Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Well.... (0+ / 0-)
    If she were sleeping with a guy the result would be the same.
    Yes, as far as the sense of the morality cause.
    But it very likely wouldn't have gotten as far as it did because she was sleeping with him.  
    What made it totally enforceable to this particular judge was that this time she was sleeping with her.  And that second pronoun made all the difference to this very disapproving judge.

    I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

    by Lilyvt on Sat May 18, 2013 at 02:42:04 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You made that up. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      penguins4peace, Sparhawk, lostboyjim

      Did the judge actually say that? Or are we now in the habit of reading minds?

      •  Yeah.... (0+ / 0-)

        I must have made it up.
        Wish I could say that homophobia is made up as well.  

        I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

        by Lilyvt on Sat May 18, 2013 at 04:04:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not every case is rooted in homophobia. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lostboyjim

          Some here understand what this case is about. You obviously are incapable of understanding the legal situation here. That is okay with me, as it affects me in no way. Adios.

          •  Hmmmm.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lost and Found
            Not every case is rooted in homophobia.
            Correct, and not every dog is rabid.  But when a dog is foaming at the mouth and behaving in a menacing way, there are certain precautions one takes.
            Not every case is rooted in homophobia.
            Correct.  Not every case is.
            Lesbians, Texas, ex-husband, ousted partner.
            Absolutely nothing homophobic about any of this.
            Move along, move along, nothing to see here.
            Was an antiquated clause signed?  Yes.
            What I said, and will re-iterate was that it may not have been enforced if a guy was sleeping with a girl.
            It seems someone is protesting a tad too much with the barbs about not being capable of understanding the legal situation here.  Really unnecessary rudeness.
            We. Got. It.  
            It's Texas, it's a woman, two women, uh oh lesbians, an ex-husband and a judge. And despite the signed clause, if you don't get that it's about the women being lesbians, you're part of the problem.
            None so blind as those who choose not to see.

            I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

            by Lilyvt on Sat May 18, 2013 at 05:02:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your last quote is so ironic. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doc2, lostboyjim

              This was a private contract.

              Was it a stupid contract? Of course. Would I be in favor of a state law that makes such clauses unenforceable? Of course.

              But that isn't the case here. The judge should have enforced it. Period. Regardless of sexual orientation.

              You won't find a bigger LGBT ally than me. But this case is not about LGBT rights. It just happens to involve an LGBT litigant.

              If your idea of the rule of law is "The litigant was LGBT; therefore she should have won" then I just don't know what to say to you. That appears to be your reasoning.

              •  OK (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lost and Found

                No need to say anything to me....

                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.
                “What the clause has become is an extra burden on gay people because they’re no more likely to violate it than straight people,” he said. “It’s a problem that continues with homophobia."
                (Article appeared in the DallasVoice print edition May 17, 2013)
                My last quote remains.  And considering everything, it is ironic.

                I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

                by Lilyvt on Sat May 18, 2013 at 07:21:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Courts don't include clauses in private contracts. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doc2, lostboyjim

                  They approve contracts privately negotiated by the parties. I think the defendant should have read a contract that defines her rights to custody of her child, but maybe I'm the crazy one.

                  And any court will enforce an enforceable clause in a contract. They might be rarely enforced by the spouse. You should distinguish that from the situation where the facts were before the court, the claim was brought, and the law is clear.

                  •  The court judge may have sneaked it in... (0+ / 0-)

                    The article states "Price posted about the judge’s ruling on Facebook last week, writing that the judge placed the clause in the divorce papers because he didn’t like Compton’s “lifestyle.”"

                    What makes that clause voluntary on the part of the participants if the judge inserted it?  Kind of throws out the argument here.

              •  yes, your last sentence sums it up (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Argyrios
    •  I doubt that (0+ / 0-)

      I suspect the judge also would enforce similar morality clauses against a cohabitating straight couple.  

      Now, it may be that the ex-husband thought to make an issue of the clause because they are lesbians, but your assertion about the judge is unwarranted.

      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

      by lostboyjim on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:17:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh... (0+ / 0-)

        OK.
        Whatever you say.

        I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

        by Lilyvt on Sun May 19, 2013 at 09:46:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Back atcha (0+ / 0-)

          Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

          by lostboyjim on Sun May 19, 2013 at 11:32:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sigh.... (0+ / 0-)

            Whatever.

            Oh BTW....

            According to Price, the ex-husband, Joshua Compton, rarely sees his children and was also convicted of stalking his ex in 2011. Indeed, court records show that he was charged with third-degree felony stalking in 2011 but pleaded it down to a misdemeanor criminal trespassing charge. Price also claims that the judge added the ‘morality clause’ to her partner’s divorce because he did not agree with her lifestyle.The clause, in effect, bars the couple from living together unless they are married, which is impossible because same-sex marriage is not recognized in Texas. Apparently the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply in that courtroom.
            Morality clauses are often added to divorce decrees, according to attorney Ken Upton Jr., especially in conservative areas. However, they often unfairly target homosexual couples because these couples cannot legally marry in Texas. So what is the couple supposed to do? They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They already live together and the children have not suffered, but because this judge doesn’t agree with their lifestyle it’s now a problem? The judge doesn’t seem to take into consideration the ex-husband’s conviction or the happiness and best interests of the children, only his disapproval of homosexuality. How lovely! And Carolyn Compton and Page Price are not the only ones who have had clauses like this used against them. (Emphasis mine)
            Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/...

            I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

            by Lilyvt on Sun May 19, 2013 at 11:56:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site