Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas judge orders lesbian couple to split up or lose children (190 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "anti-gay animus"? (6+ / 0-)

    Where's the so-called "anti-gay animus," here?  Seriously.  

    First, I am commenting ONLY on information as stated in the initial post.  

    Second, from that information, I cannot glean where this judge has "anti-gay animus."  


    Because if Texas state law/case law indicates in some kind of "morality clause" that "someone who has a 'dating or intimate relationship' with the person or is not related 'by blood or marriage' is not allowed after 9 p.m. when the children are present," then where does that single out gays?  Apparently, it does not.

    BTW, such state law/case law in NOT unusual.  It's quite traditional -- "morality" issues aren't unusual in family law/child custody, particularly when it involves the "best interests of the child."  

    So, again, I ask: where's the alleged "anti-gay animus?"  And, please, do not assume that I, personally, am anti-gay.  Far from it, for I have been advocating for gay rights for years.

    •  You are correct. There is nothing presented (4+ / 0-)

      here that indicates anti-gay bias. The main mystery is why the woman agreed with her husband to have a morality clause in their divorce settlement. It may have been her idea, or his idea. But in the end, both agreed to it. And now a judge is enforcing it, which is what judges do with contracts.

      •  it's not "what judges do w/ Ks" in child custody (0+ / 0-)

        A family law court, when the issue is child custody, typically will not merely rule whether a term/clause is breached in a divorce stipulation/contract.  Upon review later on, a court will "look" at all the facts and circumstances regarding an alleged breach as to its affect upon the best interests of the child, as well as other facts and circumstances as to its affect upon the best interests of the child. In other words, in child custody cases the turning issue is "the best interests of the child" despite what the parties agreed upon in a divorce stipulation/contract and what the court ruled upon at the time of the divorce.  (K = contract)

        "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes . . . or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams, 1770

        by Dee Stonewall on Sun May 19, 2013 at 12:16:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site