties the divorcee to the locale in the general area of her ex-husbands residency.
edit on 22-5-2013 by dasman888 because: zombie kittens


VERY good point. It is possible that the ex-husband retained some sort of decision making rights for education allowing him to pick what school the kids go to or had a term that she had to stay in the same city.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
This thread makes me glad and sad at same time. It is sad to see such an abuse of the law with this lesbian couple, obviously they do not have the option to marry as they would if they were straight.

It makes me glad to see there are so many people that are going to bat for this couple on this board, meaning there are reasonable people walking around on the streets. It also makes me sad to see so many asinine and ridiculous views on here as well in regard to a adult consensual relationship between two women.

Also, to all of the viewpoints that state that lesbians are somehow ruining children is nonsense. Lesbian parents are far less likely to sexually, physically, and verbally abuse their children. Actually if you want to impose asinine laws that actually have statistics backing it up, prevent all men from being around children. That would prevent the majority of sexual abuse from happening ever again.

Don't take the last statement wrong, I know there are wonderful fathers out there...I am just pointing out that statistically that type of law would prevent more abuse than banning lesbians from raising children.

Either way I hope this couple challenges this and wins.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyofGlass
 



This thread makes me glad and sad at same time. It is sad to see such an abuse of the law with this lesbian couple, obviously they do not have the option to marry as they would if they were straight.


What abuse of the law?

I'm honestly curious what you're talking about.

This clause was part of the divorce decree, which this judge had no part in making. He was enforcing the decree that both parties signed.


edit on 22-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


My fiancee has a similar divorce decree (morality clause) as this couple does. In their decree, it states that to move, whichever parent has to give 30 days notice to the other parent, and if they chose to, they can fight it and prevent the other from moving at all. The primary provider decided on schools, and major decisions like that. They had to split medical costs, and any new address or phone number had to be provided in writing to the other.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Abuse of the law is when as a judge or attorney use the rule of law against a group excluded from certain aspects of the law that may be available to a different group. Historically there are many instances of this happening, please look up Dred Scott if you are curious. Gays and lesbians are the group that experiences this most often currently.

In Texas gays and lesbians cannot marry no matter how many years they have been living together. This judge added a morality clause that screws this couple over regardless of how serious they are or how much of a life they share together. They do not have the option to get married as they would if heterosexual which would circumvent the clause or nullify it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyofGlass
 




Abuse of the law is when as a judge or attorney use the rule of law against a group excluded from certain aspects of the law that may be available to a different group.

99% of the time this same clause is applied to heterosexuals who divorce. There was no special treatment here.




In Texas gays and lesbians cannot marry no matter how many years they have been living together. This judge added a morality clause that screws this couple over regardless of how serious they are or how much of a life they share together. They do not have the option to get married as they would if heterosexual which would circumvent the clause or nullify it.

The judge didn’t add the clause…he enforced it. It was part of the divorce decree both parties signed.

The story was designed to rile people up. Apparently it worked because many didn't bother to dig deeper than the propaganda article.



***edit to add***
Read Zaphod58's post above yours. Was that a case of discrimination, too?
edit on 22-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
You can be addicted to a certain kind of sadness when you see that well-educated people can be so narrow minded. There are things you can't learn in books and the first one is tolerance. But after this first feeling, you come to the conclusion that there will always be people against things they judge abnormal, even if we don't know who defines normality. But the most disgusting thing is to see the hypocrisy in this case. He does not like these women life style... it would be simpler to say "i'm against relationships between same sex people". Even if i'm almost certain that this judge is not disturbed when he is watching lesbian porn. It's fascinating to see that people's rights don't have value in this country any more. Under the pretext that you are a kind of authority you can now interfere in anybody's life and impose your rules.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyofGlass
 


Unless there is a complaint by one parent, morality clauses are very rarely enforced. In this case, there was a complaint by the ex-husband, who had previously been charged with felony stalking. It sounds like he's angry about her leaving (probably especially for another woman), and is doing whatever he can to screw her over. In this case, filing a formal complaint with the courts about her violating her decree. If he hadn't said anything, nothing would have been done, but since he did, the judge had no choice but to enforce it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by singEeau
 



But the most disgusting thing is to see the hypocrisy in this case. He does not like these women life style... it would be simpler to say "i'm against relationships between same sex people".


For the 200th time…..

The judge didn’t say he disapproved of their lifestyle. Page Price (the lesbian girlfriend) made that assumption and commented on her FB.

I’ve got to get out of this thread because people continue to be outraged over something that’s not true and they fail to read past the OP.

Cheers!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by singEeau
 


But there is zero evidence that he imposed the morality clause, and lots of evidence that it's pretty standard in ALL Texas divorces. He is only doing his job and enforcing the law, as required by Texas (and many other states).

The problem here is that she read and signed the divorce papers. She did this knowing that there was a morality clause in them, and knowing what the morality clause stated. She then went on to live her life as she chose (probably at the advice of her attorney, since they are rarely enforced). If she didn't want to have the morality clause in the decree, she shouldn't have signed the papers. Once she signed them, she was legally bound to abide by the terms, including the morals clause, if her ex-husband chose to raise a fuss about it, which in this case, apparently he did.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaph, I've gotta wince at the scumbag comment. If I was in the father's position, having had children in a hetero/traditional marriage, I'd have, at the least, reservations about my children now being raised in a gay environment.

It's as much his job to be concerned with his kids future as the mother's.

The real difference between the two "camps", in my opinion is the gay sexual act, itself.

I love my daughter and grandchildren, my late parents and others. At no time did "sex" have to enter into the equation, by thought or act.

Somehow, "love" is sufficient justification for sex, according to gays and their supporters. That basic difference defines the issue. How does a father trust a relationship that indulges that impulse and calls it "preference"?

Now the children are exposed to a potential courtship/indocrination to the gay agenda by either person that could last for years, not to mention potential abuse.

Yes, it can happen in any family, but I'd put my money on it occurring less in a "family" that doesn't follow the "if you love it, have sex with it" mentality.

Anyone who has a moral code that they attempt to subscribe to would want that code continued in their children. That's the immortality gift children give us, the parents.

The father is perfectly in his rights and I'd do the same.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


If it had been a normal complaint I'd agree with you. The only reason I made that comment is because he's playing games. He's been accused of stalking his ex. From some of the things I've read it's not "I don't want my children raised in this environment", but is "I'm pissed you left me and I'm going to make you're life hell for it."



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


This guy falls into the insecure category. If your wife left you for a woman, there could be some unanswered questions as to why that some people cannot handle. He needs some therapy and to grow a set and move on.

Let's also flip this and look at it if it was a woman making the complaint. Two women are more acceptable in society circles than two men by other parents, it is just a crummy fact but i have heard people say I would rather see two women kissing then two men. I think it happens a lot more than we think but a woman is usually more accepting because she may have known all along her husband was actually gay and finally came out.

It is also hard on the kids although people are making this about the lovers in this case. Children of same sex marriage or relationships are more apt to be teased at school/social functions/sports than hetero parents. In this case, the parents should find a more acceptable place not so they can have a relationship but so the children can grow up free and extra headache. I think both of the parents in this case are being selfish and using the kids.
\
just my two cents...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaph, cool. If that's the case, then I agree. However, perhaps he has concerns regarding the kids wellbeing and that's his motivation. I guess, as usual, we'll never know the true story.LOL



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


That very well could be the case. It's hard to know for sure with all the smoke connected to this one.LOL





top topics
 
30
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join