If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7756865


(SeattlePI)   Texas judge rules Lesbian couple can't cohabitate. In other news, U-Haul rentals in Texas have suffered a steep drop since the ruling   (seattlepi.com) divider line 108
    More: Strange, Texas, lesbians  
•       •       •

4487 clicks; Favorite

108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-23 08:56:13 AM
I'm not sure which disgusts / angers me more, that this morality clause even exists, or that it's just one more reason to fight for marriage equality.
 
2013-05-23 09:12:01 AM
Separated, but equal?

Funny how SC never prosecuted Sanford for his adultery, even though it's against their state laws.  I guess outdated moral blue laws only apply to teh gheys. I'd be interested to see how evenly this Texas has been applied.
 
2013-05-23 09:18:22 AM

Diogenes: I'd be interested to see how evenly this Texas has been applied.


Texas is usually applied with a manure spreader.

Seriously, I'd tell these two to just get the fark out of Texas as quickly as possible, but the mom probably can't take her kids out of state as part of the divorce decree. Quite the pickle they are in.

/not that there's anything wrong with that
 
2013-05-23 09:20:47 AM
Please tell me this is a repeat.
 
2013-05-23 09:21:35 AM
I knew I shouldn't have passed out drunk in that delorean, what year is this?
 
2013-05-23 09:21:54 AM
I think I've lost my capacity to be surprised but Texas's bullshiat. Or really any Red state when it comes to bigoted crap. The Texas judicial system in particular is awful, but remember, only liberals are judicial activists.
 
2013-05-23 09:22:46 AM
Repeat? Yep, repeat.

It's the one with judge being friendly to an asshole ex.
 
2013-05-23 09:23:28 AM
I'd take my case to a higher court lickity-split.
 
2013-05-23 09:24:40 AM
So, two women can't be roommates in Texas?  'cause that would make just about every university dorm room a den of sin and inequity.

/just like in the movies!
 
2013-05-23 09:25:13 AM
Only in America. And the Middle East. And Africa. You guys are in great company.
 
2013-05-23 09:25:41 AM
This is why people keep moving away from Texas.  Too many asshats in the government there.
 
2013-05-23 09:25:56 AM
This provision is burdensome to those who want to date post divorce.
 
2013-05-23 09:26:04 AM
The don't sign legally binding documents.
 
2013-05-23 09:26:15 AM
Texas is a great state, as long as you spend it in Austin.

The blueberry in the cherry pie.
 
2013-05-23 09:26:38 AM
Leviticus only says that men shouldnt lay with men it says nothing about womenlaying with women.Also men could have multi wives in them days.
 
2013-05-23 09:27:25 AM

HeadKase: Texas is a great state, as long as you spend it in Austin.

The blueberry in the cherry pie.


I like Dallas, easy to get to somewhere else from there
 
2013-05-23 09:27:46 AM
Go home, Texas. You're drunk.
 
2013-05-23 09:27:50 AM
America.

Leading the world in 16th century thinking. USA, USA, USA
 
2013-05-23 09:28:19 AM
I bet Subaru sales are plummeting as well...
 
2013-05-23 09:30:19 AM
It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home.

I smell loophole. "Kids, this is your new shed."
 
2013-05-23 09:30:21 AM
Meanwhile, I'm sure most of these lunatics supporting this decision are up in arms about the First 'Menment rights in regards to this IRS scandal.
 
2013-05-23 09:30:29 AM
Title:  Texas judge rules lesbian couple can't cohabitate.

Article:  Lesbian couple made an agreement to not cohabitate, can still cohabitate, but don't want to pay the price they agreed to pay if they do.

Assuming the mother wasn't stupid enough to sign the divorce papers without reading them, the mother signed the papers knowing the morality clause was in there.  The mother knew that, by signing the papers, she was agreeing to this situation.  It may not be good and it may not be right, but it is what the mother agreed to.  The judge's action did not cause this requirement to happen.  The mother signing the papers did.

i2.ytimg.com
 
2013-05-23 09:31:05 AM
Just from reading this article, it seems the judge followed the law as it's written. Be interesting to see how often and equally it has been applied.
 
2013-05-23 09:31:48 AM

wildcardjack: Repeat? Yep, repeat.

It's the one with judge being friendly to an asshole ex.


the judge doesn't really have much of an option, the rule is pretty clear, and she should have known it when she signed the divorce papers.

don't get me wrong, the rule is silly, and depending on what the supreme court does with the DOMA, they may be able to go to a different state and get married, then Texas would have to honor it. Of course, no where in the article did it make if clear the couple wanted to get married
 
2013-05-23 09:32:16 AM

johnperkins: The judge's action did not cause this requirement to happen.  The mother signing the papers did.


You think she should have removed the clause? Think the judge would let her?
 
2013-05-23 09:33:11 AM

johnperkins: Title:  Texas judge rules lesbian couple can't cohabitate.

Article:  Lesbian couple made an agreement to not cohabitate, can still cohabitate, but don't want to pay the price they agreed to pay if they do.

Assuming the mother wasn't stupid enough to sign the divorce papers without reading them, the mother signed the papers knowing the morality clause was in there.  The mother knew that, by signing the papers, she was agreeing to this situation.  It may not be good and it may not be right, but it is what the mother agreed to.  The judge's action did not cause this requirement to happen.  The mother signing the papers did.


The article also says this clause is mandated in all divorces in that county...so ya.
 
2013-05-23 09:33:36 AM

cantsleep: Just from reading this article, it seems the judge followed the law as it's written. Be interesting to see how often and equally it has been applied.


nasty separations are not gender biased.

the lack of teh ghey marriage is the bigger issue.
 
2013-05-23 09:33:59 AM

cantsleep: Just from reading this article, it seems the judge followed the law as it's written. Be interesting to see how often and equally it has been applied.


It usually requires the ex to push the issue (if they agreed to it in the divorce papers). If the ex isn't a vindictive asshole, they usually won't care about it. But if they are a vindictive asshole, well this is what you get.
 
2013-05-23 09:34:16 AM

johnperkins: out reading them, the mother signed the papers knowing the morality clause was in there. The mother knew


Read a little more on the clause.  The judge inserts it into every divorce decree in the county regardless of whether it's warranted.  It's not even legislating morality.  It's morality by fiat.
 
2013-05-23 09:34:25 AM
So why don't they get married out of state?

Wouldn't that cause the clause to be no longer in effect?
 
2013-05-23 09:35:32 AM
It's not a law, it's a divorce judge's own little prescription for ensuring the child's best interest.  It can happen in any divorce case.  The problem here is that there's no marriage  remedy under Texas law.

Some have said that all she had to do was read carefully and refuse to sign the agreement; but it's a divorce decree, not a private contract.  If the judge couldn't add or delete anything, there would be no need for a judge; a clerk's signature would do.

Farking sucks.
 
2013-05-23 09:36:14 AM
This story is only news because it's a same-sex couple. That said, it IS discriminatory because hetero couples could just get married to bypass this.

In the end, the idea of a "no-cohabitation for a time after divorce" law/clause is dumb. Even more so because it encourages people to rush into another marriage.
 
2013-05-23 09:37:04 AM
So what happens is the mother and her partner go on a trip to a state that has approved marriage equality and get married. Doesn't texas have to honor that they are now legally married?

Similar to old laws about common-law marriage? If your state doesn't have it, but you get common-law married in another state, your state must honor it?

Or is my really small mind not awake enough to understand the difference?
 
2013-05-23 09:38:57 AM

Boeheimian Rhapsody: So what happens is the mother and her partner go on a trip to a state that has approved marriage equality and get married. Doesn't texas have to honor that they are now legally married?


I don't think so. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure one state doesn't have to recognize something just because another state approved it. Federally, yes. But state to state level I don't think so.

It would be like trying to say I can have weed in Texas because I have a medical marijuana card from California.
 
2013-05-23 09:39:57 AM
OH HAI TEXAS.

BTW I still owe you like 3 bucks from the toll on George Bush Highway. I'm hoping by now that National rent-a-car have just paid it.
 
2013-05-23 09:40:31 AM
Would it be okay if the children were lesbians too?
 
2013-05-23 09:40:43 AM

Boeheimian Rhapsody: So what happens is the mother and her partner go on a trip to a state that has approved marriage equality and get married. Doesn't texas have to honor that they are now legally married?


No they don't. Because it's not federally mandated. This is still considered a states rights issue therefore Texass doesn't have to do jack.

Even though sodomy laws were struck down by the SCOTUS because of a Texas case it's Virginia (yes, of Loving vs. Virginia fame) that actually wants to reinstate those laws here. I feel kind of sick in my gut thinking about it sometimes.
 
2013-05-23 09:40:51 AM

ArgusRun: johnperkins: out reading them, the mother signed the papers knowing the morality clause was in there. The mother knew

Read a little more on the clause.  The judge inserts it into every divorce decree in the county regardless of whether it's warranted.  It's not even legislating morality.  It's morality by fiat.


No where does the article say the Judge inserts it into every divorce decree in the county. It claims it was inserted into the decree, it could have been by the husband, it could have been a joint agreement between the two to make sure he wasn't living with someone as well, or could be something put in there by the county regardless of the judge.
 
2013-05-23 09:41:23 AM
Do you suck dix? 

http://youtu.be/vyFSdj1J5Vw
 
2013-05-23 09:42:53 AM

ArgusRun: johnperkins: out reading them, the mother signed the papers knowing the morality clause was in there. The mother knew

Read a little more on the clause.  The judge inserts it into every divorce decree in the county regardless of whether it's warranted.  It's not even legislating morality.  It's morality by fiat.


Not only that, the clause was added to their final decree AFTER they signed it, as the previous article on this explained.
 
2013-05-23 09:42:58 AM

Girl Pants: This story is only news because it's a same-sex couple. That said, it IS discriminatory because hetero couples could just get married to bypass this.

In the end, the idea of a "no-cohabitation for a time after divorce" law/clause is dumb. Even more so because it encourages people to rush into another marriage.


Actually, what it really does is protect the more financially successful partner from having to pay spousal support to someone that is living with someone else and really shouldn't be getting spousal support anymore. Marriage typically terminates those obligations. I know that if I were to get divorced I would ask for one so that I wasn't on the hook to support my ex and their new live in lover.
 
2013-05-23 09:44:10 AM
How does this square with freedom of association? Can't understand how it can possibly be constitutional
 
2013-05-23 09:44:48 AM

Boeheimian Rhapsody: So what happens is the mother and her partner go on a trip to a state that has approved marriage equality and get married. Doesn't texas have to honor that they are now legally married?

Similar to old laws about common-law marriage? If your state doesn't have it, but you get common-law married in another state, your state must honor it?

Or is my really small mind not awake enough to understand the difference?


The defense of marriage act allows states to not recognize marriages they don't want to, this is currently in front of the US Supreme Court and may get overturned, if it does, then states will have to recognize legal marriages from other states.
 
2013-05-23 09:45:17 AM

rocketpants: johnperkins: Title:  Texas judge rules lesbian couple can't cohabitate.

Article:  Lesbian couple made an agreement to not cohabitate, can still cohabitate, but don't want to pay the price they agreed to pay if they do.

Assuming the mother wasn't stupid enough to sign the divorce papers without reading them, the mother signed the papers knowing the morality clause was in there.  The mother knew that, by signing the papers, she was agreeing to this situation.  It may not be good and it may not be right, but it is what the mother agreed to.  The judge's action did not cause this requirement to happen.  The mother signing the papers did.

The article also says this clause is mandated in all divorces in that county...so ya.


Read a bit more carefully:

"In Collin County, the clause is part of the standing orders that apply to every divorce case filed and remains in force while the divorce is pending. In the case of the Comptons' divorce, the clause was also added to their final divorce decree."

The judge added that clause to the final decree.  He didn't have to under the law.
 
2013-05-23 09:45:22 AM
The judge and government really didn't do anything wrong here. They enforced an agreement signed by both parties. Had this been taken to court by any heterosexual couple, the courts would have been obligated to act in the exact same manner.

The issue is the ex is an asshole for pursuing this, or the new gf is a total druggie slut and he's afraid another dude is going to penis them both with the fury of 10,000 Arabian suns in a cocaine fueled orgy.
 
2013-05-23 09:45:25 AM
One of the biggest mistakes one can make before going to trial is to think they will win because they are "in the right."


IT'S A COURT OF LAW, NOT A COURT OF JUSTICE!


//Judge is in the right in this case even if the law is in the wrong.
 
2013-05-23 09:45:35 AM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Not only that, the clause was added to their final decree AFTER they signed it, as the previous article on this explained.


Well, f*ck that.  That's a game-changer.
 
2013-05-23 09:48:18 AM

BarkingUnicorn: rocketpants: johnperkins: Title:  Texas judge rules lesbian couple can't cohabitate.

Article:  Lesbian couple made an agreement to not cohabitate, can still cohabitate, but don't want to pay the price they agreed to pay if they do.

Assuming the mother wasn't stupid enough to sign the divorce papers without reading them, the mother signed the papers knowing the morality clause was in there.  The mother knew that, by signing the papers, she was agreeing to this situation.  It may not be good and it may not be right, but it is what the mother agreed to.  The judge's action did not cause this requirement to happen.  The mother signing the papers did.

The article also says this clause is mandated in all divorces in that county...so ya.

Read a bit more carefully:

"In Collin County, the clause is part of the standing orders that apply to every divorce case filed and remains in force while the divorce is pending. In the case of the Comptons' divorce, the clause was also added to their final divorce decree."

The judge added that clause to the final decree.  He didn't have to under the law.


Does it say that the judge added it, or that it was added as in by/suggested by their lawyers during divorce? I don't think there's enough detail to tell, and I'm also wondering if a judge can add a stipulation to an agreement like that, already signed, when it's not required in any legal sense.
 
2013-05-23 09:49:10 AM

scottydoesntknow: Boeheimian Rhapsody: So what happens is the mother and her partner go on a trip to a state that has approved marriage equality and get married. Doesn't texas have to honor that they are now legally married?

I don't think so. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure one state doesn't have to recognize something just because another state approved it. Federally, yes. But state to state level I don't think so.

It would be like trying to say I can have weed in Texas because I have a medical marijuana card from California.


But they do have to recognize your drivers license and vehicle registration, the full faith and credit clause essentially requires states to recognize legal status from other states, that being said, the defense of marriage act allows states to not recognize marriages that go against the local morale standard, it applied to gay marriage, but could also apply should some state allow a person to marry a dog, or a 90 year old man to marry a 7 year old girl.
 
2013-05-23 09:50:01 AM

zeroman987: Girl Pants: This story is only news because it's a same-sex couple. That said, it IS discriminatory because hetero couples could just get married to bypass this.

In the end, the idea of a "no-cohabitation for a time after divorce" law/clause is dumb. Even more so because it encourages people to rush into another marriage.

Actually, what it really does is protect the more financially successful partner from having to pay spousal support to someone that is living with someone else and really shouldn't be getting spousal support anymore. Marriage typically terminates those obligations. I know that if I were to get divorced I would ask for one so that I wasn't on the hook to support my ex and their new live in lover.


Okay, that's a fairly reasonable reason for this. I still feel there's some better way to cover all the bases here.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report