It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MadMax7
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?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.
“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)
Originally posted by NavyDoc
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.
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.
Originally posted by ToneDeaf
On the political side of things,
genderless, broken families is a communists dream.
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.
Originally posted by KyrieEleison
Wow, this thread really dredged up some bad memories from childhood.
People can argue the merits of cohabitation clauses all night long, but all I can say is... I wish both of my parents had forced each other to get one when they split up.
This issue really has nothing to do with LGBT rights, it has to do with the rights of the children. Unless they had Damien-like powers and willed the parents to break up, they are the innocent victims in a completely messed up situation and should not be forced to suffer because their parents could not manage to get their heads on straight and their lives in order.
Without getting too much into details, myself and my sisters had been physically abused both by the psycho bitch that my dad ended up dating and the totally controlling, possessive douchebag that my mom ended up dating. The case with my mom was especially bad, and he beat her something awful too - so much so that the local police officers (bless their souls) "strongly encouraged" the prick to leave town and never return.
Now with a clause like that in place, we would have at least been afforded some protection since both of my parents apparently had their heads so far up their own sphincters that taking care of us kids was secondary to their own happiness and the spite-filled games they played with one another.
Can these clauses be misused out of spite? Of course they can. It's pretty rare to see warm hugs and handshakes at the end of a marriage. When kids are involved though, is it so much to ask to put the welfare of your children ahead of your own selfish bull# even if it's only for a few months? If these things were purely voluntary and not enforceable by the courts do you honestly think people would obey them?
Being a kid-hating, abusive, self-absorbed a-hole is not limited to any particular race, gender, or sexual orientation so just check that line of thinking at the door and do whatever you have to do to keep your kids safe.
Apologies in advance if this was a bit much, but reading some of these responses really made my blood boil.
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I'm going to do more research on this and find out where the judge got the idea to do this - you folks may be surprised at what i find out.