Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The State's Business???
1 year ago  ::  May 22, 2013 - 9:02PM #1
Roodog
Posts: 10,168
www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-ju...

I had just read this story:
Is it really the State of Texas' business to regulate which adult an adult can live with?
For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 22, 2013 - 9:30PM #2
Erey
Posts: 18,662

This mother must have agreed to the morality clause at the time the details of the divorce were being negotiated.  The same features that would prevent her ex husband from having a live-in girlfriend while the children are in the home.


I suggest she and her partner take a trip to one of the states that marry same sex partners, get married and then appeal the judges decision.


The judge in this case is following the previously agreed upon divorce decree.  The woman could not have a live-in boyfriend either.  If they want to shack up with the minor kids around they have to get hitched. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 22, 2013 - 9:47PM #3
mountain_man
Posts: 39,280

May 22, 2013 -- 9:02PM, Roodog wrote:

www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-ju...

I had just read this story:
Is it really the State of Texas' business to regulate which adult an adult can live with?


I thought Regressives wanted SMALLER government? This story is all about homophobia and the religious rights fight to keep homosexuals from having what everyone else has. They do have a very good reason for all this though; by bashing homosexuals they make their own pitiful lives seem important.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 22, 2013 - 9:51PM #4
Shusha
Posts: 4,554

Cases such as this should be decided on the one thing and one thing only -- what is best for the children.


That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis as there are numerous variables to take into consideration 


I don't know how it works in the US or in Texas, but here in Canada the divorce agreement can say whatever you want it to say and both parties must abide by it unless they mutally agree to a change or unless one party takes the other to court for the change and can demonstrate a material change in circumstances which would warrant the change. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 22, 2013 - 9:59PM #5
mountain_man
Posts: 39,280

May 22, 2013 -- 9:51PM, Shusha wrote:

Cases such as this should be decided on the one thing and one thing only -- what is best for the children....


Obviously two people that love each other should not be around the children.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 22, 2013 - 10:03PM #6
Erey
Posts: 18,662

May 22, 2013 -- 9:51PM, Shusha wrote:


Cases such as this should be decided on the one thing and one thing only -- what is best for the children.


That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis as there are numerous variables to take into consideration 


I don't know how it works in the US or in Texas, but here in Canada the divorce agreement can say whatever you want it to say and both parties must abide by it unless they mutally agree to a change or unless one party takes the other to court for the change and can demonstrate a material change in circumstances which would warrant the change. 





Pretty much, at the time it must have seemed wise to the exwife to agree to the morality clause - which is not automatic.  It is something divorced couples often but not always agree upon when they get divorced. 


The judge is following the law and the previously agreed upon divorce decree. 


divorcing couples with minor children put in or leave out all kinds of details.  Details on where one parent can live.  If you are a divorced mother you often based on a divorce decree can't up and move to another state away from the children's father.  If you do decide to move then you will probably lose your primary custody status.  Very often the geographic rules apply to counties so that the primary care giver has to stay in the same metro area as the other parent. 


But almost as often divorcing couples are more flexible on this.  A exspouse can move to other metro areas or even other states IF the other parent approves.  This is all under the purpose of keeping the kids accessible to both parents. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 22, 2013 - 10:57PM #7
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

I suspect that the outcome would be different if the couple involved was straight or if the case was heard in another state.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 23, 2013 - 12:33AM #8
jane2
Posts: 14,295

May 22, 2013 -- 9:51PM, Shusha wrote:


Cases such as this should be decided on the one thing and one thing only -- what is best for the children.


That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis as there are numerous variables to take into consideration 


I don't know how it works in the US or in Texas, but here in Canada the divorce agreement can say whatever you want it to say and both parties must abide by it unless they mutally agree to a change or unless one party takes the other to court for the change and can demonstrate a material change in circumstances which would warrant the change. 





No, you don't know about the US. Canada is our good neighbor but that is all. Canadian law is just that.


I've lived in the US for 73 years, early on only 200 miles from your border.


Enjoy being Canadian--a rather dependent nation.




 

Moderated by Stardove on May 23, 2013 - 12:49AM
discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 23, 2013 - 5:19AM #9
Shusha
Posts: 4,554

May 22, 2013 -- 9:59PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 22, 2013 -- 9:51PM, Shusha wrote:

Cases such as this should be decided on the one thing and one thing only -- what is best for the children....


Obviously two people that love each other should not be around the children.




I don't believe the divorce agreement says anything at all about THAT.  However, I do think that creating another marriage (either of the legal sort or the live-in common law sort) creates a dynamic where the children's needs should take priority over the adults.


Again, there are many things to consider:  the children's ages, the length of the seperation, the relationship between the divorced parents, to name a few.  One of the things NOT to be considered, imo, is the gender of any of the parties. 


But, hey, I live in Canada, we got over the whole heterosexual only marriage thing a while ago. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  May 23, 2013 - 5:27AM #10
Shusha
Posts: 4,554

May 23, 2013 -- 12:33AM, jane2 wrote:


May 22, 2013 -- 9:51PM, Shusha wrote:


Cases such as this should be decided on the one thing and one thing only -- what is best for the children.


That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis as there are numerous variables to take into consideration 


I don't know how it works in the US or in Texas, but here in Canada the divorce agreement can say whatever you want it to say and both parties must abide by it unless they mutally agree to a change or unless one party takes the other to court for the change and can demonstrate a material change in circumstances which would warrant the change. 





No, you don't know about the US. Canada is our good neighbor but that is all. Canadian law is just that.


I've lived in the US for 73 years, early on only 200 miles from your border.


Enjoy being Canadian--a rather dependent nation.





I rather do enjoy being Canadian (although I have no idea what caused the need for the disparaging "dependant" comment).  I also enjoy being American. Thats the nice thing about having dual citizenship. 


Canadian laws around divorce and shared parenting after divorce are very good laws.  Much less confrontational than those of the US, according to my understanding.  One of the ways Canada's laws are very good is that the parties to the divorce are not bound by statements in the seperation agreement or divorce decree which are universal and standard, as this case indicates Texas law is.  The parties to the divorce can determine for themselves and for their children what is best for them, as long as it does not violate the strict principles of 50/50 split of marital assets, shared parenting whenever possible, and a mandated minimal level of child support based on income with free enforcement for every receipient. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook