|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I know many posters here only want to complain about Constitutionality or the 'nanny state' or 'P.C' when it has to do with a 'D' or an 'O' as a signifier, but... http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-...rs-divorce-caseMCKINNEY, Texas — 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 Dallas Morning News (http://dallasne.ws/16MlSUQ ) reported that in a divorce hearing last month for Carolyn and Joshua Compton, Collin County District Judge John Roach Jr. enforced the terms detailed in their 2011 divorce papers. He ordered Carolyn Compton’s partner, Page Price, to move out of the home they shared with the Comptons’ two daughters, ages 10 and 13. The judge gave Price 30 days to find another place to live. Paul Key said his client, Joshua Compton, wanted the clause enforced for his kids’ benefit. “The fact that they can’t get married in Texas is a legislative issue,” Key said. “It’s not really our issue.” The Comptons had been married for 11 years before their split. Carolyn Compton originally filed for divorce in September 2010. Roach said the clause doesn’t target same-sex couples, adding that the language is gender neutral. “It’s a general provision for the benefit of the children,” the judge said. Price and Carolyn Compton said in a statement that they believe the clause is unconstitutional. But they also said they would comply with the order “even though it will be disruptive to their family and has the potential of being harmful to the children.” They also said in the statement that the clause “is a burden on parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that takes away and unreasonably limits their ability to make parental decisions of whom their children may be around and unreasonably limits what the United State Supreme Court has identified as the liberty of thought, belief and expression.” They are considering whether to file an appeal. In Collin County, the clause is part of the standing orders that apply to every divorce case filed and remains in force while the divorce is pending. In the case of the Comptons’ divorce, the clause was also added to their final divorce decree. It has no expiration date.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
What a stupid ruling. Morality clause? Seems unconstitutional to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,563 |
Quote:
What a stupid ruling. Morality clause? Seems unconstitutional to me.
The ruling isn't stupid... The divorce filing she agreed upon says she can't have a lover spend the night... What you can argue is stupid or discriminatory is the fact that a heterosexual couple can eventually get married and void the morality clause... A homosexual couple in Texas can not... That's the bigger issue... I don't think you can argue the judges ruling because he's just following the agreed upon divorce filing.
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,244
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,244 |
The judge correctly ruled according to the law. His job is to inerpret and administer, not legislate from the bench (which is all too common these days).
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
The judge correctly ruled according to the law. His job is to inerpret and administer, not legislate from the bench (which is all too common these days).
You know what else was correctly decided by the law at the time Dred Scott and Korematsu. You know who put their foot down and drew a line in the sand in the 1960s? It wasn't Congress, it was the Warren Court. When it comes to civil rights the Courts have the power to legislate from the bench and they should exercise it to protect fundamental human rights.
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
I really do understand the morality clause.. As a divorced person with children, I'd guess you would want to protect those kids in every way possible.
But I'm gonna say this and I know I'm going to get kicked in the teeth for it, but what is with a government that dictates who can love whom?
I'm REALLY sick of Federal, State and Local involvement in peoples love lives.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I really do understand the morality clause.. As a divorced person with children, I'd guess you would want to protect those kids in every way possible.
But I'm gonna say this and I know I'm going to get kicked in the teeth for it, but what is with a government that dictates who can love whom?
I'm REALLY sick of Federal, State and Local involvement in peoples love lives.
So, are you saying that contracts have no validity?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,362
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,362 |
Quote:
Quote:
What a stupid ruling. Morality clause? Seems unconstitutional to me.
The ruling isn't stupid... The divorce filing she agreed upon says she can't have a lover spend the night... What you can argue is stupid or discriminatory is the fact that a heterosexual couple can eventually get married and void the morality clause... A homosexual couple in Texas can not... That's the bigger issue... I don't think you can argue the judges ruling because he's just following the agreed upon divorce filing.
I think that this sums it up pretty well.
Additionally, I think that this is all borne from the ex-husband just being a bitter twit. Reading between the lines, I wouldn't be surprised if the other woman is the reason his ex-wife originally wanted the divorce... so, it is no doubt (to me) him just being a buttwad about things, and because of the nature of the Catch-22, it makes national news.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
Quote:
Quote:
I really do understand the morality clause.. As a divorced person with children, I'd guess you would want to protect those kids in every way possible.
But I'm gonna say this and I know I'm going to get kicked in the teeth for it, but what is with a government that dictates who can love whom?
I'm REALLY sick of Federal, State and Local involvement in peoples love lives.
So, are you saying that contracts have no validity?
Did I say that?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187 |
What a waste of court time. As if the ruling will stop it. LOL
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
So you're saying every single contract ever written in human history should be retro-actively enforced???? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,929
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,929 |
Quote:
So you're saying every single contract ever written in human history should be retro-actively enforced????
If someone has an interest in enforcing a contract, then that person will probably attempt to do so.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,827
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,827 |
This actually has more to do with a divorce agreement under civil contract law. Not really much to do from the judges perspective. It's a morality clause... And this works both ways....
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I really do understand the morality clause.. As a divorced person with children, I'd guess you would want to protect those kids in every way possible.
But I'm gonna say this and I know I'm going to get kicked in the teeth for it, but what is with a government that dictates who can love whom?
I'm REALLY sick of Federal, State and Local involvement in peoples love lives.
So, are you saying that contracts have no validity?
Did I say that?
Sounds like it.
It was part of the divorce agreement. The ex-wife agreed to the terms and then violated them.
You may not recognize it as a contract, but it is one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
This actually has more to do with a divorce agreement under civil contract law. Not really much to do from the judges perspective. It's a morality clause... And this works both ways....
It's not that simple as you're trying to make it out to be. I don't think you understand Constitutional Law nor do you understand the 14th amendment and how it applies to the States. The state law is specifically stopping a certain class from ever being able to avail themselves of the law which is pretty much a textbook example of a 14th amendment violation. Now some classes are protected (race, gender, national origin..etc) some aren't (meat packers, milkers, dentist, lawyers..etc)
Basically the case the Supreme Court called up will tell us if homosexuals are a class protected by the 14th amendment. I think their rights should be protected, but I'm pretty liberal when it comes to civil rights. I wouldn't be surprised if the Court comes up with some intermediate scrutiny for homosexuals.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I really do understand the morality clause.. As a divorced person with children, I'd guess you would want to protect those kids in every way possible.
But I'm gonna say this and I know I'm going to get kicked in the teeth for it, but what is with a government that dictates who can love whom?
I'm REALLY sick of Federal, State and Local involvement in peoples love lives.
So, are you saying that contracts have no validity?
Did I say that?
Sounds like it.
It was part of the divorce agreement. The ex-wife agreed to the terms and then violated them.
You may not recognize it as a contract, but it is one.
When you hear me say it, then you'll know that's what I think.. Until then, you have no idea what I'm thinking or what I believe.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,249
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,249 |
Quote:
So, are you saying that contracts have no validity?
If you're an NFL owner signing a player to a five year contract, not so much....
I guess it depends on who you are and who is getting the contract these days.....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
This actually has more to do with a divorce agreement under civil contract law. Not really much to do from the judges perspective. It's a morality clause... And this works both ways....
It's not that simple as you're trying to make it out to be. I don't think you understand Constitutional Law nor do you understand the 14th amendment and how it applies to the States. The state law is specifically stopping a certain class from ever being able to avail themselves of the law which is pretty much a textbook example of a 14th amendment violation. Now some classes are protected (race, gender, national origin..etc) some aren't (meat packers, milkers, dentist, lawyers..etc)
Basically the case the Supreme Court called up will tell us if homosexuals are a class protected by the 14th amendment. I think their rights should be protected, but I'm pretty liberal when it comes to civil rights. I wouldn't be surprised if the Court comes up with some intermediate scrutiny for homosexuals.
But this has nothing to do with their relationship status at this point in the judgment. It is gender neutral, and goes for the ex-husband as well, he can not have a new girlfriend spend the night if the kids are in the house either.
The only bearing this has on their relationship is that as a same-ex couple, they can not marry within Texas, and therefore will not be able to overrule this clause.
I am curious if the wording is for minor children, or just children in general where if he really wanted to be a horses behind, that he could have it enforced even after the children are adults.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Additionally, I think that this is all borne from the ex-husband just being a bitter twit. Reading between the lines, I wouldn't be surprised if the other woman is the reason his ex-wife originally wanted the divorce... so, it is no doubt (to me) him just being a buttwad about things, and because of the nature of the Catch-22, it makes national news.
Right, because the woman who got married, had kids, then decided she wanted to break up the family so she could go be a lesbian isn't a twit at all... She's now gay so we aren't allowed to say anything bad about the little homewrecker but the guy is a buttwad for wanting some control over the home in which his kids live now that she has broken up the family and yanked the kids into this unfortunate situation...... 
Prp, that might be the most PC thing I've ever seen you type because if this was a man or woman breaking up their family to leave for another heterosexual relationship, most people would be hammering the adultering spouse that was leaving and defending the other parent...... but she's now gay, so the whole dynamic of the conversation changes to defend HER...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
It's kinda like what I was saying, he has every right to protect his children so I get that.
My question is, the only reason this is considered a bad situation is because they are lesbians. If the wife wanted to Cohab with a man, would that be as unacceptable?
In the eyes of the law, I doubt it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,929
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,929 |
Quote:
If the wife wanted to Cohab with a man, would that be as unacceptable?
If it was outside of a marriage, then yes, the custody agreement would make that unacceptable as well.
If the woman is gay, then she probably should have looked at the factors involving custody, and had her attorney explain to her how it would work if she enters into a long term gay relationship, but cannot marry. I would certainly explore every aspect of an important issue such as custody of my children if I were in a situation that made custody arrangements necessary. In this case, the custody agreement does not distinguish between a gay or a straight relationship. It treats both equally .... and the fact that a gay couple cannot marry really doesn't matter, because they couldn't marry when she approved the custody agreement. She might have a case if she was in a situation where a gay couple could marry fr a short period of time, and that was then overruled by the voters. (as happened in some states) Then she might be able to say that she had every right to expect that she could marry a female partner, but that right was then taken away. That might be cause to reopen the custody arrangement. However, that's not what happened.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
My question is, the only reason this is considered a bad situation is because they are lesbians. If the wife wanted to Cohab with a man, would that be as unacceptable?
Yes. What makes this unique, as somebody else posted, is that the lesbian couple can't overcome the clause by getting married.
Just from my own personal experience, I have a friend who had 2 kids (never married their mother) then they split up... in the last 10 years since they split, he has lived with about 6 different women, dragging the kids with him everywhere he went... from one woman to the next. Seems like a really unhealthy way to raise 2 girls to me and who knows what their views on relationships and commitment is going to be as they become adults... their mother voluntarily allowed this to happen so it is what it is...
So I get the clause and think that if used appropriately it could be a very good thing.... it should be used to keep one parent from doing what I described above, which is preventing one parenting from having a parade of live-ins with the kids present... on the other hand, if this woman is in a legitimate relationship, even with another woman, the guy should try to figure out a way to make it work..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,929
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,929 |
Quote:
on the other hand, if this woman is in a legitimate relationship, even with another woman, the guy should try to figure out a way to make it work..
This I absolutely agree with. A child should, ideally, have both parents in his or her life. I think it is best for a kid to be able to see both his mother and his father on a regular basis, even if the parents are no longer together.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Now your asking people to use common sense, which is a lost art for many. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
I see both yours and DC's point.
But I stand by my feelings that the Government,, be they state, Fed or Local, has no right to tell people who they can love or who they can marry.
As for the divorce agreement or contract or whatever the hell it is, Again, I understand the father wanting to protect his kids.. No problem with that, in fact, I wish that were more common place. I applaud that.
But I think it was either DC or you Ytown that said, you'd think that the father and mother would use some common sense and make it a workable situation.
I guess that's not going to happen.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
But I stand by my feelings that the Government,, be they state, Fed or Local, has no right to tell people who they can love
Nobody is trying to tell her who she can love but it's bigger than that. She evidently loved this guy, enough to marry him and have kids with him... then she evidently decided she didn't love him any more, she now loved this woman... There are consequences and real world complications that come with making a decision like that which go beyond the theoretical discussion of the government telling a person who they can love.
Quote:
or who they can marry.
This has been debated to death on here but she can marry this woman if she wants to. There are any number of states where she can go to get that done. She just might not be able to take her kids with her to do it.
Quote:
But I think it was either DC or you Ytown that said, you'd think that the father and mother would use some common sense and make it a workable situation.
I guess that's not going to happen.
Speaking personally, if my wife left me for another woman/man, I would like to think that I could be the bigger man and put the kids first and all that.... but part of me knows how bitter I would be and how much I might enjoy watching her twist in the wind and how I might not be 100% accommodating in making her homewrecking transition an easy one.....
All too often on this board we get these stories and with no personal involvement we can be really objective but in reality, the people who do these things are probably not unlike you and I, they are just in the middle of it, with the emotions and the grief and the anger and the hurt and all of the things that go with it... so I hope they do ultimately (sooner rather than later) reach a decision that works best for the kids, but I'm not going to sit here and say the guy is totally irrational because I probably would be a bit irrational if put in that position too.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
All too often on this board we get these stories and with no personal involvement we can be really objective but in reality, the people who do these things are probably not unlike you and I, they are just in the middle of it, with the emotions and the grief and the anger and the hurt and all of the things that go with it... so I hope they do ultimately (sooner rather than later) reach a decision that works best for the kids, but I'm not going to sit here and say the guy is totally irrational because I probably would be a bit irrational if put in that position too.
And this story comes off as if the woman is an innocent victim in all this, and the guy is being a butthead. But for all we know she could be bad mouthing the father to the kids, making visitation difficult, or a multitude of other actions that drove him to this. We've only got a part of the story. OR, the dad could just be a butthead.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
Quote:
Quote:
or who they can marry.
This has been debated to death on here but she can marry this woman if she wants to. There are any number of states where she can go to get that done. She just might not be able to take her kids with her to do it.
That's the point, some places allow same sex marriage some don't, I don't understand why ANYONE should disallow it.., Why do they control it? Why do we let them?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
When you hear me say it, then you'll know that's what I think.. Until then, you have no idea what I'm thinking or what I believe.
You wrote this, right?
Quote:
I'm REALLY sick of Federal, State and Local involvement in peoples love lives.
Well, who do you think is there to make sure that contracts are enforced? The other participant(s) in the contract? In most cases, contracts are self-policing until there is a perceived violation of the contract, at which time there needs to be arbitration. Who's charged with providing the arbitration?
Yeah, sounds to me that you think that contracts are just words without any responsibility.
I'm sure that the judge didn't care about the love lives of the parties involved.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
It's kinda like what I was saying, he has every right to protect his children so I get that.
My question is, the only reason this is considered a bad situation is because they are lesbians. If the wife wanted to Cohab with a man, would that be as unacceptable?
In the eyes of the law, I doubt it.
Actually, I think that if the parties were in a heterosexual relationship, I think it would remain the same. If she had married a man, then it wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
That's the point, some places allow same sex marriage some don't, I don't understand why ANYONE should disallow it.., Why do they control it? Why do we let them?
Well, the simple answer is.. because somebody has to. As long as there are tax ramifications, property ownership issues, child raising issues, associated with being married.... and as long as there is divorce, with property issues, and custody issues, etc... then somebody has to make some rules about marriage and divorce.... and somebody has to police and arbitrate it when those rules are broken or challenged.
I'm not a big fan of the government being in charge of it but I don't see how you could do it without somebody serving to govern it. Now it's easy to say you don't like the way they are doing it but how does it function without somebody overseeing it? And if the government doesn't oversee it, then who does?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,187 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
or who they can marry.
This has been debated to death on here but she can marry this woman if she wants to. There are any number of states where she can go to get that done. She just might not be able to take her kids with her to do it.
That's the point, some places allow same sex marriage some don't, I don't understand why ANYONE should disallow it.., Why do they control it? Why do we let them?
Because certain people know they can control everyone on this issue. They can command who lives with who, and who loves who with bans, moral clauses, and anti gay laws. While at the same time, they are absolutly positive, that expanded background checks, and assault weapons bans will never save a single life. 
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
NO ONE has dictated "who lives with who". Just no shacking up with somebody else's children in the house. This is a standard morals clause, present in many divorce and other contracts.
NO ONE has dictated "who may love who". At no time has anything like this been done. There is absolutely nothing "anti-gay" about this morals clause. Simply because a ruling or contract might negatively affect a gay person, does not make it anti-gay.
Assault Rifles have been illegal for 80 years now. If you think an "assault rifle ban" is some kind of new law, then you are not competent to discuss this area.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,539 |
Quote:
Quote:
When you hear me say it, then you'll know that's what I think.. Until then, you have no idea what I'm thinking or what I believe.
You wrote this, right?
Quote:
I'm REALLY sick of Federal, State and Local involvement in peoples love lives.
Well, who do you think is there to make sure that contracts are enforced? The other participant(s) in the contract? In most cases, contracts are self-policing until there is a perceived violation of the contract, at which time there needs to be arbitration. Who's charged with providing the arbitration?
Yeah, sounds to me that you think that contracts are just words without any responsibility.
I'm sure that the judge didn't care about the love lives of the parties involved.
You can't read, you just want to start a verbal war.. Go fight yourself.. I don't have time for this nonsense.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,244
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,244 |
Quote:
While at the same time, they are absolutly positive, that expanded background checks, and assault weapons bans will never save a single life.
...just as there is no proof or guarantee that they will save a single life. Should we just enact new legislation to see if it works? That sounds an awful lot like "let's pass the healthcare bill so we can see what's in it". 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When you hear me say it, then you'll know that's what I think.. Until then, you have no idea what I'm thinking or what I believe.
You wrote this, right?
Quote:
I'm REALLY sick of Federal, State and Local involvement in peoples love lives.
Well, who do you think is there to make sure that contracts are enforced? The other participant(s) in the contract? In most cases, contracts are self-policing until there is a perceived violation of the contract, at which time there needs to be arbitration. Who's charged with providing the arbitration?
Yeah, sounds to me that you think that contracts are just words without any responsibility.
I'm sure that the judge didn't care about the love lives of the parties involved.
You can't read, you just want to start a verbal war.. Go fight yourself.. I don't have time for this nonsense.
I don't want a verbal war. Words have meanings and you're willing to throw out contracts because they're not in line with your views. That's very convenient.
In the AP opposition to 'gay marriage' thread, you stated that you have always supported 'gay marriage'. The contract in this case is conveniently opposed to that belief and so it's now unjust.
At least be honest about it.
I would just say this much, I wouldn't ever do business with you. I don't think I could trust that you'd uphold your end of the bargain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
Quote:
Quote:
While at the same time, they are absolutly positive, that expanded background checks, and assault weapons bans will never save a single life.
...just as there is no proof or guarantee that they will save a single life. Should we just enact new legislation to see if it works? That sounds an awful lot like "let's pass the healthcare bill so we can see what's in it".
Correct.
Exactly WHAT does this so called "expanded" background check entail? Oh, no one knows.
You want to include gun shows in this "expanded" background search? I'm good with it, as are most people.
Do you want gang bangers involved? Good luck with that.
Hey, here's a novel thought. Diabetes kills, it also maims, causes blindness, and stroke, heart attacks, and much more.
I'm ALL for having background checks on the soda people buy, and the pre packaged full of chemicals food they eat. I think there ought to be a law that anytime you buy groceries, you have to swipe your national i.d. card so the gov't. can check up on your food/sugar, and calorie intake. If it's not optimal, you can't buy it.
Better yet, anytime you go to the grocery store or gas station - anytime you buy food of ANY sort, you'll need to have your height, weight, blood sugar, and blood pressure taken. If you don't pass the tests, you can't buy - you get fresh snapped green beans.
Or apples. How you like them apples?
See, for the gun haters, it's always about what someone else might do. Here's a little hint: There are millions upon millions of legal gun owners in this country that commit no crimes.
It's illegal to drink and drive. I propose that anyone that enters a bar and has a drink has to prove that they don't have a car, truck, van, or motorized vehicle. Further more, if you buy a 6 pack on the way home from work, you need to register that 6 pack with the BATF.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
But this has nothing to do with their relationship status at this point in the judgment. It is gender neutral, and goes for the ex-husband as well, he can not have a new girlfriend spend the night if the kids are in the house either.
It maybe gender neutral but it's not sexual preference neutral , and that's what we are talking about it. You're missing the point. The ex-husband has the option to marry his new girlfriend and then the children could sleep over. The ex-wife who is homosexual does not have that same right.
Quote:
or who they can marry.
Quote:
This has been debated to death on here but she can marry this woman if she wants to. There are any number of states where she can go to get that done.
That's not necessarily true. A lot of states have laws which prevent gay marriages from being recognized as legal. I can think of state that allows incestuous, common law, and bigamy marriages in certain situations but does not ever recognize gay marriage, meaning that gay marriages receive none of the civil effects that normal, incestuous, common law, or bigamy marriages could.
Quote:
Words have meanings and you're willing to throw out contracts because they're not in line with your views.
When they violate the Constitution you're darn right you do.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
But this has nothing to do with their relationship status at this point in the judgment. It is gender neutral, and goes for the ex-husband as well, he can not have a new girlfriend spend the night if the kids are in the house either.
It maybe gender neutral but it's not sexual preference neutral , and that's what we are talking about it. You're missing the point. The ex-husband has the option to marry his new girlfriend and then the children could sleep over. The ex-wife who is homosexual does not have that same right.
Quote:
or who they can marry.
I'm not missing the point, I'm only debating the current situation of which was judged. Had it never been mentioned about her being gay, or about not being able to be married, would the outcome or story change?
"Women can not have lover spend the night while the kids are in the house because of a clause in her divorce from 2011."
THAT is the story. The rest is added rhetoric to stir up controversy, as the media does so often.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
If she doesnt like it, she shouldnt have signed the contract. I bet there was a substantial amount of money involved. She signed to get the money, and now she wishes she didnt. Just a guess.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Texas judge says lesbian couple
can’t cohabitate
|
|
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
