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

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?

Please provide the source for the above news article. It has nothing to do with this thread, but is still interesting. If this is true that the perpertator was charged because it was lesbian sex and not because of the age difference, then this IS gay bashing. It may be that you have not worded your post to perfection, but I am reading it that she was charged because it is a gay situation.

The charge should be statutory rape or that countries equivalent presuming the 18 year old is considered above the legal age for sex. (The actual legal age varies from country to country) If this is the case, and she was charged for this breach of law alone then you are indeed correct, people are playing the pity card and the story has no merit.

This subject matter of this thread however has quite big implications though. It means that theoretically any Judge where morality clauses are in effect can ask a gay partner to move out in matters where child custody is being awarded.

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.

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)

um, Wake up call folks, these "morality clauses" against Women are yes Written in or Implied ALL the time in Family Courts all across this nation, pushed through by MRAs, Men's Rights Advocates AND expect them to become more so with the fatherhood initiative. Oh yes, a Woman's life is REGULATED when there is potential for reversal of custody. And Yes there IS a double standard here, you betcha. Hows that "equality" working there for ya!

Anyhoo, yes, judges often write in along with GALS, court ordered psyche misogynists and "experts, cough cough" enforcements that regulate and supervise the behavior of Women

It's what we term as Covert Abuse through the Courts, and these cases are increasing, especially in TX, Kansas, Illinois, etc, CA. From Everythng to where she Works to Whom she dates or if she can date at all (accusations of unfit mother are Extremely common, things that will NEVER apply to men) and yes it is ALL Legal. And don't think the Supreme courts/courts of Appeals will over rule, they do not. All that is required is for the paid GALS and experts working for the other party to claim children's interest...

This includes,

Rapists getting visitation and custody...wife beaters, the argument t there is that he didn't hit the children so what ever happens to women is not to be factor,

In Fact, there are Several cases where fathers get custody to have control the wife through children...and he will insist in sex and the GALS and Supervised visit psyches will tell the women tough, sleep with him for the children. YES THIS HAPPENS, don't matter if he beat her and put her into hospital, THESE people get paid big money to push these things through. These are the types of abuses going on with Impunity all iver this country and IF tithe woman speaks out, there are Gag orders put n her and she can go to jail. happens every day

So, can this judge do this, you betcha. As for her up and leaving

Don't even think about it...the Courts have to give permission and nine out if ten they don't allow it. This is why WOMEN if you are stuck with an ABUSER leaving him is not a cure all,

Your hell is just beginning because the Family Court system, will Pathologize you, and collude with him. Abusive men KNOW this, they have huge lobby with lawyers, judges, good ole boy network...and they are killing women

Literally.

Don't believe me, do your own research...

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.

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.


Umm let us ponder a moment. The man's wife leaves him for another woman. People are petty more often than not. Rejected by his spouse in favor of a woman, more than enough reason to make a complaint.

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.

~Tenth

You have got to be kidding me?! Conservatives meddling in other people's personal lives?! I'm sure it happens but have you been paying attention to Mayor Bloomberg's nonsense? Or our liberal congressmen and senators trying to take away our freedoms?

You must be F-ing High!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


anyone else catch the meaning of this, not only is she barred from having her lesbian lover stay over. If for any reason what so ever she turns back to men in the future, she is not allowed to have them stay over unless they become married in advance or she starts to date her brother.

Originally posted by ToneDeaf
___________________

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

____________________

You have got to be kidding me right? This comment has just timewarped me back to the 1980's and the period when they were legalising homosexuality in NZ. It was a real politicians dream, there were all sorts of accusations flying, people were soap boxing every side of the argument, gaining all the media attention they could dream of and the largest petition ever was signed and dumped on the doors of parliament. (It later turned out that the petition was a farce as a large number of people signed it more than once.) Way back then one of the more popular lines of thinking was 'where we let the homos in, the commies will surely follow.'

30 odd years later my home country remains firmly democratic, gay people are just another part of our multicultural pluralistic culture and we now in fact a world leader in areas such as human rights.

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.

reply to post by KyrieEleison


Sorry you had to go through all of that. Hope you found peace later as you got older.

This is exactly why these are put in place.

I have no problem with the judge's decision. As was mentioned early in the thread, if they do not like the legal judgment they can move somewhere where this will not be an issue. And just to be an ass, I will assume they are pro gun-control and bid them farewell.

reply to post by KyrieEleison

That is a very sad story indeed. I am glad you made it through the other side and thankyou for sharing it with us.

It sounds to me though that you kids would have been better off being sent to live with a relative, or as a last resort taken away and put in a home for a spell to teach your parents a lesson and make at least one of them wake up to themselves before allowing you back home again,

Even though the courts are supposed to act in the childrens' best interest, your story just goes to show how wrong everything can turn in these situations.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


It's called State's rights. If you don't like it, you can freely move as they freely choose to live in Texas and by doing so, agreeing to its laws.

I have mixed views on this particular issue. It's none of the States business, however, it seems they were trying to get a divorce? Which in doing so, made it the State's business.

I do not believe in same sex marriage, but the State shouldn't go on a head hunt.

-----

It seems this is the State's business. It's best they leave if they don't like it.

How did this guy get to become a judge? A person who has no sense of personal freedom and liberty?

Seriously, can you people ever be so dense? How on earth can you even believe the delusions that keep frothing from your vile mouths. Such ignorance on a grand scale. How can you keep avoiding the facts and keep twisting the truth into an agenda of gay rights?

The facts are clear and yet you try to muddy them up with knee jerk and over emotional reactions. Step off of your agenda podiums and think critically and logically for just one time in your self inflicted angsty lives. It isn't about you or your rights, it is about a mother and a fathers right to decide after being decided by the court that they in themselves are fit, weather or not another person being brought into their family is okay to be around their children.

This is not about a judge being outside of the law or even about personal prefference. He did not rule by personal prefference he ruled by law, a law wich both parties and their attornies agreed on including in their divorce. This decree was not added later or even added by the judge, the attornies added it and both parties agreed.

Quit trying to find persecution when it isn't occurring in this scenario, quit making stories and believing personal conjecture. Just because one party feels scorned and decided to play the poor me i'm gay and that's why this is happening card doesn't make it any truer. If anything it hurts any progress you hope to make with your agenda. It makes you come off as self riteous half wits who are willing to make drama out of nothing.

Be smart and calculating not over emotional, and I promise you will go much further in advancing any cause you might persue. Do not let emotion make you irrational and illogical.

Think people, THINK...!!!

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.

I think its morally wrong for you to be forcing people to accept your life values while casting aside their own. Next you'll be suggesting its morally wrong to have competing political views of left and right because middle-of-the-road voters will be far to confused to make a real decision on politics.

Freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion - Please live and let live.

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.

Are you also in favour of selling your daughters into slavery etc? Cutting the hands off of thieves? Killing people in general because they dont believe the same BS as you?

I lament that your religion and its "values" have managed to survive like a disease upon the earth for so long.

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.

Except if its by a holy "man of god" - Like a priest?

And the definition of perversion doesn't change just because people become more perverted.

Im going to be enjoying a long weekend of perversion with my GF, might take my bible with me so we can laugh together at how ridiculous and outdated that book is. Best seller? My arse.

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.

So why is that little clause only being enforced on the mother and not the farther?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Because the father is the one that is making the complaint. He was accused of felony stalking the mother in 2011, but under a plea deal was convicted of much lesser charges. It sounds like he has a problem with her leaving him, and is doing what he can to make her life a living hell, so has been going through the courts to do it.

I would leave that county, there are some places in texas where you just don't want to live and the people there don't want you to live there either. They could move to any larger municipality and not have to suffer this in the same state.

This ladies are suffering from having a poor lawyer or none at all. I would imagine they failed to get the clause restricting them to move more than 100 miles away as well. The father is obviously trying to make things difficult and the judge is being accommodating due to his personal bias. This judge should be relieved of duty. IN the end it will be blamed on the mom for failing to have a proper lawyer and the financial means to do so. Remember in America, being poor is a crime.

Not the best solution but a solution none the less.

Are all you people DAFT?

Judges do Not make the Law. They Only enforce the law already on the books so in Texas, there must be some precedent for this type of "Morality Clause" before now. The judge is being a good judge by following the law.

If you live in Texas and don't like the Law.. then Change it but don't complain when the law happens to work against your pet social topic.

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.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

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.

Just to help...

1. The judge didn't add this into their divorce agreement. It was already there.
2. The husband pressured the judge to enforce it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have to say that I pretty much agree with you. The law is stupid and needs to be changed.

Here is where the "pet social topic" comes in. This is a committed couple who love each other and are living together, creating a stable home for the kids. If they were straight, they could marry and *poof* the effects of the morality clause go away. But because they are gay, they cannot marry, so they have to essentially "break up" and cause the kids to lose yet another stable influence in their lives.

But this will go to the higher courts and be overturned. It's all a part of the progression toward equality. It's all good!