Texas Judge Blocks Woman From Living With Lesbian Partner at Ex-Husband's Request

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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".

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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!)

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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.

**daedalus**

I feel bad for the kids. Can't be healthy to live in an environment where one's parents act like immature children.

**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.

**daedalus**

Also, goofy backwards legislature.

Wonder if there's an ordinance against discharging firearms into tumbleweeds.

**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!)

**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.

**Da Boss**

Government in my bedroom but damn well not in my gun safe, eh?

This is bad comedy.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**SilverMK2**

LordofHats wrote:
Surely even Texas has such a thing.

I thought Texas was famous for drunk floozies and inattentive parents, hence the real need for this law

**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...