TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[nehalem256]

Of course had it been a man they could have gotten married and solved the issue.

This just highlights another one of the reasons why gay marriage needs to be legalized nationwide.

Assuming they even wanted to get married. I mean its not like heterosexual couples ever live together without wanting to getting married :whiste:

Yeah, sure it doesn't. We don't know if the 'morality clause' was inserted in the divorce papers by the ex-spouse because he's a stalker or if he has a problem with his former wife divorcing him so she could be in a relationship with a woman. In either case, the judge shouldn't have ruled how he did.

The judge was enforcing a contract that the woman willingly entered into. Pro-tip read important contracts before signing them.

There is an awful lot we don't know. For example

Price also mentions that Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was once charged with stalking Compton

For all we know this means Price rarely lets her ex-husband see his children. And the "stalking" was nothing more than him trying to have access to his children.

Going by the fact that a custody dispute was open in April. I think it is far more likely that her ex-husband was rereading the divorce decree as part of that and then said "If you wont let me see my children then I wont let you see you gf. Your move."

 

[Retro Rob]

Tell me about your long thought out decision whether to be straight or gay growing up. Be sure to tell us about your sex with a man to make sure you were making the right decision...

You made the claim, why are you shifting the burden?

Z provided a link -- how about you?

 

[zsdersw]

I wonder if this has something to do with why the issue was raised:

But hey lets jump to conclusions about it being about her being a lesbian.

Yup, and her ex-husband is a stalker (technically, misdemeanor trespasser)... so we don't know if his custody concerns are because his ex-wife is a lesbian or because he's a creepy stalker. In either case, the judge's ruling is stupid.

 

[zsdersw]

For all we know this means Price rarely lets her ex-husband see his children. And the "stalking" was nothing more than him trying to have access to his children.

Why wouldn't she let him see their children? There's probably a reason :hmm:

Going by the fact that a custody dispute was open in April. I think it is far more likely that her ex-husband was rereading the divorce decree as part of that and then said "If you wont let me see my children then I wont let you see you gf. Your move."

There's no reason to say what's likely and what isn't.

 

[Incorruptible]

Another gay thread, Just what we need.

And thank you big government idiots for this. We need small government that is chained by the Constitution.

 

[nehalem256]

Why wouldn't she let him see their children? There's probably a reason :hmm:

She hates her ex-husband?

Sharing custody with her ex-husband is inconvenient for her new life with her gf?

There's no reason to say what's likely and what isn't.

Custody dispute starts in April. Morality clause enforced on May 7th. I don't think that is coincidence.

 

[shadow9d9]

You made the claim, why are you shifting the burden?

Z provided a link -- how about you?

Umm, because HE made the claim in the OP that it was "lifestyle." It is right there in the OP. Did you even bother to read it? He then tried to shift the burden to me and you happily lapped it up because you are an inbred religious fanatic.

I am asking him to back it up by telling us about his homosexual experience used in order to make the choice of which lifestyle he would choose.

I have never met a person EVER who had to make a choice... If it is indeed a lifestyle choice like the OP claims, I'd LOOOVE to hear about how difficult this choice was for him and how he weighed both options!

So, Texas, please tell us about your gay experiences leading up to choice of lifestyle!

 

[child of wonder]

Choose to live immoral lifestyle, then complain when others dont like it?

I don't approve of your immoral lifestyle where your wife owns you like a bitch.

 

[Texashiker]

Yeah, sure it doesn't. We don't know if the 'morality clause' was inserted in the divorce papers by the ex-spouse because he's a stalker or if he has a problem with his former wife divorcing him so she could be in a relationship with a woman. In either case, the judge shouldn't have ruled how he did.

Morality clauses are typically put in Texas divorces. It is just standard operating procedure.

My divorce papers had a morality clause with a long list of stuff that was not supposed to be done around the children.

Besides gay relationships the clause covers stuff like drinking in front of the children. So it is not "just" gay relationships the clause covers.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I don't approve of your immoral lifestyle where your wife owns you like a bitch.

Lying and theft are perfectly moral in the context of a man/woman marriage.

 

[Retro Rob]

Umm, because HE made the claim in the OP that it was "lifestyle." It is right there in the OP. Did you even bother to read it?

I am asking him to back it up by telling us about his homosexual experience used in order to make the choice of which lifestyle he would choose.

Actually, you said they were born that way, he asked for genetic evidence.

Someone did the work for you so you're off the hook.

 

[jaedaliu]

The article cited left out the fact that they are rarely enforced as the ex-spouse rarely raises the issue.

This one has chosen to. The clause is there, the ex-spouse has a cause of action and homosexuality has nothing to do with it. He could have used that to move a man out of the house too.

In an equal rights society, the judge did the right thing. Without background in standard Texas divorce law and proceedings, we can only use the article itself to form an opinion if the judge was right or wrong. It seems like he did the right thing.

If they really are committed to one another, and want to live together forever, they can have a wedding in a state that legalizes gay marriage, or fight it in court.

 

[shadow9d9]

Actually, you said they were born that way, he asked for genetic evidence.

Someone did the work for you so you're off the hook.

No, he said it was a "lifestyle" right in the OP... I am asking him to provide proof based on his experiences.

Since you also want some proof, please tell us about YOUR homo experiences before making your decision! We'd love to hear!

 

[Retro Rob]

No, he said it was a "lifestyle" right in the OP... I am asking him to provide proof based on his experiences.

Since you also want some proof, please tell us about YOUR homo experiences before making your decision! We'd love to hear!

My sexual preference is a private personal matter...so no.

 

[nextJin]

And here you are, with a post in it!

Your posts are usually only worth upping ones post count.

 

[zsdersw]

She hates her ex-husband?

Sharing custody with her ex-husband is inconvenient for her new life with her gf?

And why would she hate her ex-husband? Chances are it's not because he's not a woman.

Custody dispute starts in April. Morality clause enforced on May 7th. I don't think that is coincidence.

Timing is irrelevant. Your scenario isn't any more or less likely than mine--that it's because she's a lesbian. Custody wasn't a problem between when the divorce was granted in 2011 until April, so something had to have changed, and we don't know if what changed was the fault of the ex-husband or the ex-wife.

 

[zsdersw]

Your posts are usually only worth upping ones post count.

Yours are worth less.

 

[shortylickens]

I am a big fan of enforcing the law as it is written, but I also think stuff like this should get people organized and writing their state legislature.

 

[Greenman]

There is no "lifestyle" involved. It is something they are born with. Dumb fuck.

So it's been established that homosexuality is a birth defect?

 

[Texashiker]

My sexual preference is a private personal matter...so no.

If your sexual preference is contrary to state law, then no, it is not a "personal matter."

 

[nehalem256]

And why would she hate her ex-husband? Chances are it's not because he's not a woman.

Because he is her ex-husband? I mean come on. That is likely enough reason right there. It is pretty easy for there to be a lot of bad blood after a divorce.

Timing is irrelevant. Your scenario isn't any more or less likely than mine--that it's because she's a lesbian.

I see no mention of them having recently moved in together, which would seem to be a pretty important part of the story.

The most reasonable explanation is that given the timing; the custody dispute and morality clause enforcement are related.

What the custody dispute is about is admittedly conjecture.

 

[thraashman]

Choose to live immoral lifestyle, then complain when others dont like it?

Just because someone wishes to live a gay lifestyle doe not mean the rest of us have to agree or even like it.

In what way is their lifestyle immoral? They're gay not Republican and being Republican is the only completely and totally immoral lifestyle I'm aware of that doesn't automatically grant a prison sentence.

 

[Oyeve]

Wow, texas is just another fucked up ass backwards state. The new FL? Actually, its always been fucked up.

 

[zsdersw]

I see no mention of them having recently moved in together, which would seem to be a pretty important part of the story.

The most reasonable explanation is that given the timing; the custody dispute and morality clause enforcement are related.

What the custody dispute is about is admittedly conjecture.

Yes, which is why I say there's no reason to say what's more likely.

 

[Texashiker]

In what way is their lifestyle immoral?

In what way is their lifestyle not immoral?

It goes both ways.

Wow, texas is just another fucked up ass backwards state.

We have morals and values, and that makes us a backwards state?