US /
Judge: Lesbian Couple Can't Live Together
'Morality clause' forces them apart
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted May 22, 2013 1:22 PM CDT
With gay marriage banned in Texas, a lesbian couple has been forced to live apart.   (Shutterstock)

(Newser) – A lesbian couple in Texas is claiming discrimination after a judge told the pair they legally could not live together. Carolyn Compton and Page Price have been sharing a household with Compton's two daughters, ages 10 and 13. But the judge said Price would have to move out, because of a "morality clause" in the divorce papers Compton signed when she ended her 11-year heterosexual marriage, the Dallas Morning News reports.

The fairly common clause forbids either parent from having romantic partners stay overnight while their kids are home. Getting re-married nullifies the clause, but gay marriage is banned in Texas (and weirdly, so is gay divorce). "We will fight it all the way!" Price promised. "It is a clear violation of our civil rights." Of course, the clause is only an issue because Compton's ex, Joshua, is insisting it be enforced. "The fact that they can't get married in Texas is a legislative issue," his lawyer said. "It's not really our issue."

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Judge: Lesbian Couple Can't Live Together is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 58 comments
May 25, 2013 12:32 PM CDT
As long as religion is intertwined with law-making, we will have these asinine "moral" laws that interfere with Constitutional rights. This is become a nightmare in Texas, where, in 2010, the Christian right-wing lawmakers demanded that the words "hip-hop" be removed from school textbooks, and replaced by the words "country/western." Idiocy prevails.
May 23, 2013 8:49 AM CDT
If one of the "mothers" was fitted for and required to wear a chastity belt, this whole question would be moot.
May 23, 2013 8:13 AM CDT
Tough. If you signed off on a clause, then you are bound by it no matter what. It was not illegal at the time so was perfectly VALID. A contract is a contract is a contract. The judge is 100 percent correct in his ruling. There is no discrimination nor hate involved. Just because one of the partners has now become gay does not change the contract he/she agreed to.