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

Originally posted by MrWendal

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.”

the judge followed the law, period. i promise that in hetero couple divorces the coehabitation clause has been invoked more than any other group. stop trying to make this about gay agendas.

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.

But that is an assumption, isn't it? "I don't need to see the evidence because I feel his guilty based upon my preconcieved notions," is still not fact.

Originally posted by rangersdad

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?

CORRECT!!! it is not a morality clause, it is called a coehabitation clause. it works for and against both parties in the divorece no matter what their sexual prefference is.

Originally posted by MrWendal
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.”

I guess you missed my post above yours.

Page Price (the girlfriend) said that on FB. That quote was Price's opinion, not the judges opinion.

This is propaganda. The judge made no such comment and has no history of bias against homosexuals.

Originally posted by rangersdad

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?

You are debating a one sided story and only have Price's side as far as him not being there.

As to your other question..yes he would be breaking the law in that case. It is not my opinion that he is, the divorce decree is a LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT on BOTH parties involved.

Originally posted by rangersdad
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.

What is the morality based on? Give one logical reason as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to raise children.

reply to post by seabag


Yes I just saw the link to teh actual source, so I will be checking that out.

In any event, I do not think the homosexuality aspect of this is even the real core issue. My opinion is that family courts operate outside the law anyway, that is how they can make these stupid court orders. So if the homosexual angle finally draws attention to the unconstitutionality of Family Courts, I'm all for it.

What sense does it make when a family court can allow an unfit Mother to keep children at the expense of a Father who is fit? We have all seen those stories.

What sense does it make when a man is piled with insane debt disguised as "Child Support", while the Mother refuses to work and continues to have more children?

What sense does it make for Father's who refuses to take responsibility, and seemingly get away with it for years and years?

How many cases do we need to see of Child Protective Services taking children on the order of some Family Court Judge for things that are not a crime at all?

How many cases of Judges who get kick backs from private juvenile detention centers for sentencing children to their facility do we need to see?

We have seen all these stories, and they originate from the Family Court System, which is not to be confused with the real judicial system in this country. Family Court is a whole different beast.

So if playing the gay card gets some focus on the corruption of this Court system, fine by me. At least now it is getting the attention it deserves, as long as people focus on the real issue.

I admit, I read this article and took it at face value, but since then, I have discovered that the judge didn't INSERT the morality clause without her knowing about it. It was part of the divorce agreement that she signed. The judge just enforced it (perhaps at the request of the husband).

Update: It has been rightfully pointed out that I used the word "inserted" above, when in fact the judge "enforced" the morality clause that was already in the document. That is an important distinction and I very much appreciate this being brought to my attention.

Formatted for clarity

Daily KOS

And after giving this some thought, I have decided that there's really no way we can know if he did this because he didn't approve of their lifestyle or he was just following the law exactly, which he seems to pride himself on doing. This may have NOTHING to do with her being a lesbian, but just reflects the antiquated way they sometimes do things in Texas. Ms. Price may have signed the divorce agreement fully hoping to keep her husband from having one-night-stands in front of the kids...

Still, if gays were allowed to marry in Texas, this wouldn't be an issue. And 6 out of 10 Texans support legal recognition of same-sex unions. I hope this gets attention as keeping gays from marrying causes problems like this.

Gay marriage is trending up, opposition to any legal recognition has trended down. Texas probably isn't going to go the way of Maryland and Washington anytime soon, but legal recognition of same-sex unions—which is prohibited under the 2005 constitutional amendment—is now the preference of six in ten Texans. And a majority of young Republicans now support full marriage equality, suggesting that this trend is only going to continue, even if Texas doesn't start turning purple.

MotherJones

reply to post by seabag

Originally posted by seabag
This is propaganda. The judge made no such comment and has no history of bias against homosexuals.

Can you support this claim?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by seabag

 

Originally posted by seabag
This is propaganda. The judge made no such comment and has no history of bias against homosexuals.

Can you support this claim?

I don't have to prove something didn't happen.

Innocent until proven guilty, friend. That's how we roll in 'Merika!

**edit to add** BTW - glad you reversed course (your retraction above) and saw it for what it is. Star for that!

well if she wants to get around the order the only loop hole i can think of off hand is to rent out a room in her house to the woman and charge her a dolalr rent,that way she has at least 30 days(if not more depending on lease) before she can legaly be kicked out......it might work but im sure there are other loopholes out here that can fix the problem

reply to post by seabag

Originally posted by seabag
I don't have to prove something didn't happen.

You said:

1. this is propaganda
2. that the judge DIDN'T make the comment. How do you know? Maybe he told her that.
3. that he has no history of bias

Where do you get your information? Unless you have grounds to make those statements, you're assuming as much as anyone else here.

**edit to add** BTW - glad you reversed course (your retraction above) and saw it for what it is.

I didn't reverse. I withdrew my judgement until I have more information. I'm not making a claim that it's just propaganda. I just don't have enough information to make that judgment. You apparently do. I'm asking what causes you to say that? Or are you also jumping to conclusions, only on the other side?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You said:

1. this is propaganda
2. that the judge DIDN'T make the comment. How do you know? Maybe he told her that.
3. that he has no history of bias

Where do you get your information? Unless you have grounds to make those statements, you're assuming as much as anyone else here.

You can’t prove something that didn’t happen! Innocent until proven guilty! There is no bias by the judge and there was no comment made by him about a person's lifestyle. Prove me wrong or don’t make the claim…that goes for everyone.

It’s propaganda by the author because the story is based on the assumption that the judge ruled that way because of a lifestyle choice. Not one person has provided a shred of evidence to back that assertion up. It’s propaganda by the OP because he/she ran with it despite the lack of evidence.

The OP said:

You know, it amazes me that conservatives often yell bloody murder at 'activist' judges who overturn certain laws, yet say nothing when a judge decides to ruin a family because he doesn't personally approve of their lifestyle.

That statement is complete BULLSPIT!

I didn't reverse. I withdrew my judgement until I have more information.

Whatever! At least you were honest.

reply to post by seabag

Originally posted by seabag
You can’t prove something that didn’t happen!

I'm not asking you to prove something that didn't happen. I'm asking how you know that it didn't happen.

You said that the judge DIDN'T make that statement. How do you know that? Maybe he did. Unless you have some inside information, you don't know if he said it or not.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He is not a defendant in a trial. But if you're going to spout, "Innocent until proven guilty", then the women are "innocent until proven guilty", too. But you're claiming that they are spreading propaganda, when, again, you don't know that. You're assuming.

There is no bias by the judge and there was no comment made by him about a person's lifestyle.

YOU are making positive claims. There is no PROOF that this judge ruled without bias. There is also no proof that he didn't make a statement about her lifestyle. Yet you are claiming both.

It’s propaganda by the author because the story is based on the assumption that the judge ruled that way because of a lifestyle choice. Not one person has provided a shred of evidence to back that assertion up.

And there's not one shred of evidence that the opposite is true either. My point is that you are no more sure than I am what happened here, yet YOU are assuming the woman is guilty and lying about what the judge said... "Innocent until proven guilty", remember?

For now, we don't have enough information to make a judgement either way!

At least you were honest.

Yes. It's the honorable thing to do. Can you do the same?

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?

According to Price, during the Comptons’ final divorce hearing, Roach stated that he did not like Carolyn’s “lifestyle.”

Paige also alleged that Roach told Carolyn Compton’s attorney that if he could throw her in jail for being gay, he would.

Source


Not sure how much clearer you want in this judges serious homophobia.

Originally posted by seabag

You can’t prove something that didn’t happen! Innocent until proven guilty! There is no bias by the judge and there was no comment made by him about a person's lifestyle.

Yes actually you can prove something didn't happen. Besides,you said that the judge had no HISTORY of bias, which indicates a broader scope than just what is applicable to this case which changes the context. A judge has a well documented history of decisions and why they are made. Also, they are often political figures so if he did express such an opinion no doubt someone would have been paying attention and certainly a media entity in some form may have published it.

It is reasonable to ask you to prove such a claim. I think it would be interesting if someone went digging and couldn't find anything. It is entirely possible that the judge may not have a bias here, and finding well... nothing would support that. The fact that you won't bother, and just get defensive is interesting as well. Are you afraid that maybe you will find something that does indicate a bias in the judge, which would indicate a bias of your own and discredit your argument? Just getting defensive doesn't really help your point though either.

Originally posted by seabag
It’s propaganda by the author because the story is based on the assumption that the judge ruled that way because of a lifestyle choice. Not one person has provided a shred of evidence to back that assertion up.

Agreed. So far that does seem to be the case.

Originally posted by seabag

It’s propaganda by the OP because he/she ran with it despite the lack of evidence.

Well I suppose you could technically call it that. I think there is sometimes a difference between deliberate efforts at propaganda and having a personal agenda and not fact checking... Sloppy maybe, but I don't know if I would be labeling the OP "propaganda" just yet.

Originally posted by seabag
The OP said:

You know, it amazes me that conservatives often yell bloody murder at 'activist' judges who overturn certain laws, yet say nothing when a judge decides to ruin a family because he doesn't personally approve of their lifestyle.

That statement is complete BULLSPIT!

Maybe complete bullspit... Maybe not complete bullspit. I don't know, but it is an assumptive assertion I suppose. My own experience says that those in positions of authority often use it to try to order the world in their own image so-to-speak, whatever that image may be; as such, the OP may not be so far off the mark in expressing that opinion. But pure opinion it is, with no proof to back it up, which is remarkably similar to most of what you have expressed. Long on opinion... Short on proof.

Pot. Kettle. You know how it goes.

reply to post by Dondylion


think the key part in your quote is Alleged as in not proven....also from your source alot of people making threats against a sitting judge on that website could perhaps be used against them in a court of law in this day and age.

do you by chance have a less biased source that could possibly show the actual not alleged statements of the jduge in question? i think if it was a guy and her dating the judge would have to do the same thing because of how the law is written right now and with the order in place for the divorce preceding's
www.dailykos.com...

Update: It has been rightfully pointed out that I used the word inserted above, when in fact the judge enforced the morality clause that was already in the document. That is an important distinction and I very much appreciate this being brought to my attention.

so from what i can see(and no i dont agree with it) the judge is just following the law and the order was already on file and he is just enforcing it(what judges are supposed to do) so judge did not add the morality clause which had been reported earlier but the father of the children did

if people wanna stop this thing from happening un do what Clinton did and repeal DOMA on the federal level,then federally gay marriage could be protected and legal everywhere federally until then it seems we are doomed to have these kind of things pop up all the time and lord knows the supreme court wont touch the issue with a 20 foot pole

if we wanna know what the judge really said some one just get a foia filed and try to get the court logs released(you all know the person from the court shows who is always furiously typing,if its said it court there will be a reccord in 90% of the cases ) hope this helps clarify things


www.judgeroach.org... a link to the judges re-election campaign.....so this may hurt his running chances(or get him elected in texas)
guess he allready won re-election

but to be fair this is what historicly happens to his oppenets as BH pointed out www.baumbach.org...

Sources at the courthouse told the Observer, that Attorney Sharon Easley was angry and some loud comments were exchanged between her and the judge. Ms. Easley left the courtroom, and then said something to the effect that, "Are you going to put me in jail?", in a manner that many perceived as challenging the judge. Judge Roach then ordered Easley to be placed under arrest and jailed. Easley was released later that evening. John Roach, Jr. won in the 2006 Republican by defeating Sharon Easley; He ran unopposed in the general election. Judge Roach was re-elected after defeating Keith Gore in the 2010 primary, and once again was unopposed in the November general election.

so i guess he just tends to have his political oppnents or critics arrested....

I found a very interesting article about our Judge John Roach (Jr.) and his father... Seems the OP may not have been far off, at least in terms of legislating from the bench to fulfill his personal desires.

In the Collin County Courthouse, Payback, Personal vendettas and Overzealous Prosecutions.

This is a comment from someone who lives there...

Collin Resident

The abuses of power described in this article are happening to people who find themselves in front of Roach Jr. for civil cases. This article mentions a favorite weapon of this piece of garbage...indictments for "tampering with a government document". This guy fancies himself as a real bad ass...which made it all the more ironic when he got himself shot while playing courthouse commando on his dad's private SWAT team. Roach Jr. is just like papa Roach...a bully and a thug cloaked in judicial black robes.

I have also read that if the women in this case appeal, they will probably win.

www.mediaite.com... what cheif justice john roberts says about gay marriage so i would not expect a pro gay ruling from the supreme court any time soon sadly.....but kagen(sp) seems for it

www.nytimes.com...://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/supreme-c ourt-to-hear-arguments-in-gay-marriage-cases-that-could-have/

www.cnn.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... 42e_story.html this is the most recent article and seems to say they did make a ruling but have yet to make it public so who knows how this will turn out

reply to post by tothetenthpower


To be fair, "Texas" doesn't need to do anything. This is a judge in McKinney. I didn't see anything other than "Texas Judge", which means nothing other than he is a judge in Texas. I presume it is a county judge. In that case, then the county that McKinney is in needs to get its act together, because the backwards thinking I see in this case is embarassing, both as a Texan and a human.

Besides that, the article is a significant amount of pure political bait. Right from him being a "Republican Judge". They are trying to pin his actions on a political party. I am certainly no Republican, so cannot speak for the mindset. But I know very few people who think that gay marriage should not be allowed down here. It all boils down to whose money makes Austin tick.