Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CasaVigilante
CONGRATS to the brave judge............Lesbian family? What a joke that is. Lesbians shouldn't even be allowed to live apart let alone together with a small child whose mind they will surely bring to ruin - which is their intention by the way: destroy all semblance of family life in America. Disgusting !!!!!!
edit on 20-5-2013 by CasaVigilante because: (no reason given)


Actually the joke here would be your post. It is attitudes like the one you exhibit in your post that is destroying America. It is attitudes like the one you exhibit in your post that ruins minds. It is attitudes like the one you exhibit in your post, that is truly disgusting.

Now moving along from the ignorance of others to the actual story here, I question a few things. The article is full of cool little buzz words, like "lesbian couple", "Republican Judge". For instance, if this is indeed a "lesbian couple" why would this be part of a divorce decree? Obviously one of these women was not always a Lesbian, now was she?

What does "Republican" have to do with any of this? There are plenty of "Republicans" who do not take such stances as this against gay marriage or homosexuality. So "Republican" has very little to do with this decision, it is about stupidity.

If anything, this case highlights the problem with Family Court that we have in this Country. The truth is Family Court operates outside the law. It is not a Court system as described by our Constitution. There are no juries, except for the Judge who serves as Judge and Jury and is never held accountable for the decisions they (Judges) make. "Family" Court is the true definition of a Kangaroo Court.




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 
I don't understand how such a clause could be sneaked into a divorce decree without someone noticing it. I assure you it is not standard procedure for the state of Texas. I do know that the only way this could have ended up back before a judge is if someone filed contempt of court charges for the order being broken (disregarded) so who exactly brought the matter before the court and filed charges? Was it the bitter ex-husband or was the couple reported by someone else? If not the ex-husband then apparently there is someone else who is "out to get" the couple.

Someone has suggested the couple move to another state so that they can stay living together- that may not be a good idea. Leaving the state does not change the court order and it could come back to haunt them. Their best course of action is to appeal the case and try to get it into the court of a sympathetic judge to have the "morality clause" thrown out. I'm curious as to if the mother fought the morality clause when first added or just signed the papers to get the matter over with. Custody cases can be harrowing and it is possible that the mother just wanted to get it over with without considering the long term ramifications of the papers she signed. For the sake of the children I hope this mess gets sorted out so that their family unit can be restored.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Holy smokes batman..

This is a first time for me.... I personally know these people...

They are good people and I can see this case going to the Supreme Court.
edit on 20-5-2013 by knowledgedesired because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
I don't think that politics enters into it. Sounds like he was going by the divorce agreement--by the letter of the law. Now, I agree that the part of the divorce agreement banning "no one present after nine unless related by blood or marriage" is a stupid one, but that is part of the agreement that she signed and the Judge seems to be holding her to it. Sounds like she had a crappy divorce lawyer or there was something else going on that made her ex insist that this clause be included.


The judge put that clause in the agreement after the divorce was final.


In a post on Facebook, Price wrote that Roach had inserted the morality clause into the divorce agreement when Compton’s ex-husband Joshua Compton attempted to gain custody of the children in 2011.


The idiot judge did this on his own.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Holy smokes batman..

This is a first time for me.... I personally know these people...

They are good people and I can see this case going to the Supreme Court.
edit on 20-5-2013 by knowledgedesired because: (no reason given)


Hopefully it will go to the Supreme Court. Judges ruining families just because they don't personally like a persons lifestyle should be stopped.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 


YEP!

These ladies should just move. WA is beautiful all year long, and sexuality is definitely not an issue.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by NavyDoc
I don't think that politics enters into it. Sounds like he was going by the divorce agreement--by the letter of the law. Now, I agree that the part of the divorce agreement banning "no one present after nine unless related by blood or marriage" is a stupid one, but that is part of the agreement that she signed and the Judge seems to be holding her to it. Sounds like she had a crappy divorce lawyer or there was something else going on that made her ex insist that this clause be included.


The judge put that clause in the agreement after the divorce was final.


In a post on Facebook, Price wrote that Roach had inserted the morality clause into the divorce agreement when Compton’s ex-husband Joshua Compton attempted to gain custody of the children in 2011.


The idiot judge did this on his own.


Well, then if true he doesn't have much to stand on. I wonder what was the ex-husband's complaint that made the judge do it? Midnight parties? People coming in and out? I have the feeling that there has to be more to the story.

ETA: a facebook post on facebook from the complaintant does not an after-the-agreement insert make. She could just be saying that.
edit on 20-5-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
I wonder what was the ex-husband's complaint that made the judge do it? Midnight parties? People coming in and out? I have the feeling that there has to be more to the story.



Yeah, it's probably the fact the ex-husband feels emasculated by his wife leaving him for another woman -- he commiserates with the judge, who's a good ole boy. The judge offers to fix that b**** and adds the clause.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



Originally posted by NavyDoc
I wonder what was the ex-husband's complaint that made the judge do it? Midnight parties? People coming in and out? I have the feeling that there has to be more to the story.

ETA: a facebook post on facebook from the complaintant does not an after-the-agreement insert make. She could just be saying that.


So, you're suggesting that:

A. There must be something more to these women's behavior that deserves such invasive action into their private lives by the government.
B. That she's lying about the judge inserting that clause into her divorce.

Truth is, inserting a "morality clause" has become fairly commonplace in Texas, in order to keep gay people from cohabiting.



Ken Upton Jr., senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal’s Dallas office, said he is familiar with the case. He said morality clauses are rarely enforced and were historically used to prevent unmarried people from cohabitating with children present. Courts often include the clauses without people knowing, especially in conservative areas like Collin County, he said.

Gay couples are unfairly targeted under the clause because they can’t legally marry in Texas, Upton said.

So, an ex who is upset that his marriage ended because his wife was gay could use it against her later.


Dallas Voice

Also:



“This could be an important case in Texas,” he said. “I think it’s a case to watch.”


I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and sets a precedent to get the government OUT of people's bedrooms!


.
edit on 5/20/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
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!



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


It seems that the judge in question based his verdict on his own personal moral standard. I mean, if he did not see an other choice for this verdict because he has to do his job but would personally not wish for this missery and tragedy he would have added the option..

Republican Texas judge orders lesbian couple to live apart or lose children...or move to an other state or country.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by CasaVigilante
 


I agree with the judge on this one. And you. As a christian I feel it is morally wrong to allow people to live in such a depraved state. And furthermore I agree with the old testament concerning the disposition of homosexuals. And I lament that we no longer enforce those very intelligent and proper directives set forth therein.

The judge needs a pat on the back and we all need to acknowledge his common sense. Perversion is never to be condoned or permitted. And the definition of perversion doesn't change just because people become more perverted.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 



It seems that the judge in question based his verdict on his own personal moral standard.


How did you come to that conclusion with such little info??


What the judge DID DO was not let the fact that this was a LESBIAN couple interfere with his ruling; he didn’t cater to them like many would be compelled to do. This type of thing happens in divorce all the time to heterosexuals.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
this is called a coehabitation clause, which is very common in shared custody divorces. it applies to all persons of non-blood relation. this is about a clause in the divorce that both parties agreed to not about anti-gay sentiment. the spin that you people are putting on this is insane. and from a forum moderator? come on.... Deny ignorance, do not perpetuate it, do your research before posting such outlandish propaganda.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robonakka
reply to post by CasaVigilante
 


I agree with the judge on this one. And you. As a christian I feel it is morally wrong to allow people to live in such a depraved state. And furthermore I agree with the old testament concerning the disposition of homosexuals. And I lament that we no longer enforce those very intelligent and proper directives set forth therein.

The judge needs a pat on the back and we all need to acknowledge his common sense. Perversion is never to be condoned or permitted. And the definition of perversion doesn't change just because people become more perverted.


So we should bring slavery back? Because the old testament is in favor of slavery. And I guess we should bring stoning back? Stoning children for disobeying their parents, as in the old testament?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by zatara
 



It seems that the judge in question based his verdict on his own personal moral standard.


How did you come to that conclusion with such little info??


What the judge DID DO was not let the fact that this was a LESBIAN couple interfere with his ruling; he didn’t cater to them like many would be compelled to do. This type of thing happens in divorce all the time to heterosexuals.




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.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robonakka
reply to post by CasaVigilante
 


I agree with the judge on this one. And you. As a christian I feel it is morally wrong to allow people to live in such a depraved state. And furthermore I agree with the old testament concerning the disposition of homosexuals. And I lament that we no longer enforce those very intelligent and proper directives set forth therein.

The judge needs a pat on the back and we all need to acknowledge his common sense. Perversion is never to be condoned or permitted. And the definition of perversion doesn't change just because people become more perverted.


I personally believe that it is a perversion that one group of people who believe in a magical sky fairy think they have the right to control the lives of others, much like the Nazis did. So you wouldn't mind if I decided to become a judge and rule you to be a mentally ill person, then have you removed from your family and children for their safety, right?

Can you REALLY not see the stupidity of your own ignorant views? Really?
I know education levels in the USA (especially amongst the religiously inclined) are nothing to be proud of, but can you seriously not understand that you HAVE NO RIGHT TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE?

I would really like to know how you justify your view. You believe that you have the right to control others, to dictate their lives, based on your religious beliefs. Even when their lives have no effect on you at all, you think you have the right to control others. What makes you any different from a Nazi, or the Taliban, or any other despotic political or religious group of dictators?

Please, I want to know how you justify this, and how you differentiate yourself from those sickening groups of people. And don't come back with some Bible quote or circular "belief". I want an actual explanation about this, something I would expect from a minimally educated adult.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
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?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
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)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


it makes no matter weather or not the judge knew it would be inhibiting to the couple being together. all the judge did was enforece law. he is not supposed to take on other aspects of the law while enforcing what is actual law. the couples attorneys, note that is plural, agreed on the coehabitation clause. that means both sides attorneys are the resbonsible parties, not the judge for enforcing what the couple agreed to.






top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join