Ark. Man Appeals Ruling Barring Partn...

Ark. Man Appeals Ruling Barring Partner From Home

There are 65 comments on the EDGE story from Nov 8, 2013, titled Ark. Man Appeals Ruling Barring Partner From Home. In it, EDGE reports that:

A judge violated an Arkansas man's constitutional rights by barring his gay partner from staying overnight when his son visits, imposing a blanket restriction on unmarried couples living together, attorneys told the state's highest court Thursday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#43 Nov 10, 2013
Boris wrote:
<quoted text>
No but if that live-in boyfriend is a homosexual man then nothing has to be proven. Homosexual men should never be allowed around young boys.
Good morning, little cowardly liar. Gonna use anymore false names this morning?

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#45 Nov 10, 2013
Reginald wrote:
<quoted text> excellent post, thanks for sharing.
Oh, BORIS, oops, I mean REGINALD, another false lying name within 12 minutes of your last post. You're on FIRE this morning with your false lies and fake homelands, little cowardly liar. How many fake names will you be using today, little liar? We haven't seen "PIERRE" for a while, why not put on your beret and drag him out?

BTW, a beret is a hat worn by Frenchmen. I told you so you can lie better in the future when making up fake facts.

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#46 Nov 10, 2013
Reginald wrote:
<quoted text> excellent post, thanks for sharing.
Typical troll, change your name and endorse your own post
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#47 Nov 10, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
Sorry the law needs to be changed. We'll handle that. You don't like it, too damned bad.
LOL! Well sugar tits, it's not a law in the sense that politics can change it. It's a well established judicial precedent. Again, it has nothing to do with the right of someone to engage in adult activity, and everything to do with what is in the best interests of the child.

Read the Arkansas Supreme Court decision I mentioned in an earlier post.
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#48 Nov 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
So, you are suggesting that every unmarried person who has custody of, or visitation of a child much first prove in court that their live-inpartner/boyfriend/girlf riend is not a danger to the child?
Nope. That's not even the issue. The issue is that Courts in Arkansas always hold that the promiscuous behavior of a parent is not allowed while a child is present on visitation.
I live in one of the most conservative areas you can imagine, and marital status and sexual orientation are not considered when it comes to custody - only the best interest of the child.
And as I said earlier in this thread, sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. The only issue is what is in the best interests of the child. Again, in Arkansas, the best interests of the child, as always determined by the Courts, is that an unmarried romantic partner is not allowed to spend the night while the child is visiting. End of story.
Reading this story, I did not see where the boyfriend had personal issues that would bar him from staying in the home.
He may not, but again, that isn't the issue. Read the Arkansas Supreme Court decision I cited in an earlier post. It doesn't matter if the boyfriend has no personal issues or is not in any way a danger to the child. The simple fact that the parent has a romantic involvement with the boyfriend is sufficient reason to hold that the boyfriend spending the night when the child is present is not in the best interests of the child.

It's obvious you don't like the law in Arkansas, but as I said earlier, that's just too damn bad. Don't come to our state.
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#49 Nov 10, 2013
Curteese wrote:
Bull chit. I've never heard of a hetero partner being banned from being in the house with the his or her partner's children. Never. Where do you GET these whack ideas? I mean, isn't you ass sore from the amount of nonsense you pull out of it?
Just giving you the facts cheese dick. If you can't accept reality, that's your problem, not mine.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#50 Nov 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
If the parent remarries, that's a different matter.
And it's not possible for them to marry in Arkansas.

What if they were married in another State?
Sterkfontein Swartkrans

Doylestown, PA

#51 Nov 10, 2013
Why can't fundietards mind their own business??!! This country is not a theocracy--yet!!

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#52 Nov 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you're wrong. Courts in Arkansas believe exposing a child to fornication is not in his best interests.
Like the other poster you fail to realize that the Courts don't make rulings in such matters based on the civil rights of the non-custodial parent. They make rulings based on what the judge believes in in the best interests of the child. Under these circumstances, Courts in Arkansas have consistently held that it is not in the best interests of the child to allow the lover of a non-custodial parent to spend the night while the child is present.
Again, there is such a simple remedy. The lover can spend the night elsewhere when the child is staying over on visitation. Usually that's every other weekend. Not a big deal.
Sorry, you're full of it. Courts in Arkansas are not immune from having to follow Constitutional Guidelines dealing with Civil Rights. If the story is as you claim, they (the "Arkansas" Courts) are indeed in Violation of the Constitution, freedom of association is a very basic civil right. There is no need for anyone to kowtow to such Homophobic abuse or to have to pay for a motel every other weekend.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#53 Nov 10, 2013
guest wrote:
As I said, Courts in Arkansas consistently disallow the lover of a non-custodial parent from staying overnight. Here’s an important Arkansas Supreme Court case on that very point, which involves a divorcee and a live-in homosexual lover, Taylor v Taylor, 345 Ark. 300:
http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/weblink8/0/d...
Here’s part of what the high Court said in its ruling:
“Arkansas's appellate courts have steadfastly upheld chancery court orders that prohibit
parents from allowing romantic partners to stay or reside in the home when the children are present.” See Campbell, 336 Ark. at 389 (this court and the court of appeals have never condoned a parent's promiscuous conduct or lifestyle when such conduct has been in the presence of a child); see also Ketron v. Ketron, 15 Ark. App. 325, 692 S.W2d 261 (1995).”
“Arkansas case law simply has never condoned a parent's unmarried cohabitation, or a parent's promiscuous conduct or lifestyle, when such conduct is in the presence of a child.”
So, like I said, that’s the law in Arkansas. If you don’t like it, too damn bad.
Nope, it's just another case that will get a good slap down when it is challenged and taken before SCOTUS.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#54 Nov 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Well sugar tits, it's not a law in the sense that politics can change it. It's a well established judicial precedent. Again, it has nothing to do with the right of someone to engage in adult activity, and everything to do with what is in the best interests of the child.
Read the Arkansas Supreme Court decision I mentioned in an earlier post.
Judicial precedents are overturned all the time. You can quote BS until your fingers fall off, doesn't make them correct nor does it make them Constitutional.
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#55 Nov 10, 2013
snyper wrote:
And it's not possible for them to marry in Arkansas. What if they were married in another State?
Arkansas doesn't recognize homosexual "marriage".
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#56 Nov 10, 2013
Sterkfontein Swartkrans wrote:
Why can't fundietards mind their own business??!! This country is not a theocracy--yet!!
I'm just giving the facts. The man appealing the ruling will lose. This is well established law in Arkansas. Like I said before, if you don't like the law in Arkansas, too damn bad. Don't come here.
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#57 Nov 10, 2013
Pagan and Proud wrote:
Sorry, you're full of it. Courts in Arkansas are not immune from having to follow Constitutional Guidelines dealing with Civil Rights.
You're just in denial because you don't like the law here in Arkansas. Again, the issue isn't whether a parent has the right to engage in promiscuous behavior. The issue is whether it is in the best interests of the child to be present during that time. Arkansas Courts have long held that it is not. Read the damn Court decision I cited earlier. Until you do that, just STFU.

Again, there is a very simple solution. Have the lover spend the night somewhere else when the child is visiting. That's normally only every other weekend.

If the parent can't put their child's visitation first, they don't deserve visitation.
If the story is as you claim, they (the "Arkansas" Courts) are indeed in Violation of the Constitution, freedom of association is a very basic civil right. There is no need for anyone to kowtow to such Homophobic abuse or to have to pay for a motel every other weekend.
Boo hoo hoo. All you are doing is whining like a little titty baby because you don't like the law in Arkansas. Too damn bad. Don't get married. If you're married, don't have children. If you have children, don't get a divorce. If you get a divorce, then abide by Arkansas law. You have choices.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#58 Nov 10, 2013
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, you're full of it. Courts in Arkansas are not immune from having to follow Constitutional Guidelines dealing with Civil Rights. If the story is as you claim, they (the "Arkansas" Courts) are indeed in Violation of the Constitution, freedom of association is a very basic civil right. There is no need for anyone to kowtow to such Homophobic abuse or to have to pay for a motel every other weekend.
While I agree in principle, this Case is Family Law, and that's where it gets squirrely.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#59 Nov 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Arkansas doesn't recognize homosexual "marriage".
Probably best, since there is no such thing. There is just Legal Civil Marriage; and the Full Faith & Credit AND Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution both require that Arkansas (and every other State as well) recognize ALL out-of-State Civil Marriages.

You'll be discovering that in due course.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#60 Nov 10, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just giving the facts. The man appealing the ruling will lose. This is well established law in Arkansas. Like I said before, if you don't like the law in Arkansas, too damn bad. Don't come here.
Family Law is weak, and cannot stand against Constitutional requirements.

There was a time when AfricanAmericans were not allowed Legal Civil Marriage. Did this make all their relationships "promiscuous"?

Was the problem their relationship, or was it the glass ceiling created by the then-existing laws?

Remember this?

&fe ature=related

And we have , in our commitment to peace received blows, merely earning for us the very uninsightful epithets, "pansy" and "poof", etc.

But the time has come where it is necessary for you and yours to compare what has gone before with this concept as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#62 Nov 11, 2013
Boris wrote:
<quoted text>
No but if that live-in boyfriend is a homosexual man then nothing has to be proven. H.....
Of course it does, since more heterosexual men seem to harm their girlfriend's children. The news is always full of such things. Rapes, murders, baby-shakings.

It's quite gruesome. But should we blame all straight men for that? Of course not.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#63 Nov 11, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, the gay agenda crowd finds an issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality and attempts to hijack it for its own uses. Same tired old shit.
....
This from a poster who is obsessed with gay folks, and demands constant attention from them.

This is a gay issue, and a straight one, too. It's is an issue of parental rights and constitutional rights, and those apply equally to gay and straight couples.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#65 Nov 11, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just giving the facts. The man appealing the ruling will lose. This is well established law in Arkansas. Like I said before, if you don't like the law in Arkansas, too damn bad. Don't come here.
Don't worry, I thought of going there once, but when I heard they don't have indoor plumbing, I changed my travel plans.

Besides, I can't think of ONE tourist destination in Arkansas, except for "Dogpatch, USA" which is based on a long gone COMIC STRIP,'Little Abner'. I've never even MET anyone from Arkansas. I'm not even sure where it is, somewhere hovering near Texas, I think. I note the Clintons prefer New York to their home state. I'm pretty sure I can go the rest of my life without giving that Shiite Hole a second thought.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arkansas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Did you vote today? (Jun '10) 5 hr Reality Check 42,921
News After Baltz Firing, CARTI Issues Statement Fri Regina C 8
News Josh Duggar Resigns From Family Research Council (May '15) Apr 20 vaginal odor 18
Jason Pedigo Apr 15 Elkspa 1
News Romero set for Double-A debut Apr 10 ThisPhartse 7
What Happened to Morgan Nick of Alma, Arkansas? (Jun '07) Apr 10 nice troll 71
News Fayetteville school district superintendent den... Apr 10 fayschoolssite 5