Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Texas judge enforces "morality clause" to evict one half of a gay couple

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Texas judge enforces "morality clause" to evict one half of a gay couple

    This is outrageous!!

    I've pasted the entire article below in its entirety.

    Texas judge enforces ‘morality clause’ to split up lesbian couple – LGBTQ Nation

    A Texas judge has invoked a morality clause in a lesbian mothers divorce from her husband, requiring that the womans current partner of three years vacate their home in the interest and welfare of the divorced couples children.

    Collin County, Texas, District Court Judge John Roach Jr., enforced the morality clause last week in the divorce of Carolyn Lang Compton and Joshua Compton, and ruled that Carolyn Comptons partner, Page Price, move out of the home within 30 days because the Comptons two children live with the lesbian couple.

    The Comptons were granted a divorce in 2011, but the case was reopened last month to dispute custody of their two children after Joshua Compton hired a private investigator to gather information on his ex-wife because she is gay. He wanted to bring the case before a judge in the interest and welfare of the children.

    Under the rarely enforced clause, someone who has a dating or intimate relationship with the person or is not related by blood or marriage is not allowed in the home after 9 p.m. when the children are present.

    According to Price, during the Comptons final divorce hearing, Roach stated that he did not like Carolyns lifestyle.

    Carolyn Lang Compton and I have been together almost three years and have a very happy and healthy home. Our children are all happy and well adjusted, wrote Price, in a statement on her Facebook page. By his enforcement, being that we cannot marry in this state, I have been ordered to move out of my home.

    Paige also alleged that Roach told Carolyn Comptons attorney that if he could throw her in jail for being gay, he would.

    The couple can appeal the decision, and legal observers indicate it would likely be overturned.
    Is this same judge going to apply the same level or morality to all heterosexual couples living in unmarried situations involved in similar custody cases? I can't wait to see this case head to the US Supreme Court, and this bullshit clause is thrown out on its ass ... hopefully along with the judge.

  • #2
    Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

    Injudicious ruling that probably does the state of Texas some harm, though likely will be upheld by the state Supremes.

    Of course nowhere near as bad as the narrative of a gay person being able to live in the home she wrecked and family she split up...not to mention this is not "no fault". She had an affair, cheated on the husband, why should she be granted custody of the kids to begin with?

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

      I'm not saying it's "no fault", but I wonder if the woman had an affair with another man, who subsequently moved in following the husband's departure, would the judge have invoked a "morality" clause ... or does he reserve that solely for homosexuals?

      If he really wants to be a judicial activist then he needs to be reviewing active case files and invoking the same clause in every instance in the state where a child is living with a non-married heterosexual couple, as such a living arrangement is surely "immoral".

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

        For the most part, in Texas, fault is regarded with immorality and only the no faults are equally amicable and protected. That is in fact the case for most disputed (non-civil) states in the South and a majority of them still have laws against "shacking up", so marriage is not only the only soul requisite but also then divorce nullifying it.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

          Originally posted by Chloe View Post
          Injudicious ruling that probably does the state of Texas some harm, though likely will be upheld by the state Supremes. . . .
          It does plenty of harm alongside plenty of other crap that comes out of some Texan jurists' mouths and writs. Inasmuch as the state Supremes continue the letdown at times, I don't think they'll permit this, especially given his clear bias on and off the record against gay people, e.g., telling one counsel he would jail her for being gay if he could. The sad part is that sometimes Texas, like any area of jurisprudence, can come up with a gem that others may like to see adopted. I cited a Texas line of cases in court a few years ago in a driver's licence suspension appeal that I wanted a local PA county judge to adopt concerning asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege, namely that "When a witness invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on the advice of the witness's counsel, the trial court is not obligated to make any further determination."

          BOLER v. STATE, No.,
          (citations infra)

          In a civil case, unlike a criminal one, the opposing party can call your own client to the stand as a 'hostile witness' to get evidence out of them for their own case against you. I advised him to take the Fifth and he did so. The state alleged that my client was making his claim in bad faith and the judge himself expressed he could also not evidently see what the hazard was. Therefore, the judge wanted him to reveal what the alleged hazard was so he could make the determination himself as to the propriety of the assertion of privilege. I wanted the court to accept his assertion as made on my own advice (he said so on the stand) and that should be sufficient enough, as attorneys are bound by the code of conduct and perjury law itself not to aid and abet false representations to the court. As an administrative appeal, the judge was also be the finder of fact in the case. It was most certainly asserted in good faith, but I knew that if my client on the stand was forced by the court to explain why he was taking the Fifth, it was a situation of giving up the ghost to the whole case where otherwise it was the duty of the state to prove its own case against my client, and it was having difficulty meeting its burden of proof absent my client admitting to it. Of course, the state's counsel also surmised what the hazard was, but the judge was either clueless or just playing games with me to cough up the goods because he knew I knew the law was on my side but the facts weren't. How would the judge realistically purge himself of such knowledge despite being legally required to disregard it? Once he knew by admission my client did the suspending deed in reality, he'd find a way to nail him anyway.

          My brief and arguments with those Texas citations as persuasive authority seeking adoption got lauded by the court, but guess what? The state counsel handling the appeal said it was Texan case with cynical mocking of its persuasiveness (his exact words even off the record if I recall correctly "That's Texas...good luck with getting the court to listen to that stuff" when we went on break). I saw the court and others in the courtroom grimace by citing Texas law, as if 'no way Jose why bother citing them for anything...you must be really desperate'.

          Sure enough, he didn't adopt that Texas approach and denied my client's petition in due part because he wouldn't disclose to the court why his Fifth Amendment privilege assertion was made in good faith and he couldn't surmise why it was asserted in good faith. I stand by that Taxas POV on asserting the Fifth today as solid and better respect for the Fifth, but thanks to cretinous judges like him and certain other political yahoos and radio yahoos (Alex Jones, etc), it makes the worthwhile decisions placed under a cloud of disdain for the whole system there.
          Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 05-17-2013, 09:39 PM.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

            Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
            It does plenty of harm alongside plenty of other crap that comes out of some Texan jurists' mouths and writs. Inasmuch as the state Supremes continue the letdown at times, I don't think they'll permit this, especially given his clear bias on and off the record against gay people, e.g., telling one counsel he would jail her for being gay if he could.
            Hmm you seem somewhat more optimistic than me on this one, but we'll see. It should be the other way round that a younger budding lawyer should be the enthusiast and the slightly older seasoned one in you should be the cynic!

            The sad part is that sometimes Texas, like any area of jurisprudence, can come up with a gem that others may like to see adopted.
            Indeed, it rather is one of those strange set of circumstances that has one crazy state sort of set a precedent insofar as every other whacky state around points and says "see, they did it in Texas, no-one overturned it". By the time it goes through the federal courts (which may not even be appealed / overturned at the first go depending on circuit), it looks like it is actually the Supreme court showing activism by striking down something that has become the folk lore of SD in the eyes of conservative judicial activists and their followers by that time.

            I'll get to the rest of your post later tonight, so its 3 replies i owe you (Gosnell, Moses and this, what a combination) ; either your clients don't work you hard enough or you type real fast! I am falling way behind...

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

              Originally posted by Chloe View Post
              . . . I'll get to the rest of your post later tonight, so its 3 replies i owe you (Gosnell, Moses and this, what a combination) ; either your clients don't work you hard enough or you type real fast! I am falling way behind...
              When you write briefs often enough, you learn to type fast enough. But your religion points remind me...why am I doing that 'women's work' in the first place? Didn't God say women are suited for such secretarial stuff if not having dinner ready for us? The SCOTUS even once said so when denying the right of a woman to be a lawyer

              It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.

              . . . The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman's advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex [like being his personal secretary ], have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. In the nature of things it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the State; and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex. . . .
              Bradwell v Illinois

              So get typing or get cooking...it's God's will ya know, and why any man would be an atheist (a Man too don't you know) is quite puzzling given such evident 'truth'.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple



                Well i'll say one thing, at least when me and Mrs. M smother you to death in a very erotic manner, you'll enjoy yourself dying!

                (And don't worry we'll feed you first!)

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

                  Originally posted by Chloe View Post


                  Well i'll say one thing, at least when me and Mrs. M smother you to death in a very erotic manner, you'll enjoy yourself dying!
                  Now you're doing the Lord's work for sure. Get to it.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

                    See when you get up the Purly gates and St Peter asks you how you came unto such a situation of death and you explain that it was "under Chloe and on top of Stacy" i'm figuring there may be another Peter looking at veneration for his troubles!

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

                      Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                      See when you get up the Purly gates and St Peter asks you how you came unto such a situation of death and you explain that it was "under Chloe and on top of Stacy" i'm figuring there may be another Peter looking at veneration for his troubles!
                      He'd probably say "God is great eh?". Meanwhile Muhammad and Joseph Smith will be claiming they got an even better deal than Peter with the Big Guy:



                      Then again, virgins have no experience so I'll stick with some real paradise, namely getting smothered by some real talent.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

                        OMG, i love you!!!! I'm gonna make sure this post remains around for the rest of eternity and when Christ comes down, i am gonna make sure he let's us take it with us to heaven so people know i have the talent!

                        Of course by then you may well have felt like you are in heaven anyway!

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

                          Why is weird judicial stuff always in Texas? I feel sorry for the people of Texas that their judicial branch has become the laughing stock of the world.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

                            IF - and this is a BIG IF - the judge also enforces these clauses with regard to heterosexual couples, then I really have no issue here.

                            Bear in mind - this is a divorce decree, which both sides agreed to.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Texas judge enforces &quot;morality clause&quot; to evict one half of a gay couple

                              Originally posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
                              He'd probably say "God is great eh?". Meanwhile Muhammad and Joseph Smith will be claiming they got an even better deal than Peter with the Big Guy:



                              Then again, virgins have no experience so I'll stick with some real paradise, namely getting smothered by some real talent.
                              OMG! Women not in Burkhas! The delicate sensibilities of the GoogleAdsense inspectors will be upset! LOL!!!

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X