Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  As described it is not based on gender but on (6+ / 0-)

    the fact that they are not married. Maybe there is a equal protection question that could make it federal.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Sat May 18, 2013 at 12:48:07 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well it is a (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mordoch, cris0000, sb, Wee Mama

      corollary. Since the clause prohibits unmarried partners from being in residence after 9 PM,  a straight couple would be able to marry and satisfy the clause. A gay couple, in the state of Texas, does not have that option, so the issue really boils down to the gender of the partner relative to the custodial parent.

      Male+ Female= Marriage = No problem
      Male + Male = No marriage= No problem
      Female + Female= No Marriage= No problem

      I doubt she realized when she signed the contract with that clause that she would be prohibited by law from marrying her chosen partner because her chosen partner is a woman.

    •  But how can the government claim that marriage (0+ / 0-)

      in the religious sense--which is obviously the direction this judge is taking, makes a person more moral, than a person in a relationship that is not acceptable to [the judge's] religion, in a country that is not supposed to make any laws respecting or establishing any religion?

      The judge is making a religious moral judgement, and enforcing it with his governmental authority. That is a big no no.

      The judge or the plaintiff should have to provide some kind of evidence that the woman's partner poses some kind of immediate hazard to the welfare of the child, beyond, "moral outrage" based on sectarian beliefs.

      •  My understanding of the morals clause is that (0+ / 0-)

        married sex (whether from a religious or a civil marriage) is more moral than unmarried sex. The presumption I suppose is that a sexual relationship that is also a contractual one (as marriage is) is more stable and for that reason better for children. I'm not saying yay or nay on that claim - just unpacking it for what it is.

        On the other hand since the couple can't get a civil marriage in Texas, that is where an equal protection claim might enter and that could be the basis for a federal case.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Sun May 19, 2013 at 11:32:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't buy that BS at all. (0+ / 0-)

          Married Sex is simply sex between people with a contract.

          We don't know what the private clauses might be in that contract, or what moral code people subscribe too.

          That idea is nothing more than an illusion some folks make up, to make themselves feel better about a topic they don't approve of at all--Sex.

          I suppose next the judge is going to moralize about how married people don't participate in kink.

          Morality is how you humanize another person you interact with.

          I have witnessed plenty of marriages [sadly] that did not humanize either partner.

          If the judge is looking to create a stable atmosphere for the child, perhaps he should start with making absolutely sure that neither adult parent is alienating the child from the other parent, emotionally, and that neither parent is socially harassing the other, or legally harassing the other for that matter.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site