Morality clauses

[Meshavrischika]

Texas judges often impose morality clauses in divorce cases. (i.e. parents cannot have guests of the opposite sex over after say... 10 and before 8 - just an example)

Is this moral and/or ethical?

What are the benefits/drawbacks of this type of clause?

I understand in a case where one parent is promiscuous or something that this would be in the best interest of the child, but this can possibly put an undue hardship on a parent if the other is not involved in the children's lives very often or if there is some type of illness or other issue.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The only instances in which I might consider morality clauses ethical are those wherein the judge couples his ruling with scientific support for the sanctions. I do not consider judges a priori experts in relationships or childcare.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Texas judges often impose morality clauses in divorce cases. (i.e. parents cannot have guests of the opposite sex over after say... 10 and before 8 - just an example)

Is this moral and/or ethical?

What are the benefits/drawbacks of this type of clause?

I understand in a case where one parent is promiscuous or something that this would be in the best interest of the child, but this can possibly put an undue hardship on a parent if the other is not involved in the children's lives very often or if there is some type of illness or other issue.

I think it is ridiculous and should be looked into by the ACLU.

 

[Meshavrischika]

(well, to be honest this has something to do with me and I did report it to them )

 

[.Sabre.]

I would not support such a clause unless there was strong evidence that:
-The person was known (as in actual, verifiable records of this!) for getting into abusive relationships and was thereby potentially putting his/her children in danger
-The person prostituted him/herself (again, actual evidence is required!) which would also potentially put their children into danger.
-BOTH partners agree to a morality clause that will apply to both of them equally.

In other words, I would support a morality clause if there was very strong evidence that there was a danger to the child(ren), or if it is something mutually agreed upon.

Halcy: good luck!

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I would not support such a clause unless there was strong evidence that:
-The person was known (as in actual, verifiable records of this!) for getting into abusive relationships and was thereby potentially putting his/her children in danger
-The person prostituted him/herself (again, actual evidence is required!) which would also potentially put their children into danger.
-BOTH partners agree to a morality clause that will apply to both of them equally.

In other words, I would support a morality clause if there was very strong evidence that there was a danger to the child(ren), or if it is something mutually agreed upon.

Halcy: good luck!

You made a logical point.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Texas judges often impose morality clauses in divorce cases. (i.e. parents cannot have guests of the opposite sex over after say... 10 and before 8 - just an example)

Is this moral and/or ethical?

Yes, it is both moral and ethical to ensure that children are not exposed to bad behavior of adults who influence them.

 

[Joachim]

Texas judges often impose morality clauses in divorce cases. (i.e. parents cannot have guests of the opposite sex over after say... 10 and before 8 - just an example)

Is this moral and/or ethical?

What are the benefits/drawbacks of this type of clause?

I understand in a case where one parent is promiscuous or something that this would be in the best interest of the child, but this can possibly put an undue hardship on a parent if the other is not involved in the children's lives very often or if there is some type of illness or other issue.

Law in this country is based on the will of the people. We take will of the people to mean laws passed by the legislative branches. This was clearly passed into law at some point meaning this is the will of the people for the state involved. For that reason it is ethical.


The drawback is, by whose morality are we talking? A Baptist is going to have a very different morality than I am.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Yes, it is both moral and ethical to ensure that children are not exposed to bad behavior of adults who influence them.

While this is true, I don't agree with these morality clauses.

Most of my friends are guys. Just because I have guys over to my house doesn't mean we're having some big orgy or having sex.

In fact, my son always looked forward to my two best friends coming over because we always watched wrestling and he loved it.

Nothing immoral going on there, unless you want to count watching fake choreographed wrestling (my apologies to all those WWE fans that thought it was real!! ) as immoral...

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Yes, it is both moral and ethical to ensure that children are not exposed to bad behavior of adults who influence them.

Neither you nor the state have the right to force your moral beliefs on others. I would raise any kids of mine to be very open sexually and to explore it with a large number of others which would be in direct opposition to most of these morals clauses.

It is a good thing I don't live in a state that has morality police and I live in the most liberal city in CA.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Neither you nor the state have the right to force your moral beliefs on others.

I see. So then, you're against laws against rape?

 

[Sitswithamouse]

I've never heard of these type of laws before.
But as others have said, as long as there is no harm to the kids involved then I would say it is wrong to impose that type of law on someone.

Glad you have reported this Halcy.

 

[b&wpac4]

I see. So then, you're against laws against rape?

Rape is a crime because the rights of another person are violated. The moral or ethical component of it is not what makes it a crime. This is basic law.

Theft is not a crime because it is immoral, it is a crime because it is violating property rights. Having sex out of wedlock may be immoral, but it is not a crime.

Do you see the difference?

 

[The Nihilist]

Do you see the difference?

I have a guess.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Rape is a crime because the rights of another person are violated. The moral or ethical component of it is not what makes it a crime. This is basic law.

Just as abortion violates the rights of another person.

Having sex out of wedlock may be immoral, but it is not a crime.

Actually, cohabitation is a crime in many places. It just isn't enforced.

 

[b&wpac4]

Just as abortion violates the rights of another person.

It may, it may not. This is not about abortion.

Actually, cohabitation is a crime in many places. It just isn't enforced.

Those laws usually get stuck down by high courts when challenged. They are a throwback to old laws that are no longer relevant.

 

[The Nihilist]

Those laws usually get stuck down by high courts when challenged. They are a throwback to old laws that are no longer relevant.

Why, because we've made social progress and women are no longer viewed as property? Well that's, that's simply unbiblical!

 

[LoisGriffin]

It seems crazy. I had never heard of it till you mentioned it.

How long is it in place for? Is it till the youngest is 18?

What about re-marriage?

 

[suzybeezy]

Is the morality clause in place during the divorce process or is it still in effect even after the divorce? And what is the intended purpose of the clause - is it to provide stability for the child during the process?

 

[Meshavrischika]

Yes, it is both moral and ethical to ensure that children are not exposed to bad behavior of adults who influence them.

Unfortunately it does not prevent that... if you are a floozie, you will just have sex before the alloted time... hence, no safety at all.

Law in this country is based on the will of the people. We take will of the people to mean laws passed by the legislative branches. This was clearly passed into law at some point meaning this is the will of the people for the state involved. For that reason it is ethical.


The drawback is, by whose morality are we talking? A Baptist is going to have a very different morality than I am.

The problem is, this is not a law, it is an abstract concept called "in the best interest of the child" and has no parameters really. Enforcement is rarely if ever provided, and it is incumbent upon the "injured party" to bring suit... so the judge cannot act without the other parent filing paperwork and providing proof it occured (which seems like it'd be darn difficult to do)