Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Judge Blocks Woman From Living With Lesbian Partner

Page 1 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

22 May 2013, 2:55 pm

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... roach.html

Quote:
A judge has ruled that a North Texas lesbian couple can’t live together because of a morality clause in one of the women’s divorce papers. The clause is common in divorce cases in Texas and other states. It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home. If the couple marries, they can get out from under the legal provision—but that is not an option for gay couples in Texas, where such marriages aren’t recognized.


Far more infuriating details are in the full Slate article. I'm not even angry about the same sex aspects of the case, I just can't believe that divorce papers could legally include such a clause, and that it's actually enforceable. Where does the state get the authority to decree who you are allowed to live with? On moral grounds, no less?

Rope!


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,660
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

22 May 2013, 4:11 pm

Wait, so why is there a clause in divorce proceedings in the first place. It's not just the same-sex issue, I just don't see why there should be such a clause even for heterosexual couples nor do I see how an unmarried parent living with a romantic partner would have any effect whatsoever on the children.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,618
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 May 2013, 4:30 pm

I would not live there.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

22 May 2013, 8:01 pm

If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

23 May 2013, 2:10 am

eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


Because it's no longer my business, and certainly not the state's business?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

23 May 2013, 3:51 am

eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


So divorced parents should remain single until the kids are grown up? A party house with people coming and going is not the same as two people in a relationship.



Sylkat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,425

23 May 2013, 4:10 am

This may simply be one attempt by the father to get full custody of his kids.

The ex-wife's girlfriend may be a person he is right not to want around his kids.

The ex-wife and her attorney agreed to this 'morality clause'......why?

I think that there is more here than is obvious.


Sylkat



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

23 May 2013, 4:21 am

Dox47 wrote:
eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


Because it's no longer my business, and certainly not the state's business?


If you really believe that it is none of your business how your kids are brought up, then I truly hope that you never have any.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

23 May 2013, 4:24 am

trollcatman wrote:
eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


So divorced parents should remain single until the kids are grown up? A party house with people coming and going is not the same as two people in a relationship.


Trying to put words in my mouth? Attempting to create a strawman argument?

Did I ever say that they should remain single?



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,660
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

23 May 2013, 4:42 am

eric76 wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


So divorced parents should remain single until the kids are grown up? A party house with people coming and going is not the same as two people in a relationship.


Trying to put words in my mouth? Attempting to create a strawman argument?

Did I ever say that they should remain single?


I'm sorry but perhaps I misunderstood your bolded quote above. You said that, and I quote, "If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses". Saying that you would prefer the other parent to not live with a romantic partner, even if the kids are living in the same house as them, is tantamount to saying that you would prefer them to remain single.



Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

23 May 2013, 4:46 am

eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


So if I divorce from my partner, and dare to live a normal life, which includes meeting other possible partners again, instead of becoming a nun and sterilzing myself so I can live in purity until I die, my house becomes a partyhouse?



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

23 May 2013, 4:48 am

Jono wrote:
eric76 wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


So divorced parents should remain single until the kids are grown up? A party house with people coming and going is not the same as two people in a relationship.


Trying to put words in my mouth? Attempting to create a strawman argument?

Did I ever say that they should remain single?


I'm sorry but perhaps I misunderstood your bolded quote above. You said that, and I quote, "If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses". Saying that you would prefer the other parent to not live with a romantic partner, even if the kids are living in the same house as them, is tantamount to saying that you would prefer them to remain single.


I seriously doubt that the clauses rule out marriage.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

23 May 2013, 4:51 am

Schneekugel wrote:
eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


So if I divorce from my partner, and dare to live a normal life, which includes meeting other possible partners again, instead of becoming a nun and sterilzing myself so I can live in purity until I die, my house becomes a partyhouse?


It gets pretty damned close to one if there is a revolving door of "possible partners" coming in and leaving.

There is nothing in the clauses prohibiting marriage. Nor is there anything in the that prohibits dating. What they accomplish is to limit the chances of a long succession of one night stands.



Greb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Under the sea [level]

23 May 2013, 5:00 am

eric76 wrote:
Schneekugel wrote:
eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


So if I divorce from my partner, and dare to live a normal life, which includes meeting other possible partners again, instead of becoming a nun and sterilzing myself so I can live in purity until I die, my house becomes a partyhouse?


It gets pretty damned close to one if there is a revolving door of "possible partners" coming in and leaving.

There is nothing in the clauses prohibiting marriage. Nor is there anything in the that prohibits dating. What they accomplish is to limit the chances of a long succession of one night stands.


There's a huge distance between bringing a new fling home every weekend and not sleeping together until marriage.


_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,660
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

23 May 2013, 5:04 am

eric76 wrote:
Jono wrote:
eric76 wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


So divorced parents should remain single until the kids are grown up? A party house with people coming and going is not the same as two people in a relationship.


Trying to put words in my mouth? Attempting to create a strawman argument?

Did I ever say that they should remain single?


I'm sorry but perhaps I misunderstood your bolded quote above. You said that, and I quote, "If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses". Saying that you would prefer the other parent to not live with a romantic partner, even if the kids are living in the same house as them, is tantamount to saying that you would prefer them to remain single.


I seriously doubt that the clauses rule out marriage.


Only allowing it if they're married is completely arbitrary. An unmarried couple living in the same house is no different from a married couple. Also just to add to that, the couple spoken about in the article is a homosexual couple and from what I understand, homosexual marriages aren't even recognised in that state.



Last edited by Jono on 23 May 2013, 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

23 May 2013, 5:10 am

eric76 wrote:
Schneekugel wrote:
eric76 wrote:
If you were the other parent, you would likely prefer such clauses. Why would anyone want their kids growing up in a party house with strange people in and out on a regular basis?


So if I divorce from my partner, and dare to live a normal life, which includes meeting other possible partners again, instead of becoming a nun and sterilzing myself so I can live in purity until I die, my house becomes a partyhouse?


It gets pretty damned close to one if there is a revolving door of "possible partners" coming in and leaving.

There is nothing in the clauses prohibiting marriage. Nor is there anything in the that prohibits dating. What they accomplish is to limit the chances of a long succession of one night stands.


Wow, so I am allowed to dating outside the house, which isnt really possible when having children at home, and I am allowed to marry. But how the f**k am I going to marry, if I am not allowed to live with someone in a partnership for some time, so I can now if I want to marry someone? I mean dating someone for some hours a week, doesnt really tell you if someone fits as a partner for marriage. So I am allowed to marry, but not allowed to live with a partner for some time to know if he fits for marriage. Great. Or I simply leave the children alone at home and live my partner in his flat or house? Or we simply buy an additional flat or house, so that the children can live in the first one and get visited by me, and I can live with the new possible partner in the second one, to find out if he fits for marriage or not.

I mean would you marry a partner, you only know from dating? O_o