Yes you are probably right. This case seems a little outside the norm. The article states that divorce was filed in 2010 and seemed finalized in 2011. The "standing order" last only until the final decree was entered. For whatever reason the no co-habitation rule was placed in the final divorce decree order. It seems to me that this final order in the divorce decree should have been appealed if it is not normal to make this co-habitation rule permanent. 

I think this again brings up a lack of information in this particular case. I did not see in the article any reference to this lady having challenged the Standing Order in the first 14 days, which is her right, nor challenging it at any time until it was actually applied. 

I don't know that this is particularly enlightening. I am assuming that you are saying that a straight woman chose to become a lesbian and thus homosexuality is clearly a choice. 

An equally plausible and logical assumption would be that a lesbian chose to marry a man. Thus making it the marriage not the sexual orientation that is the choice. 

Marriages breaking up because one partner is actually gay is not a new thing. 

Think of this more like the Rules and Regulations issued by a Government Agency.  If you read the full Standing Order it deals with a lot of stuff beyond co-habitation. Protection of the children, protection of Property, and basically a bunch of don't harass each other.

The Court looked at the most common problems that it had to deal with during divorce and created rules that the party had to follow to eliminate a number of these common problems. As GFL mentioned above Judges can set the rules for the Parties in their court that are not Statutory or Common Law. (his example of how to file a brief and how many pages it can be is neither common law nor in some jurisdictions Statutory) 

The Court issues "rules" to keep its docket moving smoothly.  

Generally speaking, I think this may be better handled by the Legislature or by Judges on a case by cases basis.  

That said, Texas may be a special case. Unless it has changed recently, Texas is one of the few states that elects Judges in partisan elections.  A Republican runs against a Democrat to be a Judge.  In this case if the people of Collin County really cared or disagreed with the Standing Order, they could actually apply political pressure on the judges. Elected Judges or Elected State Legislators, I am not sure it makes much difference. 

I will grant you this. However you did enter into the conversation stating a possible belief that this was targeting gay people. You also correctly state that this has different impact on gay couples. It would seem that this could easily have turned into another long , name calling thread that I lost interest in. 

Basically this may have been one of the most civil posts I have ever read that involved  SSM  at all. ( I realize I am not setting a very high bar)

I agree fully with this. It seems to me that a great number of the career government workers are Democrats. I do not think it would take word from Obama to make them hate the Tea Party. It likely just came naturally.  

I actually think this conversation was better and generally more civil than most that revolve around Same Sex Marriage. 

I think, while not perfect at all, it may have gotten closer to what GFL was discussing in his initial post asking Conservatives to think about how they speak about SSM.   Maybe I am not sensitive enough to the issues but I think the overt name calling was kept to a minimum ( don't recall anyone being told they were going to hell or bigoted.) It seemed more to focus on the actual facts of this article.

I believe this has been what Conservatives have been asking of Muslims for a number of years. Every time the "religion of peace" is involved in a killing or terrorist action, conservatives ask "where are the "good"  Muslims, why don't the Moderate Muslims denounce killings in the name of Islam?

Yes this was an Islamist attack. We need more Muslim groups willing to speak out against this type violence in the name of their religion.  So it is good that these groups are saying "its not us" and offering "condolences and condemnation".  

I have a little trouble with this. Divorce is not a new thing. I am pretty sure that everyone that gets married today is aware what happens when it ends. Child custody, child support, some times alimony. 

Sorry for the Multiple posts, first it would not let me post then posted multiple times and I can not edit them away.

Duplicate

duplicate

Duplicate

"Moving out of state may not even be an option depending on the divorce and the child custody agreement."

It is even messier than that in Family Law issues. Generally speaking if the lady moved out of Texas to Iowa and got married where same sex marriage is legal, it may not help her.  The Texas Court maintains jurisdiction over the divorce and the custody issues unless both parents agree to change the jurisdiction to a different state. 

Since Texas does not recognized SSM, it could still apply its law about co-habitation to married women in Iowa. Texas could say those ladies are not married and are living together and have that affect the custody issues. 

If her attorney did not tell her this was a problem, I hope his malpractice insurance is up to date.

I don't think Issa should have dismissed her in the first place. 

A Democrat of the Committee is saying the IRS needs to talk to avoid a Special Prosecutor and Sen. Baucus on the Senate Finance Committee is making noises that this is a big deal and the facts need to come out.