TX Gays and the Morality Clause

[Patent Attorney]

Texas.

My Girlfriend's Ex is gay and will be marrying his partner in MA this upcoming September.

The divorce decree has a morality clause, which states that no person that is not a relative can spend the night while the kids are visiting.


Q: will the partner of my GF's Ex be able to spend the night, esentially live with the Ex, after being married, and when the kids are over on visit or will the morality clause prohibit such actions?

 

[nextwife]

Texas.

My Girlfriend's Ex is gay and will be marrying his partner in MA this upcoming September.

The divorce decree has a morality clause, which states that no person that is not a relative can spend the night while the kids are visiting.


Q: will the partner of my GF's Ex be able to spend the night, esentially live with the Ex, after being married, and when the kids are over on visit or will the morality clause prohibit such actions?

A spouse IS allowed to live with their spouse. The morality clause does not prohibit a legally married couple from cohabitating.

Why is this YOUR concern? Aren't you planning to cohabitate with mom if you and she marry? I would presume so.

 

[LdiJ]

A spouse IS allowed to live with their spouse. The morality clause does not prohibit a legally married couple from cohabitating.

Why is this YOUR concern? Aren't you planning to cohabitate with mom if you and she marry? I would presume so.

However, they won't be a legally married couple in TX. I don't think that the couple lives in MA. I think that they are just going to MA to be married.

 

[Silverplum]

However, they won't be a legally married couple in TX. I don't think that the couple lives in MA. I think that they are just going to MA to be married.

Ever hear of the Full Faith and Credit Clause??

 

[Patent Attorney]

So, the question remains, in TX, not MA, is a gay partner married to another gay partner considered a spouse (or relative for the morality clause) such that Morality Clause does not prohibit the gay partner from cohabitating or spending the night while the kids are present.

Any specific Case law or statute on the matter?

 

[Ohiogal]

Ever hear of the Full Faith and Credit Clause??

And thank Clinton for DOMA which says that part of the Constitution doesn't apply. I agree with you SP. The morality clause may and most likely will be stricken down. WHY? A little case called Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[jixed]

Ever hear of the Full Faith and Credit Clause??

But this is for custody cases, not a law that may or may not in effect in each state. Each state had custody/visitation laws and such but I dont think its got far enough to cover this. To be Full Faith and Credit the state would need some type of law against this or for it.. Correct?

 

[Silverplum]

But this is for custody cases, not a law that may or may not in effect in each state. Each state had custody/visitation laws and such but I dont think its got far enough to cover this. To be Full Faith and Credit the state would need some type of law against this or for it.. Correct?

You're not sure how to calculate child support in Texas...yet are all UP on the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

 

[BOR]

Ever hear of the Full Faith and Credit Clause??

Not applicable. The US SC has aleardy ruled same sex marriage prohibitions do NOT violate the federal constitution.

Additionally, the FFC clause does not require a state to honor the public policy of another state which violates it's own.

The FFC clause itself states Congress has the power to decide which acts/records arer to be given such credit, and the legislative history of DOMA, purports that.

 

[Ohiogal]

But this is for custody cases, not a law that may or may not in effect in each state. Each state had custody/visitation laws and such but I dont think its got far enough to cover this. To be Full Faith and Credit the state would need some type of law against this or for it.. Correct?

The Full Faith and Credit clause is a CONSTITUTIONAL provision -- FEDERAL. Of course Clinton was an idiot for this:

second section reaffirmed the power of the states to make their own decisions about marriage:


No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (1997).

The morality clause would be stricken due to Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[BOR]

The morality clause may and most likely will be stricken down. WHY? A little case called Lawrence v. Texas.

That only conerns private sexual behavior. Being UNmarrried in TX but legally in MA, would not negate a MC, IMO.

 

[Ohiogal]

That only conerns private sexual behavior. Being UNmarrried in TX but legally in MA, would not negate a MC, IMO.

Actually it very well could. Why? Because morality clauses concern private sexual behavior.

 

[BOR]

Actually it very well could. Why? Because morality clauses concern private sexual behavior.

May be a matter of 1st impression for a court?

As a fellow Ohioan, Hi!!

 

[nextwife]

The Full Faith and Credit clause is a CONSTITUTIONAL provision -- FEDERAL. Of course Clinton was an idiot for this:

Can you imagine if each time you relocated to a different state your marital status CHANGED? What a mess!

 

[Ohiogal]

123 S.Ct. 2475] Petitioners' right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847, 112 S.Ct. 2791. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual's personal and private life. Pp. 2483-2484.

If the children are NOT being harmed by the conduct then quite frankly the morality clause can be overturned. Prove that there is HARM. Not FEAR but harm.