Appeals Court Rules For Gay Mother For Second Time - NewsChannel5.c...

If the ex-husband has NO problem with with Angel Chandler's partner staying over night, why does the courts have to put their noses in it???

what year is it in Jackson , Tn, 1885? i guess any open minded person knows to avoid Jackson now, wow what a ridiculous ruling, glad they got it overturned, yet astonished
that such a ruling could be given by a judge in this day and age without that judge's "judgement" being called into question, this judge should be disbarred and de-benched, in case they forgot, prejudice isnt allowed of our judges.

say what wrote:

what year is it in Jackson , Tn, 1885? i guess any open minded person knows to avoid Jackson now, wow what a ridiculous ruling, glad they got it overturned, yet astonished
that such a ruling could be given by a judge in this day and age without that judge's "judgement" being called into question, this judge should be disbarred and de-benched, in case they forgot, prejudice isnt allowed of our judges.

What does open minded and prejudice have to do with anything. This law has been on the books for years, and it is not just gay couples, but straight couples too.

Misty wrote:

If the ex-husband has NO problem with with Angel Chandler's partner staying over night, why does the courts have to put their noses in it???

It has nothing to do with how the ex's feel. One it is a law because or morality, the state does not want single parents to shack up with lovers with the kids around to see, and also the courts does not want the kids put into danger due to a jealous ex.

Not saying I agree with it, or siding with the state, that is just how it was explained to my ex-wife when we was dating. Neither her or her ex had that put into the divorce decree, it was just automatically there

Jason B Bour wrote:

<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with how the ex's feel. One it is a law because or morality, the state does not want single parents to shack up with lovers with the kids around to see, and also the courts does not want the kids put into danger due to a jealous ex.
Not saying I agree with it, or siding with the state, that is just how it was explained to my ex-wife when we was dating. Neither her or her ex had that put into the divorce decree, it was just automatically there

Wow. I just think our government has way to much say in the personal lifes of the citizens.

Has this judge made this kind of ruling for other gay couples or just this particular one. By this I mean, is this a form of punishment for the mother or is there some hazard to the child which the article does not mention for political correctness? Judges do goofy thing.

I don't think that boy friends or girl friends should be staying over night when children are there. What kind of morals are we setting for the children if they see this kind of actions from their parent. Are they suppose to think that it is okay to have sex without marriage?? No wonder this day and age sex is so free. If you want to have sex then do it when the children aren't there, whether you are gay or straight. Have some decency for the children's sake.

hillbillyred wrote:

Are they suppose to think that it is okay to have sex without marriage?? No wonder this day and age sex is so free. If you want to have sex then do it when the children aren't there, whether you are gay or straight. Have some decency for the children's sake.

So are you advocating that the women should get married before they sleep together? There's hope for Tennessee after all.:-) We have such Puritanistic views of sex in this country. Why does sex always have to involve marriage? Why can't it involve a loving relationship? Heck, why can't it involve a casual fling between two (or more) people looking to enjoy themselves? If they aren't hurting anyone else, why is it anyone else's business? OK, I'm being a bit of the devil's advocate there, but in this instance we're talking about a woman and her girlfriend of 10 years. I'd say that's a pretty committed relationship, especially since most marriages don't last that long these days. And in many states they would be considered commonlaw married if they were different genders. I see nothing wrong with allowing the girlfriend to stay at what is most likely her house anyway. These children are obviously old enough to understand their mother's loving relationship with this woman. Maybe rather than sheltering our children from the "evils" of sex outside of marriage, we should be teaching them about love and respect, both for ourselves and for the people who we chose to make our partners. An educated child is much less likely to end up as a teen mom or dad. Or with some disease. And again, I want to exercise my civic right to vote to keep the government and the church out of our bedrooms. Can I get a second?

Absolutely, Joe Friday.
I think it's great, two mom's to be there for the child, especially two people that have been together that long. Love is love whether two males or two females, I think of all the young single women whose baby daddy is nowhere to be found, or doesn't want to be found and appreciate the fact that these two are trying to make a safe, loving and stable home for the child.

peacheyone wrote:

Absolutely, Joe Friday.
I think it's great, two mom's to be there for the child, especially two people that have been together that long. Love is love whether two males or two females, I think of all the young single women whose baby daddy is nowhere to be found, or doesn't want to be found and appreciate the fact that these two are trying to make a safe, loving and stable home for the child.

Greetings, Peacheyone. Guess you missed my sarcasm in my response to hillbillyred. He was advocating against sex outside of marriage when it was two women involved. The moral paradox of that kinda tickled me a bit.:-) And I agree with you 100%. I think this world would be so much happier of a place if any two people, regardless of gender, were allowed to express their love for each other without having to worry about being discriminated against by their peers and their government. One day Tennessee will allow gay couples the same rights that my wife and I share. Hopefully all states will. There's no reason not to. Especially when multiple studies have shown that gay and lesbian couples are every bit as capable of providing a safe and happy home as straight couples are.

It is interesting to note that the Judicial and the Legislative branches of government is where the "Gay" and "Lesbian" agenda is being pushed. In most states including the liberal leaning and unpredictable state of CA, where the issue of "Gay" rights issue has gone before the voters it has been voted down by considerable margins which do not reflect the numbers the "Gay" community reports. Instead of having judges dictate from the bench, or the Federal government mandate it, place the issue before the voters of the state of Tennessee and let the voters decide the issue as stated in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. This way everyone gets their say and the issue will be decided by the voters.

The7thSeal wrote:

Instead of having judges dictate from the bench, or the Federal government mandate it, place the issue before the voters of the state of Tennessee and let the voters decide the issue as stated in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. This way everyone gets their say and the issue will be decided by the voters.

Actually the Mormon church spent quite a bit of money lobbying against gay rights in California on Prop 8 and they won. As far as the Constitution's views, the Constitution specifically says that the tyranny of the majority can't be used to take away the rights of the minority. Marriage is one of those protected rights. So we probably do need the Supreme Court to step up and say that these laws prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional.

The7thSeal wrote:

It is interesting to note that the Judicial and the Legislative branches of government is where the "Gay" and "Lesbian" agenda is being pushed. In most states including the liberal leaning and unpredictable state of CA, where the issue of "Gay" rights issue has gone before the voters it has been voted down by considerable margins which do not reflect the numbers the "Gay" community reports. Instead of having judges dictate from the bench, or the Federal government mandate it, place the issue before the voters of the state of Tennessee and let the voters decide the issue as stated in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. This way everyone gets their say and the issue will be decided by the voters.

There's nothing to vote on; equal rights for everyone is already guaranteed by the constitution. States simply refuse to honor it.

Joe Friday wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually the Mormon church spent quite a bit of money lobbying against gay rights in California on Prop 8 and they won. As far as the Constitution's views, the Constitution specifically says that the tyranny of the majority can't be used to take away the rights of the minority. Marriage is one of those protected rights. So we probably do need the Supreme Court to step up and say that these laws prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional.

The Morman Church in Salt Lake City Utah is one state removed from CA. Utah does not share a border with Tennessee. The 14th Amendments reserves the right of the States to decide issues regarding its populace without intervention by the Federal government. That is the concept of government "by the people." Marriage was established as one man and one woman to continue to create future generations of citizens. The Morman church does not have the sway in Tennessee that it may have in CA so your argument is inoperative. Let the issue be decided by the citizens of the State of Tennessee not by the Judicial or the Legislative branches or the Federal government. The Federal government is the tyranny each state is facing and in risk of losing its independence and freedom. Just ask Bobby Jindal from LA how the fed is to deal with. NO ONE but the citizens of Tennessee should decide any issue regarding their lives, land, freedoms or fortunes, period. I trust Tennesseans more than I trust the federal government.

Skinny wrote:

<quoted text>
There's nothing to vote on; equal rights for everyone is already guaranteed by the constitution. States simply refuse to honor it.

A man has a right to marry a woman and a woman has the right to marry a man. That is equal rights. Marriage is defined as a contract between one man and one woman. A man has the equal right as does the woman not to marry at all, to find a job, earn a living and so forth. The states have established their constitutions accordingly. If the people of the individual states choose to change their constitution they can do so. However, in every state where the issue has come before the voters it has been voted down by the voters even where the largest pro-gay lobby resides in CA. It is not unreasonable to simply let the people decide the issue rather than by judicial, legislative or executive mandate.

The7thSeal wrote:

<quoted text>
NO ONE but the citizens of Tennessee should decide any issue regarding their lives, land, freedoms or fortunes, period. I trust Tennesseans more than I trust the federal government.

That's just it; they're not voting on their lives, they're voting on the lives of others.

The7thSeal wrote:

<quoted text>
A man has a right to marry a woman and a woman has the right to marry a man. That is equal rights. Marriage is defined as a contract between one man and one woman. A man has the equal right as does the woman not to marry at all, to find a job, earn a living and so forth. The states have established their constitutions accordingly. If the people of the individual states choose to change their constitution they can do so. However, in every state where the issue has come before the voters it has been voted down by the voters even where the largest pro-gay lobby resides in CA. It is not unreasonable to simply let the people decide the issue rather than by judicial, legislative or executive mandate.

Ok but what I'm wondering is, could the voting numbers be fudged by our government and we citizens don't know/relize it? Does this question sound stupid???

Sorry, my bad. I missed spelled realized.

Skinny wrote:

<quoted text>
That's just it; they're not voting on their lives, they're voting on the lives of others.

It is one vote per person the issue with the most votes wins and decides the issue. It's called democracy and if a citizen does not like that decision they can always move to another state to their liking. See that was simple. If the Federal government or any branch thereof arbitrarily decides, no one has a choice and no one is free from tyranny.

Misty wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok but what I'm wondering is, could the voting numbers be fudged by our government and we citizens don't know/relize it? Does this question sound stupid???

There are no stupid questions. Yes, as the saying goes, "figures don't lie but liars figure." This is why every voter should be uncomfortable with electronic voting booths that do not have a paper ballot that provides an audit trail to validate the voting. The voting should match the list of registered voters and be reconciled with it in some shape form or fashion otherwise it is subject to fraud. This is why voters need to be informed and active because it is their freedom that is at stake.