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.
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.
No, I am talking of the lesbian couple doing an adult adoption. Only the consent of the adoptee is needed. The children are not involved in it so the father has no say so in it. One adult can legally adopt another adult which creates a legal blood relationship. But the adoptee loses inheritance rights to her parents estate.
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.
Not per the Dallas news, per Compton.
So far you have one story by one person and she says the judge did this because she's gay.
And none of them, including lawyers for each side will talk to the press.
So there's more to this than a Facebook posting.
And you don't know that the ex husband didn't move to enforce that clause.
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.
Again, it very much does. Were this couple straight, they would have the option to marry and this clause in the divorce would be completely and entirely moot. But they're gay, so they have no option.
Now do you see how this story and marriage equality very much relate?
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Again, it very much does. Were this couple straight, they would have the option to marry and this clause in the divorce would be completely and entirely moot. But they're gay, so they have not option.
Now do you see how this story and marriage equality very much relate?
I see how you want it to relate to marriage equality, I also see how the legal issues have nothing to do with it. This woman agreed to a divorce agreement and now she's not abiding by it.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I'm all for changing that.
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.
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.
