Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Right (10+ / 0-)

    Because this happens to straight people all the time in Texas.

    •  it looks like they're pretty common. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, doc2, Argyrios

      if they were unenforceable why would parties continue to add them to their divorce agreements?

      •  No one is denying (8+ / 0-)

        that the law is applicable to straight people. The judge sighted his opinion that it is specifically because of their "lifestyle" that the morality clause is being enforced. What else ya got?

        •  But Surely You Concede (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doc2, Sparhawk, swampyankee, lostboyjim

          That if Texas had legal same-gender marriage, this clause would be 100% enforceable anyway because the lifestyle this particular clause is going after is not same gender love, it's unmarried cohabitation?

          You have no idea how common these damned clauses used to be.......obviously Texas family lawyers have not caught up yet with the fact that most states today don't want to see these clauses, but will gladly enforce them if the party actually signs onto one.

          •  Is it really fair to float a hypothetical about (6+ / 0-)

            the two women remaining unmarried by choice given that Texas denies them that choice entirely?

            A heterosexual couple could get married and morals clause would instantly become irrelevant. This, in addition to unequal enforcement against same-sex couples, is where the real injustice lies.

            •  I Think it Is (5+ / 0-)

              For two reasons.  First, there is nothing that says this couple has to break up, despite the diary's title.  They just can't live together.  Believe it or not, it was not that long ago that this rule was just as true for straights as it is for gays in anti-gay states.  Second, IMO forcing a heterosexual couple to have to legally marry in order to live together is equally problematic at an ethical and moral level.

              But we don't have to agree about that.  Coming at it from the perspective of the law (which is my perspective in my comment), the ONLY relevant issue here in this particular story is the enforcement of a divorce contract that a mother voluntarily signed agreeing to live a certain way as it relates to her personal love life, that she now wishes she didn't have to live with.  That's, in the legal biz where family--indeed, most--contracts are concerned, "same shit different day."

              Please don't get me wrong.  Of course I feel for the parties involved, more than you know.  But to say that this story is more about gay rights than parental rights and family law system and how it impacts divorced parents' future romantic lives long long long after the ink is dry on a "deal."

              •  Dag Nabit (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk, penguins4peace

                Three weeks post-surgery and I still can't finish a thought.  My last sentence should read:

                But to say that this story is more about gay rights than parental rights and the family law system and how it impacts ALL divorced parents' future romantic lives long long long after the ink is dry on a "deal" is IMO misleading and inaccurate.

              •  Well (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lost and Found, Calamity Jean
                First, there is nothing that says this couple has to break up, despite the diary's title.
                The diary title does not say "break up", is says "split up" which is exactly what the court has ordered.

                The fact that the couple cannot remedy their situation by legally marrying in Texas presents no option for them. And yes, the mother did voluntarily sign the contract. We don't know why she did this, obviously, but my guess is she thought she might be protecting her children from questionable decisions she feared her ex would make.

    •  Do you have the stats on that? (0+ / 0-)

      I imagine that * someone * must be keeping score . . .

    •  They are. (0+ / 0-)

      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

      by lostboyjim on Sun May 19, 2013 at 08:30:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site