• Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
  • PokéCommunity supports the Stop Killing Games movement. If you're a resident of the UK or EU, consider signing one of the petitions to stop publishers from destroying games. Click here for more information!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Texas Judge to lesbian couple - Split up or lose children

Mr. X

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
  • Friend Ball Very Chatty Chatot Chatty Chatot Beast Ball
    • 2,390
    Posts
    18
    Years
    A Republican Texas Judge has ordered a lesbian couple to live apart or give up custody of their children. According to Think Progress, Judge John Roach of McKinney, Texas has given Page Price 30 days to move out of the home she shares with Carolyn Compton and Compton's two children from a previous marriage because he does not approve of Compton and Price's "lifestyle."

    Roach has placed a "morality clause" in Compton's divorce papers, which forbids Compton from having anyone she is not related to "by blood or marriage" in her home past 9:00 p.m. if the children are present. Same sex marriage is illegal in Texas, so by law, Compton cannot live with Price if she wishes to retain custody of her children.

    Compton said that she and Price have been together for three years. Compton's ex-husband rarely bothers to see the children and was previously arrested on charges of third-degree felony stalking in 2011, charges that he was able to plea down to criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor.



    In a post on Facebook, Price wrote that Roach had inserted the morality clause into the divorce agreement when Compton's ex-husband Joshua Compton attempted to gain custody of the children in 2011. The judge wrote that he disapproved of the two women's "lifestyle."

    "Our children are all happy and well adjusted. By his enforcement, being that we cannot marry in this state, I have been ordered to move out of my home," Price wrote.

    The two women are working with attorneys to figure out what steps they can take to fight the state's notoriously conservative court system.

    Ken Upton Jr., senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal's Dallas office, told the Dallas Voice newspaper that morality clauses are a holdover from a time when judges tried to keep people with children from living together outside of marriage. Courts often insert the clauses without telling the people involved, particularly in backward, conservative areas like Collin County, Texas.

    "What the clause has become is an extra burden on gay people because they're no more likely to violate it than straight people," Upton told the Voice. "It's a problem that continues with homophobia."
    Click to expand...

    https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05...esbian-couple-to-live-apart-or-lose-children/

    So much for Republicans wanting to keep government out of people's lives. Seems like this Republican is very intrested in putting government into peoples bedrooms.
     
    Misleading article is misleading.

    Judicial offices are nonpartisan.
     
    FreakyLocz14 said:
    Misleading article is misleading.

    Judicial offices are nonpartisan.
    Click to expand...
    The offices themselves might be nonpartisan, but it would far more difficult to ensure that the judges are, actually. Obviously they can't start pulling a bunch of partisan warfare out of their ass, but a Republican-minded, Conservative judge would far more likely to bring up the "morality" clause than a liberal-minded Democratic judge would. Bringing it up shows no inclination towards any party officially, but it definitely shows us with which party his thought process lines up with. Although, s to some extent, I do agree that the title is misleading. They most likely put Republican in there as a way to get more people offended with the GOP and its unsavory choices.


    That being said... I honestly feel for these two. They are in quite a bind here, when we all know that such a situation should not be able to arise--legally, nonetheless-- in the country that is supposed to be the "leader of the Free world." If I was them, I would simply find a loophole such as placing a trailer in the yard and having one of the ladies rent it out.. saying that it is not her home, but an additional housing unit that she acquiring rent from. I don't the technicalities of the law, so when it says "home" they might mean entire property, but I'm sure that there is some simple way it could be worked around.
     
    Actually, there are two things I'd like to clarilfy,

    First, Judge Roach campaigns for his position, this is not a Federal Judge Position; thus, he is elected within his local district. He is elected by a community that largely identifies as social conservative and runs as a Republican. So, on this point I agree with X.

    This is from his website:
    "My name is John Roach, Jr. and I am the Presiding Judge of the 296th Judicial District Court. I am running for reelection in the upcoming Republican Party and I would like to ask you for you support and vote...After you learn about my life experience, my military service, my legal education and background, my service to our community and my service within the Republican Party I think you will understand why I can confidently ask you for your vote...Judge Roach has resided in Collin County for 37 years. He has been involved in the Collin County Republican Party since the age of 8. He has voted in every Republican Primary in Collin County since the age of 18. He has been a delegate or alternate to National and State Republican Conventions, served as Co-Chair of the Collin County Lincoln Day Dinner, received the Dixie Clem Award, which recognizes the Outstanding Collin County Young Republican, and is a Founding Member of the Collin County Young Republicans. He is an Associate Member of the Golden Corridor Republican Women's Club and Conner Harrington Republican Women's Club."

    Clearly he is campaigning as a Republican.

    SOURCE: https://www.judgeroach.org/home

    The second point is in regards to this statement,

    "So much for Republicans wanting to keep government out of people's lives."

    In defense of what Freaky was saying, despite this judge's political ideology, it doesn't necessarily mean his actions speak for other Republican/Conservative Judges nor the Republican party. When either a democrat or republican make a poor decision, it doesn't necessarily speak on behalf of the entire party. Generalizations should not be made from one judge; seldom would any other Republican or conservative judge agree with the verdict given the illogical legal reasoning employed.

    So there is partial truth to what both of you are stating. X and Freaky
     
    Fenneking said:
    "So much for Republicans wanting to keep government out of people's lives."

    In defense of what Freaky was saying, despite this judge's political ideology, it doesn't necessarily mean his actions speak for other Republican/Conservative Judges nor the Republican party. When either a democrat or republican make a poor decision, it doesn't necessarily speak on behalf of the entire party. Generalizations should not be made from one judge; seldom would any other Republican or conservative judge agree with the verdict given the illogical legal reasoning employed.

    So there is partial truth to what both of you are stating. X and Freaky
    Click to expand...

    Technically, my statement was true as well. It was drawn from the Republican Parties official stance on gay marriage, and it is the stance that the majority of the party supports.

    While his actions don't speak for all, they speak for the majority and are similar to the official stance of the Republican Party.
     
    Unknown# said:
    People like this judge make me feel embarrassed about being a Texan! She isn't hurting anyone by having her partner there, but unfortunately, seeing as things tend to go down here, the judge probably won't reverse his orders.
    Click to expand...

    Nope, he won't. In fact, it's not the first time such an order has been given in Texas as evidenced by this article:

    https://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/09/gay_protest.php

    This is why I think being gay and living in Texas probably makes about as much sense as a black man living in a KKK community.
     
    Well I wasn't directly referencing gay marriage platform; supporting gay marriage vs custodial rights/civil unions is quite a difference. Most republicans support civil unions, and further, we are discussing conservative/republican-leaning judges and how they would have decided this case, rather than their stance on gay marriage.

    Actually, I thought this was interesting:
    "According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post 2013 poll, 52% of Republicans under the age of 50 now support the legal right for same-sex couples to marry. Support for the freedom to marry has increased dramatically among every demographic. And the most concerning statistic for the GOP is this—81% of 18-29 year-olds support marriage for all."

    I know from college that all of the conservative/republican students, urm, except one or two, supported gay marriages. So, this actually corroborated some of my own observances of the young GOP.

    Anyway, most conservative judges would not have ruled accordingly. This judge is different in that he belongs to a polar extreme form of social conservatism by which he is obligated to engage or he will lose reelection. Most other district courts are not as captive to extreme social conservatism, even in conservative districts and implement more moderate legal reasoning especially at the Federal Court Level. Therefore, many, if not most, self-proclaimed conservative/republican judges would not have made the same judgement against the the couple. In the article provided above, there is corroborating evidence that Republicans/conservative electorates affect judgeship ideology. Further, Texas Republicans are much different in their ideology than another Republican Judge, let's say in Ohio or Maine. The point being, a substantive number, if not majority, of conservative/republican judges would have ruled differently depending upon their constitutions and political ideology within the umbrella of conservatism, thus, it is unfair to generalize.
     
    Jay_37040 said:
    Nope, he won't. In fact, it's not the first time such an order has been given in Texas as evidenced by this article:

    https://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/09/gay_protest.php

    This is why I think being gay and living in Texas probably makes about as much sense as a black man living in a KKK community.
    Click to expand...

    There's probably something in the agreement about leaving the state with the child. When my parents got divorced (also in Texas), it wasn't until my father willingly signed away his visitation rights until we could get out of there. Just a bit of insight as to why she'd stay there.
     
    Toujours said:
    There's probably something in the agreement about leaving the state with the child. When my parents got divorced (also in Texas), it wasn't until my father willingly signed away his visitation rights until we could get out of there. Just a bit of insight as to why she'd stay there.
    Click to expand...

    In Canada, this can happen, too.

    My parents technically have joint custody. Because of what's written in that agreement, my father (who had primary custody; mother was secondary) wasn't allowed to take us out-of-country. Not even for vacations. He wanted to go to Egypt one year, but my mother said she'd take him to court for it.
     
    This ruling is pure hate and ignorance and should not be legal. Since they can't get married, what is the proof of their romantic relationship in the eyes of this judge? What if they were just friends, would this even be an issue? Because clearly this ruling has nothing to do with the effects of two women raising children, but some old persons prejudice and hate towards non-heterosexual couples. A homeowner should be able to allow whoever they want to live in their own house.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top