Gay Dad Ordered to Not Leave Son Alone With Any Man

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by CorvusCamenarum, Aug 25, 2011.

  1. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #1
    Thread title taken from headline:

    F&F

     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    And yet, some people keep insisting that we want "special rights".
     
  3. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #3
    I guess the judge knows all gay men are pedophiles. :rolleyes::mad:
     
  4. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #4
    At least you aren't alone. If you are poor, hispanic, or any other minority you get the same level of respect from the right.

    (edit) Simple solution, never, ever, ever vote for the GOP if you are... poor, work, black, brown, olive, or a woman.
     
  5. bassfingers macrumors 6502

    bassfingers

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #5
    Because the other side might give us stuff for "free" :D
     
  6. soco macrumors 68030

    soco

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Location:
    Yardley, PA
    #6
    You know...

    ...I just...

    ...[copious amounts of facepalming].
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Everyone thinks this stuff doesn't happen, but it does. This is just an instance of where it was actually reported.
     
  8. soco macrumors 68030

    soco

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Location:
    Yardley, PA
    #8
    Oh no, I definitely know it happens. My reactions just never lessen. What a world we live in, and what a way in which we live.
     
  9. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #9
    Pretty impressive, mcrain. In only four posts we've gone from a domestic court judge in Texas including unnecessary, asshat and otherwise patently wrong language in a visitation order all the way to all Republicans do this same thing all the time to:

    • the poor
    • the working
    • hispanics
    • people of (any) color
    • women
    • any minority not already covered
    And you even threw in a call to arms to never vote Republican to boot.

    That's impressive, even for you. Don't worry; no one will ask you to support your comments.
     
  10. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #10
    Support my comments? This is Texas? Right? Was this a liberal judge? If not, guess who...

    (edit) The conservatives in Texas who support this kind of unconstitutional BS are the same nuts who have taken over your party. Until YOU stand up to them, they will be how you are defined.

    (edit2) Oh, and they do do this all the time to them. If I'm wrong, and you have examples of Republicans acting on behalf of
    • the poor
    • the working
    • hispanics
    • people of (any) color
    • women
    • any minority not already covered
    I'm all ears.

    Prove me wrong.
     
  11. soco macrumors 68030

    soco

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Location:
    Yardley, PA
    #11
    No one will?

    [considers asking...]
     
  12. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #12
    What defensible reasons could possibly be put forth for this ruling? Where is the precedent?
     
  13. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #13
    They don't. On the other hand, there clearly needs to be some kind of check and balance to this kind of behavior, and unfortunately, with the way the judiciary system is structured, there is very little unless it's written explicitly into law. A "liberal" solution to this would be statutes that protect against discrimination. Conservatives frequently argue that these are unnecessary, because the law should be written / interpreted in a neutral way (e.g., the crimes involved in hate crimes are already crimes, so they don't need to be "hate" crimes).

    To their credit, (some) conservatives are traditional opponents of judicial activism (of which this seems to me to be an example). So one way or another this sort of thing needs to be balanced out. If nothing else, a streamlined way to overturn / invalidate something like this, which is not only odious but also lacks any shred of jurisprudence for the many reasons highlighted in the original link.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Bingo. This is exactly why we have hate crimes laws and anti-discrimination laws. Perfect example.
     
  15. CorvusCamenarum thread starter macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #15
    Not to mention he, along with practically everyone else, completely missed the point and jumped on the omg.gays! bandwagon instead.
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Huh? Barely anyone even replied to that post. How is that "practically everyone"?

    Who needs a precedent?
     
  17. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #17
    Is that a caffeine molecule in your avatar?
     
  18. Apple OC macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #18
    This story just proves ... some judges lack basic common sense
     
  19. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #19
    Wait... so whom is the court trying to protect the son from again?
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    Apparently, this is quite common:

    http://gbge.aclu.org/parenting/rights-lesbian-and-gay-parents-after-heterosexual-divorce
     
  21. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #21
    So apparently there is precedent, partially supported by outdated "blue laws", with the balance coming via ignorance and/or bigotry.

    Considering how many straight men and women abuse, molest and/or neglect their children, and appear to get away with it, placing these sorts of restrictions on a gay person simply for being gay sounds incredibly unjust.
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    But ya know, we just want "special rights" and all. :rolleyes:
     
  23. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #23
    I first read the head lines and though there has to be something more at play and there has to be some logic behind this order and then I read the story and come there is no logic at all in this order.

    I would say that judge should be thrown off the bench because this is an insane order. I would not be surprised if it is one of the elected judge positions so the judge is pandering to the voters which would be yet another great example of why judges should not be voted in.
     
  24. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #24
    No, it's other men the judge is trying to protect.

    The gay doesn't fall far from the tree.







    :rolleyes:
     
  25. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #25
    Unfortunately, some people seem to classify as "judicial activism" any ruling that deviates in any way from the percieved precedent, especially when they oppose the ruling. But the purpose of judges in the first place to to judge each case by its merits and be prepared to change the precedent when necessary.

    As you say, a balance must be struck between simply rubber-stamping the status quo and legislating from the bench, since neither result is desirable.
     

Share This Page