I just went back and read your link re Sen McConnell. He is only supporting bringing it to the floor for debate. I don't agree with him, but not sure it is the end of the world.

Bravo to Ted Cruz. I hope republicans pull it together, but to do so they have to stand as strong against their own free spending ways of the last decade as they do the dems free spending in this decade and that takes leadership.

John Boehner I hope you are listening.

Agreed and then some.

Slate isn't exactly a bastion of objective journalism.

Gay marriage coming to Texas in 5 years....

And you thought my little phrase was funny? This is downright hillarious.

GFL - you can absolutely maintain your living arrangment with your partner, but that isn't what the case is about. The case is about child custody not homo or heterosexual living arrangements.

If your partner was the custodial parent of a child from a previous relationship, humor me while hypothesize he could've been married to a woman and had a family with her before meeting you.

If your partner's ex wants to go before a judge and raise heck about a morality or co-habitation clause because you are living with your partner and the child there is nothing to stop her.

And while you are formulating your response that 'well if the two women could get married this wouldn't be an issue.......' Please note that this is taking place in Collin County Texas where I am most confident the 10 Commandments still resides in the courthouse and they invoke the name of the Lord during prayers before public events in county buildings (I know we did at every Senate function last election), sometimes led by judges that could use a trip to the orthodontist that also happen to carry guns.

Gay marriage doesn't exist in two places under any circumstsances: The Bible and Texas.

If these two women haven't figured out what the law of the land is they deserve every bit of agony they have brought on themselves. They want to get married? I-35 runs all the way from DFW to Minnesota and they can live happily ever after, but it ain't happenin in Texas.

GFL - where do you get that this has anything to do with being gay? What if the ex spouse shacked up with a male ex con that was on parole for trafficing in child pornography?

You could add a lot to the discussion around here if you would put down the rainbow flag and get off your inflatable gay banana and not make everything about your sexual orientation.

GFL - here is a hypothetical situation for you.

Your partner and you adopt a child, but subsequently split up and your partner is named as the custodial parent, you have visitation, pay support, etc.

A new person moves in with your ex partner, you are not happy with the new person on the scene, maybe a drinking problem so you go to your family attorney and ask if there is anything you can do. Your family attorney responds that there is a morality clause about cohabitation in the custody order or for the state/county that is supposed to prevent this situation, but to enforce it will require your attorney petitioning the court.

GFL - do you petition the court to open the matter again and if so is that the court over reaching? Do you go before the buck toothed judge and fight for the child you adopted with your partner or would that be like sending the jack booted thugs of state to interfere with domestic living arrangements?

'buck toothed judge......' Your sophisticated petty coat is showing again GFL.

GFL - it is regularly enforced, but almost always at the request of the non-custodial parent. CPS does not to my knowledge go knocking on doors looking for this sort of living arrangement. It may also be invoked in as an additional consideration when involving CPS in family disputes.

That is not lawyer speak for a judge made rule. It is the law of the land and comes up occasionally in Texas. I don't know if every county has adopted this, but you can be assured this isn't the first time a non-custodial parent has raised the issue of the custodial parent co-habitating.

Hetero/Homo/A sexual doesn't matter. The intent of the law is basically good, but its application tends more toward scorned ex spouse retribution.

There isn't anything to see here other than the author trying to drum up gay drama out of a non-story.

Maybe Piers Morgan will interview the soldier's widow and/or family and ask how the feel about gun control or citizens being allowed to carry a handgun.

Ah, the religion of peace.

I wonder how the Senate immigration reform is coming along? Increased immigration seems to be working well in the UK.

May the soldier victim rest in peace and any medical treatment for the attackers be suspended.

By gosh you are right!

So where is the over reach?

A couple was divorced in Texas subject to Texas family law by their choice. They consented to the divorce decree or they wouldn't be divorced.

The morality clause is enforceable on both the ex husband and wife equally.

The ex wife lives in Texas voluntarily and is subject to Texas statute including but not limited to her divorce decree.

The morality clause of the divorce decree is being enforced, the same as it could/would be on her ex husband if he was the custodial parent.

Where is his tragic over reach? If the ex wife has an issue with Texas law I-35 runs north darn near to Canada, don't let the door hit her in the caboose crossing the Red River.

Do you think it will get promoted to the Main Feed?