TX Gays and the Morality Clause

[cyjeff]

I'm gonna go back to a totally different point, and state that mom has absolutely no right to restrict who dad dates or lives with one bit once the divorce is final. That clause should be completely stricken from the agreement and hopefully if she pushes the issue, it will be.

And the more kids who grow up with gay parents, the sooner the anti-gay bigotry in this country will die off.

Considering the necessary biology, there will ALWAYS be, at least, a third adult involved.

I would think it would behoove the states to make rulings on this... not like the issue is going away.

 

[BOR]

For anyone interested, about where I brought up the point about a state does not have to recognize the public policy of another state that violates it's own, I read that in a brief years ago from a case listed at Domawatch.org.

One attorney cited this case when he was arguing FFC did not require one state to honor anothers same sex marriage license, etc. I remember it distinctly, Nevada v. Hall. Hall does not concern same sex marriages, but it is a FFC case, anyway, it was cited by an attorney in a brief.

(c) The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U. S. 493


http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/410/case.html

 

[ecmst12]

Considering the necessary biology, there will ALWAYS be, at least, a third adult involved.

Not legally, necessarily. In many states gay couples can adopt together and be the only 2 legal parents.

 

[stealth2]

I really don't see why this is any of BOR's business.

 

[BOR]

I really don't see why this is any of BOR's business.

Report the post then.

 

[stealth2]

I thought you might enlighten us why you feel your nose belongs in your g/f's ex's bedroom.

 

[BOR]

I thought you might enlighten us why you feel your nose belongs in your g/f's ex's bedroom.

What??

I was repsonding to Q's and posts by others. Where you get that premise at is beyond me!! End of conversation!!

 

[stealth2]

What??

I was repsonding to Q's and posts by others. Where you get that premise at is beyond me!! End of conversation!!

Perhaps from your original post?

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?

 

[BOR]

I thought you might enlighten us why you feel your nose belongs in your g/f's ex's bedroom.

MY girlfriends??

You need to read better. I did not post the original question, Patent attorney did.

 

[ecmst12]

Dude....you QUOTED the name of the poster!

I do agree that OP needs to keep his nose out of this, and frankly mom should as well. Dad is allowed to move on and find a new partner and settle down with him and form his own happy family. That's what we all want, right?

 

[stealth2]

Okay - my bad and my apologies, to BORs. Mea culpa.

OP - butt out.

 

[Patent Attorney]

I thought you might enlighten us why you feel your nose belongs in your g/f's ex's bedroom.

This is irrelevant to the matter. He is already setting the pieces in place for a lawsuit shortly after the marriage so that he can get the clause stricken. She wants to know her rights, and the likely outcome. In addition, this may be a case of first impression for the courts, and it is interesting to see both sides before going to battle.

 

[Patent Attorney]

Dude....you QUOTED the name of the poster!

I do agree that OP needs to keep his nose out of this, and frankly mom should as well. Dad is allowed to move on and find a new partner and settle down with him and form his own happy family. That's what we all want, right?

Sure he can, if he is not violating the laws of the land, which is the real issue here, not whether he SHOULD be able to do something.

 

[BOR]

Okay - my bad and my apologies, to BORs. Mea culpa.

Graciously accepted, thanks!

 

[Ohiogal]

Sure he can, if he is not violating the laws of the land, which is the real issue here, not whether he SHOULD be able to do something.

He is NOT violating the laws of the land. And he can get the morality clause stricken. On many grounds quite frankly.