12313
Post by: Ouze
source
Here's a story that's been bubbling up for a while but appears to have finally broken through to the larger news cycle, via the Associated Press:
A judge has ruled that a North Texas lesbian couple can’t live together because of a morality clause in one of the women’s divorce papers. The clause is common in divorce cases in Texas and other states. It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home. If the couple marries, they can get out from under the legal provision—but that is not an option for gay couples in Texas, where such marriages aren’t recognized.
The issue appears to have first arisen last month during a divorce hearing for Carolyn and Joshua Compton in Collin County, Texas. According to the Dallas Morning News, District Judge John Roach Jr. decided to enforce the letter of the terms detailed in the former couple's 2011 divorce papers, and ordered Carolyn's partner of nearly three years, Page Price, to move out of the home she shared with Carolyn and her 10- and 13-year-old daughters. It was the ex-husband who requested the clause be enforced, according to his lawyer.
In handing down the ruling, the judge argued that the clause was "a general provision for the benefit of the children," and one that was not written to specifically target homosexuals. While that last part my be true, it's obvious that the provision affects homosexuals differently than it does their straight counterparts given that the Lone Star State doesn't allow gays and lesbians to marry. According to the AP, the so-called morality clause is part of a standing order that applies to each and every divorce case filed in the county and was also added to the Comptons' final divorce decree. It has no expiration date, meaning that the lesbian couple will need either a court to overturn the ruling or the state legislature to legalize gay marriage before they can move back in together with the kids.
According to the women's lawyer, the morality clause technically makes it illegal for Carolyn to have anyone she is dating or intimate with at her home with her two children anytime after 9 p.m. In effect, that means Carolyn Compton had to choose between living with her lesbian partner and living with her children. The couple says they'll obey the judge's ruling and Price will move out while they consider their legal options.
The Comptons' divorce was finalized in 2011, according to the Dallas Voice, but was reopened in April to dispute the current child-custody arrangement. Joshua Compton's lawyer says his client asked to have the clause enforced as a matter of principle. "I see how this creates a situation where [Carolyn] can't marry Page, while [Joshua] could marry a girlfriend," lawyer Paul Key told the Huffington Post. "But that's not why we're doing it. We would have done the same thing if it were some guy that had moved in." Key, likewise, told the AP: "The fact that they can't get married in Texas is a legislative issue. It's not really our issue."
more info here as well
Truly, small government at work.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Yeah that sort of blanket clause doesn't really help anyone. It should not be in place unless the children are at risk.
What happened with the recent legal challenges to the DOMA?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Ouze wrote:source
Here's a story that's been bubbling up for a while but appears to have finally broken through to the larger news cycle, via the Associated Press:
A judge has ruled that a North Texas lesbian couple can’t live together because of a morality clause in one of the women’s divorce papers. The clause is common in divorce cases in Texas and other states. It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home. If the couple marries, they can get out from under the legal provision—but that is not an option for gay couples in Texas, where such marriages aren’t recognized.
The issue appears to have first arisen last month during a divorce hearing for Carolyn and Joshua Compton in Collin County, Texas. According to the Dallas Morning News, District Judge John Roach Jr. decided to enforce the letter of the terms detailed in the former couple's 2011 divorce papers, and ordered Carolyn's partner of nearly three years, Page Price, to move out of the home she shared with Carolyn and her 10- and 13-year-old daughters. It was the ex-husband who requested the clause be enforced, according to his lawyer.
In handing down the ruling, the judge argued that the clause was "a general provision for the benefit of the children," and one that was not written to specifically target homosexuals. While that last part my be true, it's obvious that the provision affects homosexuals differently than it does their straight counterparts given that the Lone Star State doesn't allow gays and lesbians to marry. According to the AP, the so-called morality clause is part of a standing order that applies to each and every divorce case filed in the county and was also added to the Comptons' final divorce decree. It has no expiration date, meaning that the lesbian couple will need either a court to overturn the ruling or the state legislature to legalize gay marriage before they can move back in together with the kids.
According to the women's lawyer, the morality clause technically makes it illegal for Carolyn to have anyone she is dating or intimate with at her home with her two children anytime after 9 p.m. In effect, that means Carolyn Compton had to choose between living with her lesbian partner and living with her children. The couple says they'll obey the judge's ruling and Price will move out while they consider their legal options.
The Comptons' divorce was finalized in 2011, according to the Dallas Voice, but was reopened in April to dispute the current child-custody arrangement. Joshua Compton's lawyer says his client asked to have the clause enforced as a matter of principle. "I see how this creates a situation where [Carolyn] can't marry Page, while [Joshua] could marry a girlfriend," lawyer Paul Key told the Huffington Post. "But that's not why we're doing it. We would have done the same thing if it were some guy that had moved in." Key, likewise, told the AP: "The fact that they can't get married in Texas is a legislative issue. It's not really our issue."
more info here as well
Truly, small government at work.
Oh here we go. What the judge did was abaoslutely correct. The only issue is that homopsexual marriage is not permitted at this time in Texas. Use the democratic process to change the law.
Here endeth the lesson. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Dreadclaw69 wrote:Yeah that sort of blanket clause doesn't really help anyone. It should not be in place unless the children are at risk.
What happened with the recent legal challenges to the DOMA?
No it should absolutely be in place. Its designed to keep daddy from shacking up with the local drunk floozy and surprising the kid with drunko on his weekend visitations. Its absolutely correct.
Don't like it? Suck it. Best interests of the child.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Except in this case it's not "keeping daddy from shacking up with the local drunk floozy".
It's being used by the ex-husband as a retaliatory move due to the vague wording of what constitutes a "morality clause".
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Kanluwen wrote:Except in this case it's not "keeping daddy from shacking up with the local drunk floozy".
It's being used by the ex-husband as a retaliatory move due to the vague wording of what constitutes a "morality clause".
Its not vague. You just don't like it, but then again you're not a fan of many of the protectiosn fo the Bill of Rights either so I'm not concerned.
The same clause applies to both.
Life sucks. Elect members to the Statehouse that support your position and will vote to permit homosexual marriage. Then you can suffer with rugrats like the rest of us.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kanluwen wrote:Except in this case it's not "keeping daddy from shacking up with the local drunk floozy".
It's being used by the ex-husband as a retaliatory move due to the vague wording of what constitutes a "morality clause".
And like Frazz put very eloquently... It's only an issue because homosexual marriage is not permitted at this time in the state of Texas. If it was, Carolyn and Page could marry and legally get out of the clause.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
How are you going to sit there and try to say that a "morality clause" is NOT vague? Automatically Appended Next Post:  Alfndrate wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Except in this case it's not "keeping daddy from shacking up with the local drunk floozy".
It's being used by the ex-husband as a retaliatory move due to the vague wording of what constitutes a "morality clause".
And like Frazz put very eloquently... It's only an issue because homosexual marriage is not permitted at this time in the state of Texas. If it was, Carolyn and Page could marry and legally get out of the clause.
Permission of homosexual marriage is second to the fact that "morality clause" is a vague as hell statement.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its not vague. You've given zero support thats its vague. You just don't like it.
Again thats a clause to protect children. The clause thats the problem is the lack of legal homosexual marriage in Texas. Thats easily correctable.
VOTE. (just don't elect any gun control nattering nabobs!)
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Whose morality anyhow? No sex without marriage seems like a pretty christian morality clause to me. Separation of church and state?
Damn right I don't like it and I think anyone who doesn't have sympathy for these women being discriminated against by the law is a....well. Rule 1.
Edit: Are you suggesting that the homosexual population of Texas don't vote, or something?
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Frazzled wrote:No it should absolutely be in place. Its designed to keep daddy from shacking up with the local drunk floozy and surprising the kid with drunko on his weekend visitations.
Please, tell me more about how it's in the state's interest to decide the minutiae of what consensual relationships 2 consenting adults may enter into.
241
Post by: Ahtman
It is fun to watch Frazz's opinion on what constitutes government intervention flip flop as it aligns, or doesn't, with his political compass. IF it were a drinking game I'd die from alcohol poisoning.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote:Its not vague. You've given zero support thats its vague. You just don't like it.
Again thats a clause to protect children. The clause thats the problem is the lack of legal homosexual marriage in Texas. Thats easily correctable.
VOTE. (just don't elect any gun control nattering nabobs!)
Define "morality".
Go on. I'll wait.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Da Boss wrote:Whose morality anyhow? No sex without marriage seems like a pretty christian morality clause to me. Separation of church and state?
Damn right I don't like it and I think anyone who doesn't have sympathy for these women being discriminated against by the law is a....well. Rule 1.
Edit: Are you suggesting that the homosexual population of Texas don't vote, or something?
NO NO NO NO
The provision says you can't shack up while Jr. is around. Please tell me you see the logic in that? Please?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Edit: Frazzled, I might see the logic in that to an extent, but to be honest, I don't see that it's any of the state's damn business either. It could be just as damaging to the kid to have their parent's partners not be around. But the issue here is that this is an example of where a homosexual couple is being denied equal treatment based on their lack of access to marriage. The morality clause is a dumb law in my opinion but the bigger problem is the lack of access to equal treatment for homosexuals.
He won't define it, he'll imply that you're stupid, that the world is harsh and that there's a simple answer or that he doesn't care. Alternatively he'll post something irreverent to distract from the weakness of his arguments.
34390
Post by: whembly
Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote:Its not vague. You've given zero support thats its vague. You just don't like it.
Again thats a clause to protect children. The clause thats the problem is the lack of legal homosexual marriage in Texas. Thats easily correctable.
VOTE. (just don't elect any gun control nattering nabobs!)
Define "morality".
Go on. I'll wait.
It's defined however it's defined at the time that law was in place.
My take: It's easily fixable.
19370
Post by: daedalus
I feel bad for the kids. Can't be healthy to live in an environment where one's parents act like immature children.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
 whembly wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote:Its not vague. You've given zero support thats its vague. You just don't like it.
Again thats a clause to protect children. The clause thats the problem is the lack of legal homosexual marriage in Texas. Thats easily correctable.
VOTE. (just don't elect any gun control nattering nabobs!)
Define "morality".
Go on. I'll wait.
It's defined however it's defined at the time that law was in place.
My take: It's easily fixable.
If by "easily fixable" you mean they have to move to a less discriminatory state, I guess so, yeah.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Also, goofy backwards legislature.
Wonder if there's an ordinance against discharging firearms into tumbleweeds.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote: Frazzled wrote:No it should absolutely be in place. Its designed to keep daddy from shacking up with the local drunk floozy and surprising the kid with drunko on his weekend visitations.
Please, tell me more about how it's in the state's interest to decide the minutiae of what consensual relationships 2 consenting adults may enter into.
Do you have children? Do you know any children?
I'll say it again. Its quite specific. Its designed so that when daddy runs off and Jr. gets to come over for weekend visitation, the heroin addicted biker chick daddy fiddles with can't be living there.
She can come over.
They can play like bunnies when not in sight of the child.
She can live there when the child is not there.
But it is in the best itnerests of the child not to forcibly introduced to every peace of flotsam as "new mommy" every weekend. Its about stability.
Again, if you don't like it-too bad. Don't have kids and get divorced, adn then want to shack up with that hot piece of  when little Jr. is over. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Are you suggesting that the homosexual population of Texas don't vote, or something?
Not at all. My aunts in law vote. I vote. My wife votes. Thats not enough to change the law. We need more people. Get involved (unless you don't like the Second Amendment in which case off and die yankee!)
50512
Post by: Jihadin
It is fun to watch Frazz's opinion on what constitutes government intervention flip flop as it aligns, or doesn't, with his political compass. IF it were a drinking game I'd die from alcohol poisoning.
Negative Aht...I be there sticking IV bags in you  ....wait...think my bags are lik 2 yrs old...wait one.......kk your good...no mily substance in it....
Frazz right. You vote to make a change. Means you vote for whoever you think would promote what you think is important. The judge upheld the law thats in the book. Your letting your personnel issue get in the way.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Government in my bedroom but damn well not in my gun safe, eh?
This is bad comedy.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
If there is no danger to the children, there should be no need to enforce the clause, given that the clause is apparently in place to "protect the children".
It is a good law to have in place to protect children, certainly. If one of the parents has concerns about how the other is living with the children, there should be rules in place to safeguard those children. However, if there is nothing endangering the children, there should be ways of overturning the rule.
Basically a case by case assessment to overturn the clause, following close behind the immediate application (in case there genuinely is a threat to the child) of the rule.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Ahtman wrote:It is fun to watch Frazz's opinion on what constitutes government intervention flip flop as it aligns, or doesn't, with his political compass. IF it were a drinking game I'd die from alcohol poisoning.
You would, and like the man who searches al his life for the perfect cherry blossom, it would have been a good life!
I'm a virulent fan of child's best interest, dog.
is the patent case unfair - you betcha. it wouldn't be a problem if they could get married, and people who want to get married are far more stable for the rugrants. I'm all for them getting married. But thats an issue related to homosexual marriage, not this issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote:Its not vague. You've given zero support thats its vague. You just don't like it.
Again thats a clause to protect children. The clause thats the problem is the lack of legal homosexual marriage in Texas. Thats easily correctable.
VOTE. (just don't elect any gun control nattering nabobs!)
Define "morality".
Go on. I'll wait.
I don't have to. its not about morality. Its about stability.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Frazzled wrote:I don't have to. its not about morality. Its about stability.
A partner of three years seems pretty stable to me. Sounds a hell of a lot more stable than mum and mum's partner living off somewhere else because mum's former partner's lawyer has found some way of getting back at mum because mum's former partner isn't getting any action.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
No, you're right.
The issue is that the ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".
The divorce was finalized in 2011, but a dispute was opened in April of this year about the child custody arrangement. Ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".
So again:
The husband was able to use this as a form of retaliation and protesting a child custody arrangement.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Da Boss wrote:Edit: Frazzled, I might see the logic in that to an extent, but to be honest, I don't see that it's any of the state's damn business either. It could be just as damaging to the kid to have their parent's partners not be around. But the issue here is that this is an example of where a homosexual couple is being denied equal treatment based on their lack of access to marriage. The morality clause is a dumb law in my opinion but the bigger problem is the lack of access to equal treatment for homosexuals.
He won't define it, he'll imply that you're stupid, that the world is harsh and that there's a simple answer or that he doesn't care. Alternatively he'll post something irreverent to distract from the weakness of his arguments.
When it comes to the best interests of a child its damned well very much in the state's best interest. If the state had a higher interest then that of the children, I can't think of one.
As more than one judge said to me 'when it comes to a child's best interests, yours don't matter.'
After all in a jury trial where 40K becomes an issue, everything can be an issue.
frazzled, the only player to have proven 40K makes you a dweeb, but eminently good for the care and benefit of children.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
It's being used by the ex-husband as a retaliatory move due to the vague wording of what constitutes a "morality clause".
Gonna go with this. Seems a little vindictive. Hell, the clause in general seems a little vindictive. "What's that honey, you won custody of the kids? Well I hope you and your other don't have any plans soon ba-boom!" Drunk floozies and inattentive parents are what social services are for. Surely even Texas has such a thing.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 LordofHats wrote:It's being used by the ex-husband as a retaliatory move due to the vague wording of what constitutes a "morality clause".
Gonna go with this. Seems a little vindictive. Hell, the clause in general seems a little vindictive. "What's that honey, you won custody of the kids? Well I hope you and your other don't have any plans soon ba-boom!" Drunk floozies and inattentive parents are what social services are for. Surely even Texas has such a thing.
Guess what, CPS doesn't have much power. The wife worked with victim services with the Po-Po and can tell you horror stories that will make you throw up. Also why she is heavily armed. To be honest, i've not heard this used in this context. Its almost unheard of to be used, much less when the ex isn't shacking up with a drugged out partner.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I thought Texas was famous for drunk floozies and inattentive parents, hence the real need for this law 
221
Post by: Frazzled
 daedalus wrote:Also, goofy backwards legislature.
Wonder if there's an ordinance against discharging firearms into tumbleweeds.
What if you shoot your own couch...accidentally...
12313
Post by: Ouze
I'd love to see the Texas legislature pass a law that states all guns must have trigger locks installed, and every gun owner must own a gun safe to store any firearm in, in the best interests of a child. Because that's like a 4th part to paper/rock/scissors that beats all the other 3, and so Frazzled would hasten to defend such a law as making perfect sense, totally within the state interest, and hell, trigger locks and gun safes aren't even that expensive bros. Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote:If by "easily fixable" you mean they have to move to a less discriminatory state, I guess so, yeah.
Aha! Not so fast - guess what the divorce decree also says!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote:No, you're right.
The issue is that the ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".
The divorce was finalized in 2011, but a dispute was opened in April of this year about the child custody arrangement. Ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".
So again:
The husband was able to use this as a form of retaliation and protesting a child custody arrangement.
Oh yea. Don't doubt that, but blame the right law for the issue.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
So, ex husband is a massive tool, exploits law to screw with ex wife, nice.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote: Kanluwen wrote:No, you're right.
The issue is that the ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".
The divorce was finalized in 2011, but a dispute was opened in April of this year about the child custody arrangement. Ex-husband wanted the clause enforced "as a matter of principle".
So again:
The husband was able to use this as a form of retaliation and protesting a child custody arrangement.
Oh yea. Don't doubt that, but blame the right law for the issue.
The "right law" is the one which made a "morality clause" mandatory in divorce papers filed in that county.
The other part is the fact that the JUDGE chose to uphold the morality clause in this case, barring some kind of unstated issues with the wife's live in partner.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
 MrDwhitey wrote:So, ex husband is a massive tool, exploits law to screw with ex wife, nice.
Hehe
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:I'd love to see the Texas legislature pass a law that states all guns must have trigger locks installed, and every gun owner must own a gun safe to store any firearm in, in the best interests of a child. Because that's like a 4th part to paper/rock/scissors that beats all the other 3, and so Frazzled would hasten to defend such a law as making perfect sense, totally within the state interest, and hell, trigger locks and gun safes aren't even that expensive bros.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:If by "easily fixable" you mean they have to move to a less discriminatory state, I guess so, yeah.
Aha! Not so fast - guess what the divorce decree also says!
Divorce decrees are changed all the time. I know.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I was sincerely hoping it would take a few more posts before that was noticed. 
221
Post by: Frazzled
MrDwhitey wrote:So, ex husband is a massive tool, exploits law to screw with ex wife, nice.
Bingo! Sounds like a real winner there.
EDIT: You're good...real good!
19370
Post by: daedalus
Frazzled wrote: daedalus wrote:Also, goofy backwards legislature.
Wonder if there's an ordinance against discharging firearms into tumbleweeds.
What if you shoot your own couch...accidentally...
Hey man that couch had a knife.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Frazzled wrote:No it should absolutely be in place. Its designed to keep daddy from shacking up with the local drunk floozy and surprising the kid with drunko on his weekend visitations. Its absolutely correct.
Don't like it? Suck it. Best interests of the child.
So much for your claims to be a libertarian. Nanny state harder, Frazz.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I can't say that I'm thrilled how many community members are choosing to use this thread as a vehicle to attack another person, rather than discuss the issue
Re-reading my original post it probably did not convey what I meant as well as it could have. Of course the child's best interests should be absolutely paramount. But in my opinion this clause should be applied in cases were there is evidence that the child's welfare is at risk, such as in the examples that you gave.
I do agree that this sort of circumstance is easily remedied, and that it does seem that a vindictive husband is engaging in some lawfare.
44089
Post by: Shadowseer_Kim
The other option is to revise the divorce agreement and remove the clause. People often forget that a divorce settlement is subject to change, it just takes some more court time and paperwork.
While this clause may be standard, there is no way it could be required in every divorce in the state.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:The other option is to revise the divorce agreement and remove the clause. People often forget that a divorce settlement is subject to change, it just takes some more court time and paperwork.
While this clause may be standard, there is no way it could be required in every divorce in the state.
It takes two to tango.
Remember, there's a vindictive ex doing this.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Isn't the whole point of a state government is that if you don't like the way it is run you can vote to change the laws or move to a different state?
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:Isn't the whole point of a state government is that if you don't like the way it is run you can vote to change the laws or move to a different state?
You can move, yes.
The issue is you can't legally take your children with you.
And indeed, pointing out you-know-who's hypocrisy is sort of low-hanging fruit, so we should probably move back to the matter at hand.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
As a libertarian, I find this intrusion into the personal lives of two consenting adults to be a disgusting attack by the big government of Texas and it's theology driven agenda on the personal freedoms of the populace.
It's unconstitutional.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I have to concur that it is a textbook equal protection issue.
34390
Post by: whembly
Ouze wrote:I have to concur that it is a textbook equal protection issue.
Yep... there's actually several SC cases about this and I hope they do rule it that way.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Supreme Court still debating DOMA and haven't written their recommendation yet
221
Post by: Frazzled
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:As a libertarian, I find this intrusion into the personal lives of two consenting adults to be a disgusting attack by the big government of Texas and it's theology driven agenda on the personal freedoms of the populace.
It's unconstitutional.
Its not. When it comes to "best interests of the children," a judge's leeway is remarkable. I know.
Now flame me all you want, but your hitting the wrong legal target. Its ok, I've sacrificed hundreds of thousands of dollars and decades of my life in the "best interests of the children." One starts college in the fall. All things considered-mission accomplished. Automatically Appended Next Post: Shadowseer_Kim wrote:The other option is to revise the divorce agreement and remove the clause. People often forget that a divorce settlement is subject to change, it just takes some more court time and paperwork.
While this clause may be standard, there is no way it could be required in every divorce in the state.
Agreed. I've not seen it before actually.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
I don't even understand how this is even in the best interests of the children why does it matter if a single divorced parent is interested in spending the night with a date, aren't they allowed to a break from the kids once in awhile?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I hope she does the same when he tries to do it with someone.
Also, The State can enforce morality now?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Cheesecat wrote:I don't even understand how this is even in the best interests of the children why does it matter if a single divorced parent is interested in spending the night with a date, aren't they allowed to a break from the kids once in awhile?
I think the point is that the the divorced parent can absolutely have fun after the divorce. But it may not be the healthiest environment for the child if a string of casual partners are trotted home on a regular basis. If you want to have fun at least hire a baby sitter.
I think that is what Frazz was saying (although if I'm wrong I will stand corrected)
221
Post by: Frazzled
Cheesecat wrote:I don't even understand how this is even in the best interests of the children why does it matter if a single divorced parent is interested in spending the night with a date, aren't they allowed to a break from the kids once in awhile?
They can spend the night. They can't cohabitate. Automatically Appended Next Post:  hotsauceman1 wrote:I hope she does the same when he tries to do it with someone.
Also, The State can enforce morality now?
Oh yea. The world turns in these cases pretty hard. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Cheesecat wrote:I don't even understand how this is even in the best interests of the children why does it matter if a single divorced parent is interested in spending the night with a date, aren't they allowed to a break from the kids once in awhile?
I think the point is that the the divorced parent can absolutely have fun after the divorce. But it may not be the healthiest environment for the child if a string of casual partners are trotted home on a regular basis. If you want to have fun at least hire a baby sitter.
I think that is what Frazz was saying (although if I'm wrong I will stand corrected)
Exactly.
Again, if her partner is worthy she will wait. If not, she wasn't worthy to begin with.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Solution. Break up with her and have her become a live in nanny for the kids
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Frazzled wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:As a libertarian, I find this intrusion into the personal lives of two consenting adults to be a disgusting attack by the big government of Texas and it's theology driven agenda on the personal freedoms of the populace.
It's unconstitutional.
Its not. When it comes to "best interests of the children," a judge's leeway is remarkable. I know.
Now flame me all you want, but your hitting the wrong legal target. Its ok, I've sacrificed hundreds of thousands of dollars and decades of my life in the "best interests of the children." One starts college in the fall. All things considered-mission accomplished.
The letter of the law is being exploited to defeat the spirit of the law.
It is discriminatory and, I'll repeat, represents government intruding on the personal affairs of citizens.
The law is also being applied without balance, if same sex marriage was allowed then there would be no problem, but the government of Texas won't allow gay marriage and makes no exception in this law, the two laws creating the situation of a denial of equality under the law for same sex couples.
This violates the 14th Amendment and denies these women the right to equal protection under law.
Texas is breaking the constitution.
71201
Post by: JWhex
The state of Texas is not renowned for looking after children in need, its practically a third world country in many respects.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Easy way to fix this really:
1) Have a Muslim couple get divorced.
2) Insert a morality clause claiming that somehow "Sharia Law" demands it.
3) Watch the good old boys get angry about them muslims
4) profit!
221
Post by: Frazzled
 d-usa wrote:Easy way to fix this really:
1) Have a Muslim couple get divorced.
2) Insert a morality clause claiming that somehow "Sharia Law" demands it.
3) Watch the good old boys get angry about them muslims
4) profit!
Now thats capital thinking!
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Frazzled wrote: Cheesecat wrote:I don't even understand how this is even in the best interests of the children why does it matter if a single divorced parent is interested in spending the night with a date, aren't they allowed to a break from the kids once in awhile?
They can spend the night. They can't cohabitate.
Again, I don't see how that's a bad thing.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one.
The application in this case, of one ex using it as leverage to make the other miserable and keep their long-term partner out of the house is absolute donkey swill, and if the judge has any choice in the matter and is letting that happen, that judge is a scumbag.
73070
Post by: Valion
Is it the state the mandates the clause be in all divorce settlements, or is it something that the divorcing couple can decide if they want in or not?
34390
Post by: whembly
 Valion wrote:Is it the state the mandates the clause be in all divorce settlements, or is it something that the divorcing couple can decide if they want in or not?
It's usually the state... but, not sure with Texas. (it's different with each state too).
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Mannahnin wrote:The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one.
I'm not so sure it is. I don't think the state has a vested interest in the details of the dating life of consenting adults unless and until there is a preponderance of evidence that there is an unsuitable home environment.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
So she reno's her home and registers the upper floor as a seperate domicile for rent, her partner rents it.
Generally all it needs is a separate entrance and she's cool, and, if I'm thinking this through right, she could just sleep upstairs and have the child sleep downstairs, thus technically in two different homes, not breaking this law. Though I wonder if the lawyer would then press for abandonment as the mother is technically in a separate house and the child is being left alone.
And for the equal right thing towards MGS, it's not unequal as far as I'm aware, as it would apply to the father as well if he wanted a bunch of dudes knocking on his back patio while the children were about. The fact that he isn't gay and the wife is doesn't really play into the exact equality.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Ratbarf, how can you equate having your long-term girlfriend or boyfriend living in the house with having "a bunch of dudes" over? Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote: Mannahnin wrote:The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one.
I'm not so sure it is. I don't think the state has a vested interest in the details of the dating life of consenting adults unless and until there is a preponderance of evidence that there is an unsuitable home environment.
There's certainly a reasonable argument to be made there. I do think there's grounds for somewhat stricter standards and involvement when we're dealing with kids.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
It was simply a poor attempt at humour, the point still stands though that the husband would not be allowed to have a homosexual parter stay while the child is in the house as well. Boom, gakky equality.
99
Post by: insaniak
Frazzled wrote:I'll say it again. Its quite specific. Its designed so that when daddy runs off and Jr. gets to come over for weekend visitation, the heroin addicted biker chick daddy fiddles with can't be living there.
But as soon as he marries the heoin-additcted biker chick, having her in the house is fine...? How does that protect the kids, exactly?
And, really, is blokes getting divorced and immediately shacking up with heroin-addicted biker chicks a big enough problem in Texas to be worth inconveniencing those people who are dating normal, well-adjusted, non-drug addicts?
But it is in the best itnerests of the child not to forcibly introduced to every peace of flotsam as "new mommy" every weekend.
Is it really, though?
Obviously, anecdote doesn't equal data, but my mother went through a string of partners between my father and the donkey-cave she eventually married... All of those partners combined had nowhere near the negative impact on me that the new husband did. In most cases, I just had nothing to do with them, so they had absolutely zero impact.
71201
Post by: JWhex
Let's avoid broad negative stereotypes about regions of the country, please. -Mannahnin
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I think this is just basically a legal snafu and I think there are many facts and viewpoints to consider. One of the things I've always thought these morality clauses were about was money. The husband is probably still paying alimony. Now if his wife were straight she could not have her boyfriend stay in the house unless they got married, thus ending the original husbands alimony obligation. Now since they can't get married, he may be stuck paying her alimony forever (not sure what the law is in TX) even though she has a new partner.
If I was the husband and my ex wife was being cheeky by saying that she still wants alimony even though she has a new life partner, well, I guess I would probably do the same thing.
I can see the conversation.
W: Where is my Alimony?
H: Don't you have a new partner, you guys have been dating for years and she sleeps at the house?
W: I do, but we can't get Married, because it's illegal.....so where is my check?
H: Oh, you and your partner can't get married? Here is your check, tell them to get out of the house!
Not saying that this is the situation, but it could be.
Can't have it both ways people.
I can see it being unfair to someone, no matter what the outcome is. But since law has not caught up with the times, the law can only enforce what is there. This is what settlements are for.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:NO NO NO NO
The provision says you can't shack up while Jr. is around. Please tell me you see the logic in that? Please?
I can see the logic in it, when talking about a parent picking up a one night stand while the kids are staying over.
But to simply assume that any adult relationship is either a one night stand or a marriage, is, well, completely flying rodent gak crazy. Maybe a lot less crazy when this law was written, but right now its loco.
For there to be any kind of sanity to this law, you'd need to have judges drawing a line between "living together in a stable but not formally married relationship" and "random hook up with some bar skank", and no judge on Earth is going to want to make that distinction.
So the only sensible response, basically, is to dump this nonsense law. I mean hell, if there's a proven record of one partner hooking up with randoms while the kids are in the house there's already 'unfit environment for children' that can modify the parenting arrangement. This morality clause is just stupid law. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am as well. Well, I'm a fan, but not a virulent one... I think you might want to look up what that word means.
Anyhow, yes, absolutely, children's best interests, absolutely. But those best interests need to be laid out in a way that makes some sense, and pretending the world exists of random bar hookups with skanky hoes and marriages blessed by God, and nothing in between makes no fething sense at all.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
The two times I got divorced I read every page. I request clause to be removed as did she. If your going to sign something of that importance thn you best know what the Hell your signing. My first wife agreed for me not to pay child support. She made more money then me as justification (she was a captain and I a lonely E5)
We also had that stupid cause in there like Texas. We both agreed to remove it. We also adding in my Post 9/11 GI Bill was to be transfered over to her for college.A college we both have to agree...she be going to UMASS like her mom
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
But to simply assume that any adult relationship is either a one night stand or a marriage, is, well, completely flying rodent gak crazy. Maybe a lot less crazy when this law was written, but right now its loco.
I think I expressed why it is absolutely an essential law actually, well maybe not a law but part of a prenup. I don't care if you are a man or a woman, alimony is a big issue. If you have a new life partner then the old life partner should not have to support you and your new partner anymore. The classic answer to this is to then get married. But the gay couple can't, so the husband would still be on the hook.
Basically they are both screwed by circumstance and its time for them to sit at the big kids table and work out a new agreement until laws catch up. Until then, he still has to pay alimony to his wife, but her partner can't live there.........First world problems.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
 Jihadin wrote:Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?
I don't know, families are pretty messed up now, and homosexuality is not really that much of a stigma anymore....well depending on where you live I guess. If I had two gay parents and some kid tried to bust me on that, I'd probably just come back with "At least I have two parents, go say hi to deliveryman JR for me when you get home!" Trying to pick on people for their family situations is pretty hard now adays without getting caught in the crossfire.
99
Post by: insaniak
Jihadin wrote:Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?
KIds ultimately get most of their prejudices from their parents. The sooner we stop treating same-sex couples like they're doing something shameful, the sooner kids will stop seeing it as weird.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Andrew1975 wrote:I think I expressed why it is absolutely an essential law actually, well maybe not a law but part of a prenup. I don't care if you are a man or a woman, alimony is a big issue. If you have a new life partner then the old life partner should not have to support you and your new partner anymore.
This clause doesn't address alimony at all. While the kids aren't in the house the person can sleep around with whoever, or continue a stable relationship with a new partner it won't impact any alimony requirement at all. Nor does it stop being applied if there is no alimony.
No, this is purely there for the welfare of the children. But because it's relic of another time, and also because it's Texas, the law doesn't see any kind of relationship between 'random hook up with some random that is a totally inappropriate situation for a child' and 'loving marriage blessed by God'. The idea of a happy, stable, de facto relationship just isn't considered. And that is terribly stupid law.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
 insaniak wrote: Jihadin wrote:Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?
KIds ultimately get most of their prejudices from their parents. The sooner we stop treating same-sex couples like they're doing something shameful, the sooner kids will stop seeing it as weird.
Only once that happens will the laws catch up and close loopholes. Until then people have to learn to negotiate and compromise. Right now these people need to sit with attorneys and figure out the situation.Not being able to be married is unfair to the couple, on the same note just letting her and her partner live in the house and collect alimony and child support is unfair to the husband.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:I think I expressed why it is absolutely an essential law actually, well maybe not a law but part of a prenup. I don't care if you are a man or a woman, alimony is a big issue. If you have a new life partner then the old life partner should not have to support you and your new partner anymore.
This clause doesn't address alimony at all. While the kids aren't in the house the person can sleep around with whoever, or continue a stable relationship with a new partner it won't impact any alimony requirement at all. Nor does it stop being applied if there is no alimony.
No, this is purely there for the welfare of the children. But because it's relic of another time, and also because it's Texas, the law doesn't see any kind of relationship between 'random hook up with some random that is a totally inappropriate situation for a child' and 'loving marriage blessed by God'. The idea of a happy, stable, de facto relationship just isn't considered. And that is terribly stupid law.
Whether you think it does or doesn't, doesn't really matter. Again, yes it is unfair that they can't marry, it's also unfair that she can have a partner and still collect alimony and child support just because she happens to be gay now. Remember this is not some state law, these are terms of a divorce she signed off on and agreed to. If she had a problem with them, she should have raised it then.
99
Post by: insaniak
Andrew1975 wrote:... on the same note just letting her and her partner live in the house and collect alimony and child support is unfair to the husband.
Is that actually happening, though? I don't recall alimony being mentioned in the original article.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
insaniak wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:... on the same note just letting her and her partner live in the house and collect alimony and child support is unfair to the husband.
Is that actually happening, though? I don't recall alimony being mentioned in the original article.
I don't know if it is or isn't, but it could be. The divorce is recent and usually men pay alimony and child support, so there is a good chance he is still paying. That's why I could see him pressing his rights also. Divorce seams to bring the worst out of people, so maybe he is just being a Donkey cave to be a Donkey cave, maybe he doesn't like gay people, maybe he doesn't want to see his wife happy with anyone else, or maybe he just doesn't want to pay anymore. There are many reasons he could be doing this.
Not really my issue. She signed the paperwork, that's all that really matters. This is not some state law, these are legal divorce papers that they both agreed to.
If the story were more complete and stated that her husband was not paying alimony and childsupport, well then I would feel very badly for her.
This just reminds me of a lot of the section 8 cases I hear about where some unemployed mother with kids gets government housing and then lets her boyfriend move in. If housing finds out that he is living there they will pull her housing. Why should the government pay for her boyfriends housing? I know its a completely different situation, but it has echos.
5470
Post by: sebster
Andrew1975 wrote:Whether you think it does or doesn't, doesn't really matter. Again, yes it is unfair that they can't marry, it's also unfair that she can have a partner and still collect alimony and child support just because she happens to be gay now. Remember this is not some state law, these are terms of a divorce she signed off on and agreed to. If she had a problem with them, she should have raised it then.
First up, forget the lesbian bit for a second. Ignore whether or not they can get married. Instead just consider if the woman had entered in to a stable, long term relationship with another guy. It's still total fething bs that the only way they can continue that relationship while the children are visiting would be if that got married.
Because we've gotten to a point in society where we realised that defacto relationships exist, and they can work just fine for lots of people. Requiring a couple to wed before their relationship can be seen as a stable, positive force in a child's life is beyond ridiculous.
Second up, yes, she signed it, but it remains a state decision as to whether they will enforce it. There's all kinds of signed documents that courts won't enforce, either because they are manifestly unfair, or because they're extremely subjective, or because it simply isn't the kind of nonsense a court is willing to get engaged in. There is no reason why this clause can't be the kind of thing ... other than the fact that in Texas, no-one thinks it is stupid to consider all adult sexual relationships to be either 'lawful marriage' or 'slutting around in a way that children must not be allowed to see'. Automatically Appended Next Post: Andrew1975 wrote:If the story were more complete and stated that her husband was not paying alimony and childsupport, well then I would feel very badly for her.
Alimony I can understand.
But child support... if he is paying child support that doesn't change if she marries again. They're still his kids, and he should support them.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Unless the child is actually at risk, the parent's new partner shouldn't be an issue. The law and the father are being an ass.
According to what is described on this thread about these clauses, it's ok to have people spend the night but not cohabit. Thus the law allows for a revolving door of unknown people to be passing through the home but not for a stable relationship to establish. Yet these laws are being passed off in the name of 'child protection'? What a joke.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
First up, forget the lesbian bit for a second. Ignore whether or not they can get married. Instead just consider if the woman had entered in to a stable, long term relationship with another guy. It's still total fething bs that the only way they can continue that relationship while the children are visiting would be if that got married.
Well again, its not a law, its an agreement that she made and many people make the same agreement, or ones like it. There is nothing wrong with it on its face. If the state were not to enforce it, than they are setting precedent.
If these two wanted to modify their divorce papers there is nothing stopping them from sitting with an attorney and modifying them. Of course that assumes that these are two rational people, which is pretty rare in these cases. There are arbitrators for these kind of situations.
I can understand your argument about relationships being different, but that's really a personal matter, much like divorce papers. These are the terms that one or both of them wanted and both of them signed off on. To have a judge change them would be like letting a judge just let the husband not pay alimony because the wife has a gay life partner, see the media storm that would come with that judgement.
I agree she can be in a relationship without being married, but when there are children it does get more complicated and something that was meant to be a safeguard can become a punishment, or both depending on your point of view. I'm not really big on courts getting in on family matters, if it gets that far the situation is usually pretty f'ed anyway.
The big problem in law comes with terms and definitions. So while she can be in a relationship she is not married and only remarrying ends the first husbands obligations to her. Hell if the law allowed husbands to stop paying alimony once their ex wives were in a relationship then we might have an argument. But it would appear that the terms of the agreement require remarriage.
Alimony I can understand.
But child support... if he is paying child support that doesn't change if she marries again. They're still his kids, and he should support them.
Oh and yes you should always support your children. The fact that this even has to be a law is ridiculous.
Unless the child is actually at risk, the parent's new partner shouldn't be an issue. The law and the father are being an ass.
According to what is described on this thread about these clauses, it's ok to have people spend the night but not cohabit. Thus the law allows for a revolving door of unknown people to be passing through the home but not for a stable relationship to establish. Yet these laws are being passed off in the name of 'child protection'? What a joke.
Divorce brings the worst out of people. I and my parents were lucky enough to avoid it, but I've seen many friends turned into emotional wrecks by it. It's like everyone turns into vindictive children.
Again depending on the situation though, I don't think the husband is being an ass. He may just want to stop paying, which if she is in a new relationship he should not have to.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Andrew1975 wrote:Again depending on the situation though, I don't think the husband is being an ass. He may just want to stop paying, which if she is in a new relationship he should not have to.
But how does what he's doing here help him get out of his financial obligations? She can't marry her partner, so how does preventing them from living together help him at all?
Also, your "they can just modify the terms of the divorce" argument depends on the assumption of the ex-husband being willing to cooperate, if he's acting out of spite and/or bigotry then all he has to do is just refuse to agree to the changes and she's stuck with the original terms. Not that this is really an option:
According to the AP, the so-called morality clause is part of a standing order that applies to each and every divorce case filed in the county and was also added to the Comptons' final divorce decree.
So the court added the morals clause, not the divorcing couple.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
But how does what he's doing here help him get out of his financial obligations? She can't marry her partner, so how does preventing them from living together help him at all?
Well, they could settle. That's what I would do if I was them, if that really is the issue. They could come to an agreement legal or otherwise that she can live there if he doesn't have to pay alimony.
Again, not saying this is the problem here. But it could be. If it was, than yes as the husband I would press my rights.
Also, your "they can just modify the terms of the divorce" argument depends on the assumption of the ex-husband being willing to cooperate, if he's acting out of spite and/or bigotry then all he has to do is just refuse to agree to the changes and she's stuck with the original terms. Not that this is really an option:
Oh absolutely! No argument there. It is amazing though once people start acting like adults how much laws don't really need to be applied. Its not like the cops are going around checking the house unless the husband files a complaint.
Its a stupid rule and a stupid situation, on both sides. But I can also see people using the"not being able to be married law" as excuses too. People get pretty vindictive in divorces and now the husband sees his ex wife happy and knows that he is going to be paying for that happiness for the rest of his life. He shouldn't have to, whether she remarries or not but nobody ever said that law was fair....its just the law. It's not write and wrong.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote:NO NO NO NO
The provision says you can't shack up while Jr. is around. Please tell me you see the logic in that? Please?
How exactly is this supposed to be checked upon then ?
Guards -- armed of course -- in the bedroom of single divorced people ?
Or cameras ?
Or a drone for every American bedroom !
One would suggest that if you're determined to shack up with a smack addicted floozy , breaking the law will not really be a concern.
5470
Post by: sebster
Andrew1975 wrote:Well again, its not a law, its an agreement that she made and many people make the same agreement, or ones like it. There is nothing wrong with it on its face. If the state were not to enforce it, than they are setting precedent.
Yeah, it would be setting a precedent. And a precedent should be set on this, because right now the application of the law is abitrary, and doesn't match the reality of modern life.
I can understand your argument about relationships being different, but that's really a personal matter, much like divorce papers. These are the terms that one or both of them wanted and both of them signed off on. To have a judge change them would be like letting a judge just let the husband not pay alimony because the wife has a gay life partner, see the media storm that would come with that judgement.
It wouldn't. Courts refuse to enforce certain contract terms all the time. Contract law is a lot more than 'what's written on the page is what the parties have to do'.
I agree she can be in a relationship without being married, but when there are children it does get more complicated and something that was meant to be a safeguard can become a punishment, or both depending on your point of view. I'm not really big on courts getting in on family matters, if it gets that far the situation is usually pretty f'ed anyway.
Sure, courts are only getting in there when functioning relations between the parents have broken down.
The big problem in law comes with terms and definitions. So while she can be in a relationship she is not married and only remarrying ends the first husbands obligations to her. Hell if the law allowed husbands to stop paying alimony once their ex wives were in a relationship then we might have an argument. But it would appear that the terms of the agreement require remarriage.
The arbitrary nature of marriage causes all kinds of issues, and not just with family law. Consider a single parent payment, paid to a woman who has moved on to a new guy with whom she is living happily... if she marries him she loses those support payments. When there was a strong social expectation of marriage that legal loophole wouldn't have been that much of an issue, but these days when most people really don't care that much about marriage then a lot of people are going to continue claiming support payments when really their partner should be providing for them.
Oh and yes you should always support your children. The fact that this even has to be a law is ridiculous.
Very true, and very sad.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one.
The application in this case, of one ex using it as leverage to make the other miserable and keep their long-term partner out of the house is absolute donkey swill, and if the judge has any choice in the matter and is letting that happen, that judge is a scumbag.
Agreed on all points.
The judge is applying the law, but the more I think about it, is being a female hygiene product. In my experience with them, thats not unusual.
The judge could have simply found that they aren't cohabitating. Hey if you can't get married, then there's no way you can cohabitate right? Case dismissed!
We need help with the other law though, which is the problem. Automatically Appended Next Post: Valion wrote:Is it the state the mandates the clause be in all divorce settlements, or is it something that the divorcing couple can decide if they want in or not?
I've not heard of it before. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ratbarf wrote:So she reno's her home and registers the upper floor as a seperate domicile for rent, her partner rents it.
Generally all it needs is a separate entrance and she's cool, and, if I'm thinking this through right, she could just sleep upstairs and have the child sleep downstairs, thus technically in two different homes, not breaking this law. Though I wonder if the lawyer would then press for abandonment as the mother is technically in a separate house and the child is being left alone.
And for the equal right thing towards MGS, it's not unequal as far as I'm aware, as it would apply to the father as well if he wanted a bunch of dudes knocking on his back patio while the children were about. The fact that he isn't gay and the wife is doesn't really play into the exact equality.
And another capital idea is born.
Automatically Appended Next Post: insaniak wrote: Frazzled wrote:I'll say it again. Its quite specific. Its designed so that when daddy runs off and Jr. gets to come over for weekend visitation, the heroin addicted biker chick daddy fiddles with can't be living there.
But as soon as he marries the heoin-additcted biker chick, having her in the house is fine...? How does that protect the kids, exactly?
And, really, is blokes getting divorced and immediately shacking up with heroin-addicted biker chicks a big enough problem in Texas to be worth inconveniencing those people who are dating normal, well-adjusted, non-drug addicts?
Its a stability issue. Again, I've not heard of this being enforced unless the ex spouse has really gone off the deep end. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:Whens a good age to break it on the kids that the real parent has a same sex life partner/lover. If hat gets out in school that be a Hell of a time. You all know kids and you all remember some dumb crap we did at kids. You think kids will give up the "beat stick" on them having gay parent?
Look at it this way. One helicopter mom is a tiger. imagine if a kid had two helicopter moms swooping in. No one would mess with that kid. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Peregrine wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:Again depending on the situation though, I don't think the husband is being an ass. He may just want to stop paying, which if she is in a new relationship he should not have to.
But how does what he's doing here help him get out of his financial obligations? She can't marry her partner, so how does preventing them from living together help him at all?
Also, your "they can just modify the terms of the divorce" argument depends on the assumption of the ex-husband being willing to cooperate, if he's acting out of spite and/or bigotry then all he has to do is just refuse to agree to the changes and she's stuck with the original terms. Not that this is really an option:
According to the AP, the so-called morality clause is part of a standing order that applies to each and every divorce case filed in the county and was also added to the Comptons' final divorce decree.
So the court added the morals clause, not the divorcing couple.
1. There's a money fight or custody fight going on.
2. This other relationship may have started during the marriage.
3. He's a .
These things don't have to be logical. Its divorce court and people go crazy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  reds8n wrote: Frazzled wrote:NO NO NO NO
The provision says you can't shack up while Jr. is around. Please tell me you see the logic in that? Please?
How exactly is this supposed to be checked upon then ?
Guards -- armed of course -- in the bedroom of single divorced people ?
Or cameras ?
Or a drone for every American bedroom !
One would suggest that if you're determined to shack up with a smack addicted floozy , breaking the law will not really be a concern.
Evidently they sue in family court.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Mannahnin wrote:The idea of the "morality clause" keeping one parent from having various short-termers over and creating an unstable home environment is a perfectly reasonable one..
Absolutely. Without posting lurid examples, I think it is sufficient to say that there is reason to be concerned about a steady flow of strangers moving through a house in which children live. I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance. With that said:
Mannahnin wrote:The application in this case, of one ex using it as leverage to make the other miserable and keep their long-term partner out of the house is absolute donkey swill, and if the judge has any choice in the matter and is letting that happen, that judge is a scumbag.
I wonder if he did.
_______
Frazzled, you seem knowledgable on this subject, did the judge have any leeway in his potential rulings?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Judges have great leeway, IF they choose to use it.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Just my own curiosity here but are judges typically activist and will grant things that a party may not have requested, but is in their best interest. Or will they usually only adjudicate on the matters before them?
34390
Post by: whembly
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Just my own curiosity here but are judges typically activist and will grant things that a party may not have requested, but is in their best interest. Or will they usually only adjudicate on the matters before them?
In family court? Yes, they have that kind of leeway.
Is it used often? I'm not so sure.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Thanks for that. I don't plan to be before a court anytime soon, but I was curious
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Just my own curiosity here but are judges typically activist and will grant things that a party may not have requested, but is in their best interest. Or will they usually only adjudicate on the matters before them?
B at least in Texas.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Much obliged, thank you
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Well it looks like in TX you may not have to pay alimony unless you were married for more than 10 years. So probably not the issue here. It looks like the husband is basically just being a douche, or he could be extremely conservative and does not want his children exposed to that kind of relationship....which is still pretty douchy, but TX is pretty conservative. Or maybe he know something we don't, still the law is the law.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Andrew1975 wrote:Well it looks like in TX you may not have to pay alimony unless you were married for more than 10 years. So probably not the issue here. It looks like the husband is basically just being a douche, or he could be extremely conservative and does not want his children exposed to that kind of relationship....which is still pretty douchy, but TX is pretty conservative. Or maybe he know something we don't, still the law is the law.
Unless the husband is not the biological father of the two children who are ages 13 and 10, I think it's a reasonable assumption that they were "married for more than ten years".
221
Post by: Frazzled
Andrew1975 wrote:Well it looks like in TX you may not have to pay alimony unless you were married for more than 10 years. So probably not the issue here. It looks like the husband is basically just being a douche, or he could be extremely conservative and does not want his children exposed to that kind of relationship....which is still pretty douchy, but TX is pretty conservative. Or maybe he know something we don't, still the law is the law.
Child support and division of property (its a Spanish law community property state) are issues as well.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Frazzled wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:Well it looks like in TX you may not have to pay alimony unless you were married for more than 10 years. So probably not the issue here. It looks like the husband is basically just being a douche, or he could be extremely conservative and does not want his children exposed to that kind of relationship....which is still pretty douchy, but TX is pretty conservative. Or maybe he know something we don't, still the law is the law.
Child support and division of property (its a Spanish law community property state) are issues as well.
Well, there you go, more reasons for this to not just be a knee jerk douche move that people seam to think that it is.
99
Post by: insaniak
Frazzled wrote:Its a stability issue.
Does this sort of requirement really do anything to encourage stability, though?
Because it seems to me, if we ignore this specific lesbian couple example, that it would be more likely to encourage a couple who has decided that they want to try living together to rush into a marriage that they aren't quite ready for yet due to that being the only way they can co-inhabit.
Requiring them to be married doesn't do anything for stability... we're talking about someone who has already divorced at least once, so clearly marriage isn't being seen as particularly binding.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
The idea that there is a morality issue with an adult bringing home another adult for unmarried sexual relationship simply because children are present in the house is ridiculous. The clause is nothing more than another glorification of the institution of marriage and of its magical morality. It requires a disproportionnate restriction on sexual freedoms and on the acceptable forms of relationship.
Yall should take a page out of canadian legislature and agree that the government has no business in your bedrooms.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Government proposes researching gun violence and possible expanded background checks: tyrants wanting to take over our personal liberties and rights that requires violent rhetoric and extreme displays of patriotism/viciousness.
Government controls consenting adults relationships and sexual lives: just sensible legislation.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
 Monster Rain wrote: I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.
Yeah, because there can't possibly be any good reasons for opposing this law. 
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Cheesecat wrote: Monster Rain wrote: I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.
Yeah, because there can't possibly be any good reasons for opposing this law.
I think what needs to be opposed is governments basically mandating conditions of divorce. When two people decide to go their separate ways, it really should be up to them to figure out how to divide assets and carry on their separate lives. The agreement as is, if it was voluntary, well I have no issue with it,
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Can't help feeling that her being a lesbian wanting to bring a woman into the home didn't do her any favours in a very conservative state like Texas.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
 Howard A Treesong wrote:Can't help feeling that her being a lesbian wanting to bring a woman into the home didn't do her any favours in a very conservative state like Texas.
Ya think! 
Alos, are the couple formally married, its one thing if Texas doesn't recognize it, but gay couples do get married all the time. I would probably have more sympathy for her if they were married, indtead of it just being theoretical.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Cheesecat wrote: Monster Rain wrote: I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.
Yeah, because there can't possibly be any good reasons for opposing this law.
Speaking of knee-jerk reactions.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Does this sort of requirement really do anything to encourage stability, though?
Might make it less of a hellish environment for any children.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Andrew1975 wrote:
I think what needs to be opposed is governments basically mandating conditions of divorce. When two people decide to go their separate ways, it really should be up to them to figure out how to divide assets and carry on their separate lives. The agreement as is, if it was voluntary, well I have no issue with it,
I suspect that would not work very often. Many divorces are very contentious which is why they are in court. You involve the court you accept the gov't telling you how to do it, and the gov't will need some type of guidelines to adjudicate by. Nothing different from any civil law suit really. It would be nice if all folks could come up with mutually acceptable agreements when they have problems instead of suing each other. But it will never happen.,
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
What you expect the other group to not have knee-jerk reaction when you just told them their reasons are based in ignorance and haven't had much though put into them? 
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Yes, dismissing this type of law with a typical "hurr freedom" rant displays profound ignorance of the subject matter.
I don't think there's a way to sugar-coat that, but you asked.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
 CptJake wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:
I think what needs to be opposed is governments basically mandating conditions of divorce. When two people decide to go their separate ways, it really should be up to them to figure out how to divide assets and carry on their separate lives. The agreement as is, if it was voluntary, well I have no issue with it,
I suspect that would not work very often. Many divorces are very contentious which is why they are in court. You involve the court you accept the gov't telling you how to do it, and the gov't will need some type of guidelines to adjudicate by. Nothing different from any civil law suit really. It would be nice if all folks could come up with mutually acceptable agreements when they have problems instead of suing each other. But it will never happen.,
What I meant was the law does not need to impose silly rules like this in peoples divorce papers, they should be able to set their own terms and negotiate like adults. That contract then should be binding.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I think that we can all agree from this that you always, ALWAYS, read any legal document twice before signing
99
Post by: insaniak
 Mr Hyena wrote:Might make it less of a hellish environment for any children.
What 'hellish environment' are you talking about?
5470
Post by: sebster
Monster Rain wrote:Absolutely. Without posting lurid examples, I think it is sufficient to say that there is reason to be concerned about a steady flow of strangers moving through a house in which children live. I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.
No... sigh. It's based on the basic, this century reality that stable, functioning homes with healthy relationships doesn't actually mean married. That's a line of thinking that's at least two generations dead. Having a law that relies on the assumption that unless a person is remarried then any relationship is unsavoury and not the kind of thing children should be exposed to is ridiculous.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
I think he means Texas in general?
99
Post by: insaniak
sebster wrote: Having a law that relies on the assumption that unless a person is remarried then any relationship is unsavoury and not the kind of thing children should be exposed to is ridiculous.
It fails from both sides, IMO, since it's equally ridiculous to assume that a parent remarrying is automatically better for the kids. I'm living proof that this isn't always the case.
5470
Post by: sebster
Andrew1975 wrote:I think what needs to be opposed is governments basically mandating conditions of divorce. When two people decide to go their separate ways, it really should be up to them to figure out how to divide assets and carry on their separate lives.
Well sure, until they don't come to an agreement on who gets the house and how custody of the kids might be split, and then its up to the courts to figure it out.
The agreement as is, if it was voluntary, well I have no issue with it,
But, as I pointed out before, the courts don't enforce every single agreement that's ever been signed. Many things are too subjective for courts to rule on, or would require the courts getting involved in ways they just aren't willing to (technically the protection for minor party shareholders are extremely powerful, but given the unwillingness of the courts to step in to the mind of business directors in practice they're rarely effective). And ultimately, the kids never signed anything, and it's their welfare more than anything else that matter - if a parent signed a morality clause and later that clause is used to take a child out of healthy, stable environment, or prevent the parent forming a new relationship that would be a healthy, stable environment for a child, then it's a nonsense to state that court should just enforce whatever was signed, no matter the impact on the children.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Kovnik Obama wrote:The idea that there is a morality issue with an adult bringing home another adult for unmarried sexual relationship simply because children are present in the house is ridiculous. The clause is nothing more than another glorification of the institution of marriage and of its magical morality. It requires a disproportionnate restriction on sexual freedoms and on the acceptable forms of relationship.
Yall should take a page out of canadian legislature and agree that the government has no business in your bedrooms.
Your interests are subservient to the interests of the children (and they remind me of that daily).
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
sebster wrote: Monster Rain wrote:Absolutely. Without posting lurid examples, I think it is sufficient to say that there is reason to be concerned about a steady flow of strangers moving through a house in which children live. I think the knee-jerk reaction from some that "this law is ridiculous" is based on ignorance.
No... sigh. It's based on the basic, this century reality that stable, functioning homes with healthy relationships doesn't actually mean married. That's a line of thinking that's at least two generations dead. Having a law that relies on the assumption that unless a person is remarried then any relationship is unsavoury and not the kind of thing children should be exposed to is ridiculous.
So you don't actually know anything about why this type of law is in place, and are appealing to your idea that your worldview is objectively correct.
The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Monster Rain wrote:The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.
The problem is that you are still presenting married = stable and unmarried = floozy/unstable/whatever, when that model was debunked some time ago. Marriage status has nothing to do with being in a stable, nurturing environment.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Ahtman wrote: Monster Rain wrote:The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.
The problem is that you are still presenting married = stable and unmarried = floozy/unstable/whatever, when that model was debunked some time ago. Marriage status has nothing to do with being in a stable, nurturing environment.
Which is why I said that the marriage aspect of it is debatable. Stability is the important factor here. Marriage may have once been a way to quantify stability, but it would seem that we may need to come up with a different metric.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote: Monster Rain wrote:The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.
The problem is that you are still presenting married = stable and unmarried = floozy/unstable/whatever, when that model was debunked some time ago. Marriage status has nothing to do with being in a stable, nurturing environment.
Statistically marriage is more stable. Remember folks this is designed to help deal with the edge of the bell curve of crazy.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I'd be interested to see the data indicating that married households are no more stable than unmarried since it has now been definitively stated that this is the case by two different people.
Damn phone...
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Forcing a woman to move out from her partner and household is making a family less stable though, isn't it.
This was a nasty move on the ex husband's part and a questionable decision by the judge. There is certainly no valid evidence that a same sex couple are any less capable parents than a mixed gender parenting couple.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
There isn't. There's even data that suggests that a stable single parent home is better than transitioning families repeatedly in order to have two parents. Stability is the issue, and married couples are statistically more stable. I know, divorce rate, domestic violence, etc but the data is there if you choose to see it.
I think most people agree that this was a stupid thing to have happen, and according to what I've read, flies directly in the face of what this type of law is intended to achieve. There could easily be a compromise where the scope of what constitutes a stable family within the law is broadened to address family stability without being quite so outdated.
99
Post by: insaniak
Is that still the case if you only consider married couples who are on their second or subsequent marriage?
Remember that we're talking about people who have already been divorced at least once.
34390
Post by: whembly
insaniak wrote:
Is that still the case if you only consider married couples who are on their second or subsequent marriage?
Remember that we're talking about people who have already been divorced at least once.
Growing up when my folks divorced... and they remarried a couple of years later...
Having gone through a divorce myself (luckily an amicable split)... with 2 young kids.
I can certainly see the case that it's more stable for the kids living with two parents, instead of the single parent.
Having said that... that Ex-Husband is a dick hole.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
insaniak wrote:
Is that still the case if you only consider married couples who are on their second or subsequent marriage?
If the average length of a marriage is eight years I think only living through one or two would encompass the majority of someone's formative years.
And, you know, outliers and stuff.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
*Looks at nationality-flag*
Oh, thank (Insert-deity-of-choice)!
*Breathes a sigh of relief*
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Don't judge the whole country by Texas, for good or for ill.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
If it's a standing order on all divorces, I don't see how this doesn't violate free association.
5470
Post by: sebster
insaniak wrote:It fails from both sides, IMO, since it's equally ridiculous to assume that a parent remarrying is automatically better for the kids. I'm living proof that this isn't always the case.
Fair point, didn't think of it that way. So yeah, it's even sillier than I thought. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:So you don't actually know anything about why this type of law is in place, and are appealing to your idea that your worldview is objectively correct.
It's a law that says, straight up on the tin, that a marriage is needed in order for a relationship to be stable and supportive of children. Stop me if I'm wrong with any part of that.
The marriage aspect is arguable, but having laws in place to keep children in more stable environments is an unfortunate necessity. I'll leave it to you to research why, since reading that sort of thing depresses me and I'm in a rare good mood.
Yes, that's right - it is important to have laws that keep children in more stable environments. The issue that I have explained a lot of times now, is the unbelievably outdated notion that a relationship can only be sufficiently stable it its a married relationship. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:There isn't. There's even data that suggests that a stable single parent home is better than transitioning families repeatedly in order to have two parents. Stability is the issue, and married couples are statistically more stable. I know, divorce rate, domestic violence, etc but the data is there if you choose to see it.
No, there isn't such data. There's plenty of data to show that long term couples are more stable and better for the children, and of course a greater proportion of long term, stable couples are married. But looking just at the 'married?' issue is confusing the legal form with the underlying reality of the relationship.
Consider a case coming before a court, involving a dispute over custody of their children from their marriage that broke up 6 years ago. One parent has been with their new partner for four years, and have plans to get married in the future, but right now they just want to get some more money behind them to best provide for the children. The other parent just spent an awesome weekend in Vegas where they met and married some random stranger.
By the nonsense of this 'only stable relationship is a married relationship' standard, the latter couple should be favoured over the former. I am simply stating that this is very obviously a very stupid result.
121
Post by: Relapse
A good friend of mine had a father that went through 7 marriages. Understandably he is messed up when it comes to relationships with women in that he can't commit to one. The result is that he is now 54 years old, has never been married or had kids and is desperatly lonely and depressed.
I would say, seeing the results of his father's choices, he should have been removed far from that man and his Henry the 8th lifestyle.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Relapse wrote:A good friend of mine had a father that went through 7 marriages. Understandably he is messed up when it comes to relationships with women in that he can't commit to one. The result is that he is now 54 years old, has never been married or had kids and is desperatly lonely and depressed.
I would say, seeing the results of his father's choices, he should have been removed far from that man and his Henry the 8th lifestyle.
Look, any kid of Greg Allman is going to have a hard time regardless.
5470
Post by: sebster
Relapse wrote:I would say, seeing the results of his father's choices, he should have been removed far from that man and his Henry the 8th lifestyle.
That said, Henry the 8th did have one pretty successful child. She was a bit messed up on the relationship front though.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
You're so wrong, but I didn't think you would be objective about this.
10920
Post by: Goliath
At the moment neither of you have produced data to back up your claim. You're both effectively going:
"Nuh Uh!"
"Yeah Too!"
"Well you would say that wouldn't you!"
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Goliath wrote:
At the moment neither of you have produced data to back up your claim. You're both effectively going:
"Nuh Uh!"
"Yeah Too!"
"Well you would say that wouldn't you!"
Actually, it's closer to...
Person 1: "[Spurious claim]"
Person 2: "Prove it."
1: "No. [Spurious claim.]"
2: "I'm waiting for you to prove it."
1: "You're wrong."
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Seems to be standard practice outside the US. The entire country is quite often judged as a whole on what happens in;
- New York
- Texas
- California
19370
Post by: daedalus
 Melissia wrote:
Person 1: "[Spurious claim]"
Person 2: "Prove it."
1: "No. [Spurious claim.]"
2: "I'm waiting for you to prove it."
1: "You're wrong."
I think we could optimize dakka by having every thread outside of P&M simply redirect to this post.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Goliath wrote:
At the moment neither of you have produced data to back up your claim. You're both effectively going:
"Nuh Uh!"
"Yeah Too!"
"Well you would say that wouldn't you!"
You haven't been reading very closely. It's worth noting that I asked for a source before anyone else, being a generally open-minded person.
Orange text is a link, in some cases.  I researched the subject a bit, not that I'm any sort of expert, but a quick googling could show that the data to which I refer does in fact exist. Now I could very well go and build a solid case for it to be dismissed in a manner similar to what you have described, but I choose not to. If you are interested in the topic, by all means research it.
Since this doesn't seem like it is terribly productive, I would simply like to restate the idea that this was a terrible decision made by the courts, and the law needs updating.
5470
Post by: sebster
You're little effort at quoting me there was really disingenuous, and more than a little lazy. After that little quote I went on to explain that the problem with the data as presented is that it doesn't seperate the strong correlation of marriage with long term relationships... and what really establishes stability is a long term relationship. As such, empowering judges to look past the legal form of married or not married, and in to the realities of the relationship such as how long they've been together is obviously a better situation.
I even gave an example, of a long term but unmarried couple against a slap dash spur of the moment marriage, and how a properly empowered judge would be able to pick which was obviously the more stable by looking at he substance of each, and not just their legal form.
You ignored all of that, and just quoted the first bit to say 'nuh uh'. Your effort was just pathetically lazy, Automatically Appended Next Post: Goliath wrote:At the moment neither of you have produced data to back up your claim. You're both effectively going:
"Nuh Uh!"
"Yeah Too!"
"Well you would say that wouldn't you!"
You've gotten that impression because of the way Monster Rain quoted only part of my answer. Here is my actual post in full, followed by Monster Rain's response;
No, there isn't such data. There's plenty of data to show that long term couples are more stable and better for the children, and of course a greater proportion of long term, stable couples are married. But looking just at the 'married?' issue is confusing the legal form with the underlying reality of the relationship.
Consider a case coming before a court, involving a dispute over custody of their children from their marriage that broke up 6 years ago. One parent has been with their new partner for four years, and have plans to get married in the future, but right now they just want to get some more money behind them to best provide for the children. The other parent just spent an awesome weekend in Vegas where they met and married some random stranger.
By the nonsense of this 'only stable relationship is a married relationship' standard, the latter couple should be favoured over the former. I am simply stating that this is very obviously a very stupid result.
You're so wrong, but I didn't think you would be objective about this.
It should be clear that I'm trying to form an argument, explain why marriage alone is a poor indicator of stability, even providing examples. Monster Rain, on the other hand, is just saying 'nuh uh'. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:You haven't been reading very closely. It's worth noting that I asked for a source before anyone else, being a generally open-minded person.
Orange text is a link, in some cases. I researched the subject a bit, not that I'm any sort of expert, but a quick googling could show that the data to which I refer does in fact exist. Now I could very well go and build a solid case for it to be dismissed in a manner similar to what you have described, but I choose not to. If you are interested in the topic, by all means research it.
bs. Complete bs.
I explained what it wrong with the data, because I've also read about it. And while, like yourself, I'm not expert, I've read the opinions of people who are, and they've said that marriage isn't a good indicator, and the reports claiming it is are failing to account for marriage typically being a long term relationship. That is to say, a short term marriage is no more stable than short term de facto relationship. And a long term marriage is no more stable than a long term de facto relationship.
To which you responded 'nuh uh'.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Laugh now, one day all will be swearing allegiance while singing the Yellow Rose of Texas!*
*Hey how many countries do you know have a historic song about a high end hooker?
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Also isn't the divorce rate like 40% in the US? So it's pretty common for kids to be raised in a non-married environment which is part of the reason this current law feels dated and pointless, single parents should be able to still date while raising kids especially considering how much more
common it is to be divorced or unmarried these days.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Yes... and no. This number is commonly thrown around, but it's a simple answer for a complicated question. The people who have multiple marriages also have multiple divorces and that really skews the numbers (think Larry King, or Donald Trump, or Relapse's friend's dad with 6 marriages), and some of these divorces don't happen for many years - if you've been married 25 years before divorcing, is that likely to affect the development of your children, who are probably starting families of their own by that point?
Here is some useful info on how it breaks down. Also, here.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Cheesecat wrote:Also isn't the divorce rate like 40% in the US? So it's pretty common for kids to be raised in a non-married environment which is part of the reason this current law feels dated and pointless, single parents should be able to still date while raising kids especially considering how much more
common it is to be divorced or unmarried these days.
But of course this law does nothing to prevent single parents from dating.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
sebster wrote:
I explained what it wrong with the data, because I've also read about it. And while, like yourself, I'm not expert, I've read the opinions of people who are, and they've said that marriage isn't a good indicator, and the reports claiming it is are failing to account for marriage typically being a long term relationship. That is to say, a short term marriage is no more stable than short term de facto relationship. And a long term marriage is no more stable than a long term de facto relationship.
To which you responded 'nuh uh'.
Monster Rain wrote:I'd be interested to see the data indicating that married households are no more stable than unmarried since it has now been definitively stated that this is the case by two different people.
Remember when I asked for some sort of evidence other than your opinion? You know, in that post I just quoted?
I'm really not interested in arguing about the argument though, man. I'm going to drop this line of conversation now.
Frazzled wrote:
Laugh now, one day all will be swearing allegiance while singing the Yellow Rose of Texas!*
*Hey how many countries do you know have a historic song about a high end hooker?
Don't get me wrong, Texas has its great points too!
I wasn't hating. I'd hate for someone to go to Delaware and expect there to be really great barbecue, you know what I mean? I'm not hating, other than your communist no-bean chili.
|
|
