Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well yeah..they need to move to a state where they can get married so they can live together.
Makes you wonder why that morality clause got added to her divorce papers though.
What they can do, and is done in a few cases, would be for one of them to legally "adopt" the other which would then create a legal blood relationship and nullify the judges order. The disadvantage of that is it will also cut off the ability of the adoptee to legally inherit anything from her parent which could be a big disadvantage if her parents hold lots of assets or money. It would enable both partners to inherit from each other should one of them die. It is something I have read that some gay couples are doing to get around laws on estate rights and hospital visitations and such.
I really need to link to the Texas law that bans gay people from marrying one another?
You are asuming that the lesbian couple want to get married. That's not the question at hand and is not addressed in the morality clause in question either. The clause in the divorce decree forbids ANYONE OF ANY SEXfrom being in the house around the kids after 9 pm. Period.
You are asuming that the lesbian couple want to get married. That's not the question at hand and is not addressed in the morality clause in question either. The clause in the divorce decree forbids ANYONE OF ANY SEXfrom being in the house around the kids after 9 pm. Period.
I'm not making that assumption.
I'm simply stating they don't have that option under the law (as a straight couple likewise partnered for 3 years and living together would) - hence they are not afforded the same access to the legal protections of the law.
Actually, it has a lot to do with her being gay and marriage equality.
No it doesn't in the least bit, this story like many others is being twisted and used to promote an agenda but in reality it's a legal case about a divorce agreement between 2 people.
I fully support gay rights including gay marriage and adoption but I also support a parent's right to have a say in their kids lives even when they're living with the other parent.
What they can do, and is done in a few cases, would be for one of them to legally "adopt" the other which would then create a legal blood relationship and nullify the judges order. The disadvantage of that is it will also cut off the ability of the adoptee to legally inherit anything from her parent which could be a big disadvantage if her parents hold lots of assets or money. It would enable both partners to inherit from each other should one of them die. It is something I have read that some gay couples are doing to get around laws on estate rights and hospital visitations and such.
But that would involve the father giving up parental rights.
This case sounds like it was an ugly, messy divorce.
And it could have been the husband bringing this up to get revenge.
And she may not be able to move either if it's in her divorce decree.
I fully support gay rights including gay marriage and adoption but I also support a parent's right to have a say in their kids lives even when they're living with the other parent.
That's great, but in this case the father of the children is not involved per the Dallas news reports, so the only one involving himself in this woman's bedroom is the judge.
Why not ? What if this is the ex-husband's doing ?
Doesn't sound like it from the local news stories.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.