It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


According to what I'm reading it's not necessarily in every divorce in Texas, but it's also not uncommon. It's the "child's best interest" clause that Texas follows.

In this particular case, it's not the judge, it's the ex-husband. The judge is enforcing the clause as required by law. The ex-husband was charged with felony-stalking in 2011 but under a plea bargain he was found guilty of criminal trespassing. So the complaint was brought forward by the ex-husband, and the judge is doing his job, as required under the law.




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I am trying to show that you can be an idiot and be a felon. A mistake. Then, if that happens, there is a lot you cannot do because of that poor decision or choice.You can also be gay and not just love someone of the same sex, but be dangerous.

I was not trying to make a comparison between someone who is gay and a felon. Sorry about that.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


In my view this is a state issue, just as gun control et al. I could care less what you do. I certainly don't think a child in a gay marriage is on a par with a good, balanced traditional marriage.

Any claim on your part that the founding fathers had gay marriage in mind when articulating equal rights is nothing more than a sales job.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I read about the first ten comments and gave up. People always see what they want to see and not what happened. The judge simply enforced a contract agreed to by two parties. Nothing more. People want to throw the judge under the bus but never mention that this is what the woman agreed to. Be it right or wrong. Someone gave her a contract and said read this and if you agree to it sign it. She did . End of story.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I am trying to show that you can be an idiot and be a felon. A mistake. Then, if that happens, there is a lot you cannot do because of that poor decision or choice.You can also be gay and not just love someone of the same sex, but be dangerous.

I was not trying to make a comparison between someone who is gay and a felon. Sorry about that.


Fine. A felon could be a nice guy who made a mistake. A gay person could be an evil guy who deserves to be a felon. But, it isn't fair to lump gays who haven't hurt anyone with idiots and evil people who commit felonies. I was originally responding to the other poster (the rat guy) who was trying to equate felons with gays.
edit on 21-5-2013 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


off topic i know but sorry,the only felony's i think you can get for "speeding" are if you go over double the posted speed limit or go over 100(ive seen most cops write down 98 instead of 100 before so its not that comman)

i guess in theory they could get you for reckless driving which in some situations can be a felony but i have been pulled over going waaaaaaaaay to fast before going through nevada (was doing 110,cop wrote me up for 95)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


the judge did not put it in there it was in the original divorce agreement he is just inforcing it he did not add it him self as part of an agenda



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


I didn't think that he was enforcing an agenda, just raising a question about whether it was being fairly applied to everyone. Then I found the original article about it and saw that the ex-husband was the one making the complaint, and the judge was only enforcing it.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Originally posted by markosity1973
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.


Once again, your point is? Any relationship that is outside of marriage, whether one party is married or not is adultery. Most of the population is guilty of committing it. If you mean by special definition, extra marital affair, once again she would be far from the first person to have done it. The fact they met before the marriage ended in the eyes of the law has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to be a good parent. It just means that the marriage was over and they had to wait for the law to recognise it as being such. If she had met another man, this would not even be considered an issue by the law.



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.


Actually, it has everything to do with being gay. If the new partner were a man, they would be able to marry and then pursue the avenue of full custody and adoption and get these rights that you correctly say she does not have if they really wanted. Because she is gay, none of this is possible.



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.


The law by default has singled this person out because they are not able to have any rights full stop. She cannot do anything to gain the right of legal parenthood and therefore the law can be manipulated against her as it has been done. I apologise if I made it sound like I was attacking you personally, but the fact remains, the law is discriminating because it has put the partner at a disadvantage that she cannot do anything about. If this new partner was say a drug addict, I would expect the courts to give custody to the father instead of making the partner move out.



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?


Name one other situation where a 'morality clause' has been used in this context and been made to stick. The 'Gay excuse' is the actual reason the morality clause was inserted. It's not an excuse in this case, it is why the clause was put there. You could not legally put in such a clause for things such as race, disability, football team she likes for instance. So why because she is gay?



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.


I am going to play devil's advocate here and agree with you. It is pretty stupid how judges (not the law) lean toward giving custody to the mother. The spirit of the law intends that the children go to the best carer and provider. The part that I find remarkable in this case though is that the judge, in spite of his very obvious prejudice against a lesbian couple still awarded custody to her.

If in any case I thought a mother would lose custody, it would be this one. This is because of facts you mentioned, being lack of legal rights and personal bias of the judge. I find it curious though that despite the lesbian relationship and his personal distaste for it he still granted custody to the mother. To me it means that in the eyes of the law the judge has still found her to be the better parent for the children to be with. I would fully support the judge if he had found that the father was a better parent based on the grounds that he could provide a more stable home and better care for the children than the mother, but he didn't. He chose to say," mum, you keep the kids but get rid of the gay partner."

In effect that the Judge is actually saying is "dad, you're not a suitable parent, so I am leaving the kids with mum. Mum, I'll let you have the kids, but I really don't like the fact you are gay. In fact I'm going to insist that your partner moves out if you want to keep the kids." This is bizarre and confusing at the very least.

I would be just as irate if he had said the same about a straight partner, but I highly doubt he would have.
edit on 21-5-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Update to this Insanity:

Lesbian Couple to Comply with Judge's Order



Nevertheless, the judge’s order has prompted an outcry against him since Dallas Voice broke the story on Friday.
...
Mr. Compton requested that the court find Ms. Compton in contempt, jailed, and fined for each of his 181 alleged violations. We are pleased with the Court’s ruling in our favor that found the morality clause was too ambiguous and not clear enough to hold Ms. Compton in contempt by jail. The Court did not put Ms. Compton in jail, fine her, or order her to pay fees in this case so far.
...
Ms. Compton and Ms. Price plan to comply with the Courts clarification order, even though it will be disruptive to their family and has the potential of being harmful to the children.
...
The new language anticipated by the court is no less problematic and we believe it to be unconstitutional under right to privacy cases, parental right cases, and the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. We believe a sweeping permanent injunction like the one entered here cannot be justified in light of today’s law.


Spoken like a lawyer who's headed for higher court!


reply to post by esdad71
 



Originally posted by esdad71
It is to protect children.


From what? There seems to be NO concern whatsoever for "protecting the children" from having one of their parental figures LEAVING them, after having already been through what looks to be a nasty divorce. The ex-husband is USING his children to punish his ex-wife. I can hardly think of anything more despicable!

Anyway, this will be a case to watch. I hope some precedent is set. Very exciting!



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
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.


'Special interest porn' huh?

I suppose you would have said that back in the 1900's when woman were fighting for the vote or back when the debate over slavery was raging. Every civil rights struggle is initially written off as 'just a minority playing up again' or 'special interest porn' as you so inventively named it.

In my country we used to dismiss the argument over the treaty of Waitangi as a non issue too. But once all the facts were brought to light that our founding document was a sham we as a nation were forced to act.

Here, look it up if you want; Treaty of Waitangi



Here are some facts for you in this argument that have not been twisted;

In the eyes of the law, the Judge still found the mother to be the best parent for the kids over the father. The judge would have made it far easier for the world to understand if he were to have given custody to the father based on the fairly won argument that the father could provide a better home. Then this would be a non issue, even for the gay community. The Judge however made the decision that in spite of the mother's lesbian relationship that she provides the better home. Then he went and just made up stuff and put in a morality clause. Show me the law this relates to as far as I am aware, there is no law that says a judge can force a partner to move out based on moral grounds. He has taken a rather bold step over the line and taken the law into his own hands here.

This use of the 'morality clause' is a new precedent. If this is allowed to continue, divorcing couples could have these inserted for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps a Judge could decide that because one parent is Christian and the other Muslim that one partner moves out because he is worried that the morality of Islam might affect the children because they were brought up Christian. Perhaps a Judge could put in a clause that a partner must move out, because they are straight but they are not yet married. Judges could then pretty much do what they wanted.

This specific example has everything to with the gay community. The law needs to make a stand and make it easily understandable for everyone what their rights are in this situation. In a normal heterosexual custody battle, the new partner is considered a non issue based on the assumption he / she ticks the boxes for what constitutes a 'good' parent for the kids i.e. not a criminal, drug addict etc etc. The decision defaults back to who provides the best home for the kids. So the law needs to define where gay people stand in this argument and it needs to be debated properly as to why or why not they are seen as fit for parenthood in a case like this.

The woman who brought all of this up has no rights and cannot gain them. This is because the law is pre-dispositioned against her. It does need to be properly debated as to why this has happened. Justice is supposed to be blind and make decisions based on facts that are then weighed up against the law, not personal opinion. Yet the judge has inserted his own personal opinion into the divorce settlement with the morality clause.
edit on 21-5-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
From what? There seems to be NO concern whatsoever for "protecting the children" from having one of their parental figures LEAVING them, after having already been through what looks to be a nasty divorce. The ex-husband is USING his children to punish his ex-wife. I can hardly think of anything more despicable!

Anyway, this will be a case to watch. I hope some precedent is set. Very exciting!


It's also common to have the clause in your divorce papers. As I said, my fiancee has one in hers. What's not common is enforcement of said clause, even if one parent files a complaint against the other. The ex-husband sounds like a scumbag who is bitter about being left, and wants to punish her, so I'm glad that the judge didn't side with him.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by markosity1973
Then he went and just made up stuff and put in a morality clause. Show me the law this relates to as far as I am aware, there is no law that says a judge can force a partner to move out based on moral grounds. He has taken a rather bold step over the line and taken the law into his own hands here.

This 'morality clause' is a new precedent. If this is allowed to continue, divorcing couples could have these inserted for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps a Judge could decide that because one parent is Christian and the other Muslim that one partner moves out because he is worried that the morality of Islam might affect the children because they were brought up Christian. Perhaps a Judge could put in a clause that a partner must move out, because they are straight but they are not yet married. Judges could then pretty much do what they wanted.


No, he didn't, and no it isn't. Morality clauses have been around for years, and in some states they are standard in any divorce. All they do is plug the names in, as they're preprinted in the decree. Apparently, from reading around online, Texas is pretty big on the morality clause in divorces, I know Alabama is as well. The judge in this case is simply abiding by Texas law, as there was a complaint filed by the ex husband. A lot of times morality laws are unenforceable and are nothing more than paper. But if there is a complaint made by one parent or the other, in some cases, depending on the nature of the complaint, the court will have to intervene.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Originally posted by markosity1973

No, he didn't, and no it isn't. Morality clauses have been around for years, and in some states they are standard in any divorce. All they do is plug the names in, as they're preprinted in the decree. Apparently, from reading around online, Texas is pretty big on the morality clause in divorces, I know Alabama is as well. The judge in this case is simply abiding by Texas law, as there was a complaint filed by the ex husband. A lot of times morality laws are unenforceable and are nothing more than paper. But if there is a complaint made by one parent or the other, in some cases, depending on the nature of the complaint, the court will have to intervene.


Okay, so the morality clause is not new, despite the fact I've never heard of them (They are not in use here in Australia or NZ)

Thanks for the correction, it's always good to learn


However as you have mentioned, these clauses are often unenforceable and therefore a grey area of the law. It seems like a pretty bizarre and archaic idea and one that has little legal standing to me. The law is supposed to be black and white so it can be easily understood and judgements made accordingly.

Reading what you have posted still says to me that it is there for a judge to insert their own opinion because these clauses only have the potential to make things grey legally from what you have explained to me. For these to work, the morality in said clause needs to have a legal definition i.e is it lawful for an unwed couple to co-habit with children for instance. This would also negate the need for the morality clause, as the law in in force and the greater decision of custody or whatever in the divorce settlement has been made taking this into account already.

Anything else should come under a special conditions clause i.e Mum has the kids full time, but Dad gets to have them every second weekend and every third friday or Dad keeps the car, but Mum's name comes off the loan so he is solely responsible for it from now on.

These special conditions are negotiated and agreed to by both parties and are within the bounds of the law and and not decided upon (but could be suggested by) the Judge. They are usually negotiated through the intricate human ritual of hostile meetings, lengthy and costly lawyer visits, legal letters, affdavits, loads of name calling and eventually the final signing of the settlement in the presence of the courts.
edit on 21-5-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Everyday, the law in various countries is accused of being unfair for the individuals personal reasoning.

But this gets press because it's a lesbian.

Of course, if anything EVER goes wrong, it's because of 'gay bashing'...not the actual law.

Read the news today about the 18 year on charges of having sex with a 14 year old. This is illegal but oh no, it turns out the charges are because she is a homosexual. Bollocks, it's because the girl was 14 and underage you stupid lesbian cow. What is it these people cannot get in their heads?



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


In a lot of these cases the judge doesn't decide if the clause is put into the decree or not. It's a state law that all divorces have the clause in them, while in others one parent or another can ask for it to be put in. A lot of these cases the judge simply says "you're divorced, congratulations" and the decree is pre-printed with the names filled in.

This is one of the very very few times I've ever heard of a morality clause being enforced, and it's only because the ex-husband is being a jerk about it, and can't stand to have her happy it sounds like.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


It's a pretty bizarre legal curiosity to me to say the least. I totally get that a Judge can and in some cases should make strong recommendations in a settlement i.e. The judge in this case could have said "I am reluctantly granting custody to XYZ party, but I am uncomfortable with the circumstances in which you live, therefore I suggest your partner consider moving out" That way the Judge has made their opinion known to the world and the couple can act based upon their conscience if there is no law on the judge's side as is the case in this situation.

As a side note, after you pointed out these morality clauses, I looked up our own law and note that our laws here downunder theoretically make provision for gay couples;




The Act does not specify that the person with whom the child is to reside or spend time with must necessarily be their natural parent, and provision is made under section 65C for anyone 'concerned with the care, welfare or development of the child' to apply to the Court for orders. In all proceedings, the paramount consideration is the 'best interests of the child', and the Court will not make an order that is contrary to these interests (section 60CA).


Source; Family law act 1975



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Here's a wonderful story I found today. 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.


A Republican Texas Judge has ordered a lesbian couple to live apart or give up custody of their children. According to Think Progress, Judge John Roach of McKinney, Texas has given Page Price 30 days to move out of the home she shares with Carolyn Compton and Compton’s two children from a previous marriage because he does not approve of Compton and Price’s “lifestyle.”

Roach has placed a “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers, which forbids Compton from having anyone she is not related to “by blood or marriage” in her home past 9:00 p.m. if the children are present. Same sex marriage is illegal in Texas, so by law, Compton cannot live with Price if she wishes to retain custody of her children.


Source

A morality clause? Are you kidding me? That has to be oneof the most idiotic things I have ever heard of. How dare this judge determine on his own whims, without evidence, that these people aren't fit to raise children.

Then, on top of that, insert his own personal views into their lives and limit their personal freedom?!

That is some nonsense. Texas, you really need to get your crap together.

~Tenth
edit on 5/20/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/20/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)


No, Texas is very intelligent on this.
They protect their fine state's future by "Texas justice'n" until they go to Calif or New York in shambles if need be.
If these lesbians think they can continue to live their, then they better get used to a "Texas-sized boot" in their azz...



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



It is to protect children not gay relationships. Step away from this case and lesbians/gays for a minute. If she was dating a man NONE of you would give 2 you know whats. Admit this. please. Law has no room for emotion only enforcement. What we should have is a lawyer help ProBono and get them out of Texas. This would be a perfect thing for someone with some media power like 'Ellen' to jump on. It is more important than JC PEnney ads.

Sex offenders prey on single women with young children. It is a fact. Look it up. It is not hard to find.

The husband may be using this clause but it is there to protect children. A child does not need to see mom or dad sleeping with someone different ecvery month. It is unmoral. Morality clause???

Take away the gay and it is just another day...I think I might put that on a t-shirt...



edit on 21-5-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
___________________

On the political side of things,
genderless, broken families is a communists dream.

____________________



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join