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

So I see the ugly issue of gay parenting has hit the news *sigh*

So people, what would you prefer; These kids to become wards of the state where they are denied the love of their mother and risk all the abuse that can come with it?

We could send them to the father, assuming that he wants them and he is a fit parent. But one would assume that she currently has custody because the courts decided she was the best place for them to be until this happened.

What are you all afraid is going to happen to these kids? They still have their mother, she hasn't
grown an extra head or horns and a tail.

When the kids are old enough, they will figure out for themselves how they feel about gay people as we all did.

I have a 7 year old nephew (on my partners side) This little kid adores me, in fact it's almost creepy how he is my shadow when he is near me. I am super careful to not flaunt my sexuality, my partner and I are not in pda's anyway so he gets no cues there either. His mother has explained to him that we are 'special' friends and if course at that age that's all he needs to know. He just thinks that it is cool that he has 2 uncles to play with and has even given us our own names - My partner is spikey uncle M (a reference to his hair) and I am funny uncle M because I always tell him jokes and make him laugh. We share the same first name, so in children's logic he found a way to know who he means when talking about us.

Originally posted by ToneDeaf
_______________________

Getting away from the original post but ,
speaking for myself an the sensible majority . . .
if a child needed to question say personal hygiene
they would be apt to ask a person of their same gender.
Example:
- a daughter asking her mom what it was like to
give birth.
How can two gay dads who adopt a girl
answer that ? Is this fair for a child to be deprived as this ?
NO , the child's needs MUST COME FIRST !

_______________________

Well i find this a bit silly, what about the parents who had to adopt, do you think they are so narrow minded as not to be able to explain where babys come from and how much pain and joy it is in child birth.

We grew up with books like where did i come from and whats happening to me and every woman and so forth, even my brother when he was younger knew why girls had their period. it is nothing to be ashamed about, its natural and im sure a mum and mum family would be able to explain why boys have urges and a dad and dad family could explain about period pain and so forth.

Love and harmony
Whateva

reply to post by Whateva69


I couldn't agree with you more on that one.

I was brought up in a family with both mother and father. Mum went out of her way to make sure we were kept in the dark about everything to do with sex and growing into adolescense. Dad was either too busy, too lazy or too henpecked to step up and take the responsibility. In the end it was my teacher at school that told me it was time to start shaving as one small example of how ignorant we were kept.

So, having a mum and dad can count for squat sometimes.

What I find really humorous in this entire story is they are saying they have been living together as a happy couple for 3 years yet the divorce was granted in 2011:

Source

The Comptons were granted a divorce in 2011, but the case was reopened last month to dispute custody of their two children after Joshua Compton hired a private investigator to gather information on his ex-wife because she is gay. He wanted to bring the case before a judge “in the interest and welfare of the children.”

So....according to the timeline in the reports she had to have been committing adultery in order for them to have been together for 3 years.

Sounds like this lady is just not a very good person all around.

Not only that but the lady bringing up the entire story has absolutely NO legal rights in the child's life. The woman bringing the story to the media is Page Price, the mother of the children is Carolyn Compton.

I love when someone that is not even party to having ANY say whatsoever in a case tries to push their way in.

Page Price sounds like a real piece of work....breaking up a marriage, helping the mom commit adultery, and now pushing her way into a court case and situation where she has absolutely no legal rights to be involved in at all.

I can't find a single quote in ANY source from the actual mother of the children in this case. It is all Price wanting to butt in on the situation and make a big story out of it.

What happen here?

Oh I see.

A Republican judge walked into a wrong bedroom. Man they do that too often now.

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
What I find really humorous in this entire story is they are saying they have been living together as a happy couple for 3 years yet the divorce was granted in 2011:

So....according to the timeline in the reports she had to have been committing adultery in order for them to have been together for 3 years.

Your point being? You do realise that divorce is only granted after a period of separation. My parents finally got divorced after 3 years of being apart for instance. So the date of the divorce means nothing in relation to the length of time they have been together.

Sounds like this lady is just not a very good person all around.

Not only that but the lady bringing up the entire story has absolutely NO legal rights in the child's life. The woman bringing the story to the media is Page Price, the mother of the children is Carolyn Compton.

She only has no rights because there is no legal recogntion for gay relationships. This does not mean that she is not a fit parent nor does it mean that she was necessarily the reason the marriage ended in the first place. Make sure you have all your facts in order before jumping to conclusions.

I love when someone that is not even party to having ANY say whatsoever in a case tries to push their way in.

Page Price sounds like a real piece of work....breaking up a marriage, helping the mom commit adultery, and now pushing her way into a court case and situation where she has absolutely no legal rights to be involved in at all.

So because she is gay you believe her relationship with Ms Compton is make believe and therefore invalid. We have a word to describe this condition; discrimination.

It's quite possible she is doing this for her partner because said partner is distraught and cant do it herself right now. That's what a loving partner does; share the load when it is too much for you to carry on your own.

I can't find a single quote in ANY source from the actual mother of the children in this case. It is all Price wanting to butt in on the situation and make a big story out of it

It was the husband that started this and now the wife's partner is doing something about it. Maybe she is staying quiet because the 'morality clause' that the judge just invented at his own discretion prevents her from saying anything or she loses the kids. Did you ever consider that possibility?

Have you not also given consideration to the fact that despite the judges very odd decision to put in a clause that raises a lot of questions as to how and why he gave custody to the mother over the father?
This partner you so vehemently oppose can't be a worse option that giving the kids to the father after all.........

Originally posted by ToneDeaf
_______________________

Getting away from the original post but ,
speaking for myself an the sensible majority . . .
if a child needed to question say personal hygiene
they would be apt to ask a person of their same gender.
Example:
- a daughter asking her mom what it was like to
give birth.
How can two gay dads who adopt a girl
answer that ? Is this fair for a child to be deprived as this ?
NO , the child's needs MUST COME FIRST !

_______________________

Seriously?
They would probably do what most single fathers of girls have done in the past. Namely ask a female relative or friend to talk to the daughter about the subject of the question if it is uncomfortable for them and their daughter to discuss it or the father has no knowledge on the subject.
Certainly that is what a co-worker did when his daughter started menstruating. He got a female co-worker, and friend, to discuss with his daughter what menstruation required.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Still waiting on that logical, non-emotive, non-God related argument and peer-reviewed sources that say two people of the same sex cannot raise a family. They cannot procreate naturally without some sort of donor, we get that. What I'm asking is for logical thought as to why they cannot raise children.

Also, one person's choice does not mean every same sex family is going to be the exact same. Remember that lad, Dave Peltzer? The one who wrote the books about what he went through growing up with his mum torturing him every step of the way? Her actions as a mother don't speak for every one else in a heterosexual family, so why would the actions of those two that you stated gave those meds to do the same for same sex families?

P.S., I would actually like sources for this. Something I can inspect myself. Not just what you say as your opinion.

I'll be waiting, still.

I see that the thread has been hijacked from it's original message that was properly dismisssed as special interest group porn. This is the type of things that will break this country apart. This inability to focus on facts instead of twisting then using emotional manipulation of the facts is going to destroy this great nation. But hey, who cares, as long as the special interest groups get their selfish points accross no matter what the facts are. People are fabricating a story in order to further their agenda. No matter how important the agenda is, fabricating facts and misleading people is not the solution.

Originally posted by markosity1973

Your point being? You do realise that divorce is only granted after a period of separation. My parents finally got divorced after 3 years of being apart for instance. So the date of the divorce means nothing in relation to the length of time they have been together.

Yes I do...I have had one myself. I also know that unless they had a document prior to the divorce finalizing saying they were released from eachother legally that she committed adultery.

She only has no rights because there is no legal recogntion for gay relationships. This does not mean that she is not a fit parent nor does it mean that she was necessarily the reason the marriage ended in the first place. Make sure you have all your facts in order before jumping to conclusions.

No....she has no rights because the children are not her children. It has nothing to do with being gay. Regardless of whether or not she is ever married to this woman she will never have any rights to the children. Make sure you get the facts right before trying to make a point.

So because she is gay you believe her relationship with Ms Compton is make believe and therefore invalid. We have a word to describe this condition; discrimination.

I never said anything of the sort. She has a relationship and her relationship is with the mother of the children this debate is about. It has nothing to do with her wants or thoughts....it has to do with laws. There is no term for what she is doing other than trying to bring the gay issue into this debate when it is about kids....not gays. She is emotionally upset....let me know when you can cry your way out of a court hearing for the well being of children based on legal paper signed by both parties.

It's quite possible she is doing this for her partner because said partner is distraught and cant do it herself right now. That's what a loving partner does; share the load when it is too much for you to carry on your own.

That is great she is doing it for her...cheers. Doesn't change the fact the court could care less who she is because she is not in any part of a legal document having anything to do with the kids from her partner's previous marriage nor should she have any part in it....she isn't their mom.

It was the husband that started this and now the wife's partner is doing something about it. Maybe she is staying quiet because the 'morality clause' that the judge just invented at his own discretion prevents her from saying anything or she loses the kids. Did you ever consider that possibility?

The judge didn't invent it. It was in the document she SIGNED for a divorce. She is ignorant and her claim is baseless. She is using the "gay" excuse to rally troops. It could have been a man for all I care...she still would have been wrong and stupid for not understanding what she signed when she was divorced. Did you ever consider the possibility that she is just ignorant and didn't even read her divorce docs to see what stipulations were in it?

Have you not also given consideration to the fact that despite the judges very odd decision to put in a clause that raises a lot of questions as to how and why he gave custody to the mother over the father?
This partner you so vehemently oppose can't be a worse option that giving the kids to the father after all.........

Really? So...please site me the percentage of fathers that get custody. And out of the custody they get, which part of the custody? Since you are so well versed in divorce then you should know there are multiple levels of custody and decision making areas that are granted to each parent in certain aspects of a child's life, such as decisions on healthcare and religion and whatnot. What if they were religious Christians and raised their children as such before she up and moved in with another woman and now he wants his child to go to church but maybe the church is not pro-gay? I don't know anymore than you do on this case yet you seem to state what a woman, who is upset, typed on Facebook as all truth. And how do you know she is not a worse option? All you have is a story SHE put out there to garner support and claims SHE is making to get headlines.

reply to post by Dondylion


It is my opinion, which is mine and not dependent on peers or others' agendas. I don't require re-enforcement by others.

It is based on my life experiences with both straights and gays in every day dealings. There are many out there labeled experts that make their living based on a specific agenda.

I will admit the arguments aren't a slam dunk either way yet my "preferences" are mine. Your willing to indulge gay preferences but not mine. That's fine.

The reality you have to face is to a huge percentage of the population doesn't agree with your take on it.
Texas, apparently doesn't either.

Don't live there? Then it's none of your business. If you do live there and don't like it, move to Ca.

Lines are being drawn, overdue in my opinion, on a state by state basis. Which is how our forefathers envisioned it.

I'm perfectly fine with you doing what you want in your state. Stay out of the business of others merely because you don't like it. Just some friendly advice.

reply to post by nwtrucker

Don't live there? Then it's none of your business. If you do live there and don't like it, move to Ca.

Inequality, whether in the state of your residence or not, should always be rallied against. All Texans aren't straight or of one mind about LGBT relationships and the "moralaity clause."

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by nwtrucker

 

Don't live there? Then it's none of your business. If you do live there and don't like it, move to Ca.

Inequality, whether in the state of your residence or not, should always be rallied against. All Texans aren't straight or of one mind about LGBT relationships and the "moralaity clause."

A majority are most certainly in agreement. Texas doesn’t recognize gay marriage.

Regardless, gay marriage has NOTHING to do with this story. This is a weak attempt at manipulating emotions using lies and conjecture. The judge did his job….there is no story here.

I’m not surprised so many of you bit the hook and got reeled in!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by nwtrucker

 

Don't live there? Then it's none of your business. If you do live there and don't like it, move to Ca.

Inequality, whether in the state of your residence or not, should always be rallied against. All Texans aren't straight or of one mind about LGBT relationships and the "moralaity clause."

The issue is not the "morality clause". That is in every state I think. It can be and typically is in every divorce decree issued by a court of law when minor children are involved. The issue is that the state does not recognize same sex marriages. There are very few that do. This lady chose not to follow the laws and as such is facing the consequences. She was lackadaisical with her own divorce papers by not fully reading or understanding them. This is what happens when you don't follow laws.

It would be the equivalent of getting a speeding ticket but arguing you did not see the speed limit sign.....ignorance doesn't work as an excuse.

If she read the papers and did not like what was in them then she did not have to sign them until she had them how they both wanted and agreed on them.

It is all around this woman's own fault for what is happening.

Regardless of the Sexual orientation of the parties involved, there are laws in many States where part of visitation rights will not allow children to sleep over with the the parent if they are cohabitating with another unmarried person. In Michigan there was a case where a man was denied the right of having his kids from a previous marriage spend the night at his house because he and his girlfriend were living together. Pretty messed up laws in both cases, but my point is, it applies to ALL people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

reply to post by seabag


reply to post by Vasa Croe


I just don't like being told or seeing someone else being told to butt out of issues that effect people in other states as a response to a debate. nwrucker's response was a cop out.

I'm sure plenty of out of staters expressed their opinions about California's prop 8 issues.

reply to post by windword

I just don't like being told or seeing someone else being told to butt out of issues that effect people in other states as a response to a debate.

No, I totally understand. When I said people got “reeled in” I was referring to the OP’s story….it’s all conjecture and is misleading. This couple is looking to the gay community for help, that’s all this is about. They want to use their homosexuality to pressure the legal system to make an exception for them.

As Vasa Croe pointed out, they claim to have been a couple for 3 years yet the one has only been divorced since 2011. You can’t break the law then ask the court for preferential treatment.

I'm sure plenty of out of staters expressed their opinions about California's prop 8 issues.

You’re right about that…

Hey, we’re all here to give our opinions, right?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by seabag

 

reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

I just don't like being told or seeing someone else being told to butt out of issues that effect people in other states as a response to a debate. nwrucker's response was a cop out.

I'm sure plenty of out of staters expressed their opinions about California's prop 8 issues.

I haven't told anyone to butt out except saying the lady, Price, in the story should butt out as she has no legal fight in this situation and is raising the "gay" flag just to stir the pot. That is a non-issue in this entire situation. It would have been the same had the woman been with a man at this point.

I don't know how much clearer I can state this or how many times....she signed her divorce papers WITH this clause in them so it is her OWN fault for this happening. Her ex simply pointed out that she was not following the papers....her partner, Price, is taking it emotionally because she ALSO had no idea of what was in the papers, making her ignorant by proxy of the mother.

the only reason gay people cant get married in the usa and qualify for full marriage benefits is because of DOMA(Clinton passed this one in 1996)
en.wikipedia.org...

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. Section 3. Definition of marriage In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

both democrats and republcians voted for it overwhelmingly too so i say again if you people wan this stuff to stop happening start pettions or whatnot to repeal DOMA as that is the current nail in the coffin of federally recognized gay marrage,and what keeps the states from having to recognize marriages from states where gay marriage is legal

heck i think there is only one state that will even let you dissolve a civil union

en.wikipedia.org...
money.cnn.com...

A patchwork of state marriage laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act has made the process of unraveling a relationship extremely difficult -- and expensive. A same-sex couple who marries in one state and later relocates to a state that doesn't recognize the marriage, for example, may be unable to get a traditional divorce. Often, they either have to move to the state where they married to establish residency or dissolve the marriage outside of the court system. Some states call this a dissolution of marriage instead of a divorce. In most cases, this means filing a civil lawsuit -- or multiple lawsuits. With no threat of a trial or a judge to make a ruling, couples often get stuck in negotiations and the lawyer fees can really pile up, said Kevin Maillard, a law professor at Syracuse University specializing in nontraditional families.

www.huffingtonpost.com... so a pregnant transgender man cant even get custody. not due to an evil judge but because of the federal government passing DOMA. people can get all offended at this judge but its ignoring the crux of the problem the fact that the federal government says gay marrage is illegal(as far as federal funds and bennies go) and not allowed to collect federal benefits,pension,benefits etc

reply to post by Vasa Croe

I haven't told anyone to butt out except saying the lady, Price, in the story should butt out as she has no legal fight in this situation and is raising the "gay" flag just to stir the pot. That is a non-issue in this entire situation. It would have been the same had the woman been with a man at this point.

No, no, I wasn't talking about you at all. I've pretty much stayed out of this argument up until here:

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by nwtrucker

 

Don't live there? Then it's none of your business. If you do live there and don't like it, move to Ca.

Inequality, whether in the state of your residence or not, should always be rallied against. All Texans aren't straight or of one mind about LGBT relationships and the "moralaity clause."

That is all!