Tuesday, May 21, 2013
“Morality Clause” in Divorce Agreement Places Same Sex Couple in Difficult Position
A lesbian couple in Allen, Texas has been told they can no
longer live together due to a “morality clause” in one of the women’s divorce
agreement. Morality clauses, which prevent a divorced parent from having a
romantic partner spend the night while their children are present, are very
common in many states including Texas. However, they create more problems for
same sex couples than they do for heterosexual couples.
The only way to get around the morality clause is for a
couple to get married. This is a common course of action for heterosexual
couples when a former spouse tries to enforce the terms of this clause (it is
rarely enforced). However, same sex couples are still unable to legally marry
in many states, including Texas. As a result, the enforcement of a morality
clause in effect limits their civil rights by preventing them from living with
a romantic partner.
In this particular case, Carolyn Compton and Paige Price
have been in a relationship since 2010. They lived together with Compton’s two
children. However, Compton’s ex-husband recently petitioned the court to
enforce the morality clause in their divorce and the judge ruled in his favor.
He gave Price 30 days to find a new place to live.
It is uncertain how this ruling will impact the couple’s
relationship moving forward, or the mental and emotional well-being of the
children for that matter. If this ruling ultimately places an irrevocable
strain on their relationship and forces them to part ways, it would be truly
tragic.
Moreover, this ruling could seriously impact Compton’s
ability to enter into future romantic relationships due to the legal
limitations created by the morality clause. This is especially unfair
considering the fact that Compton’s ex-husband doesn’t face the same
restrictions. He can get around them by marrying a future girlfriend.
Compton and Price are currently debating whether to appeal
the ruling. However, they face an uphill challenge if they decide to continue
fighting. They would be forced to endure a lengthy, expensive appeals process.
While this is a civil rights issue that should be raised in higher courts, it
would be understandable if they chose not to take this burden on themselves.
posted by Andrew @ 4:33 PM
0 comments
