Judge bans gay father from leaving children alone with step father

This is ridiculous on so many levels. It's clearly homophobia, but it's also incredibly damaging to this kid's ability to bond with any men. Holly hell, what if one of his male teachers wants to discipline him? They're going to have to either call in a female teacher, or his dad. For that matter, can he even have a male teacher? If he can't be left alone with a man, it could be interpreted to mean that he can't be around a man without a chaperone even in the presence of other kids. Sheesh.

 

I hate straight people.

 

Um, isn't this a little discriminatory against men in general?

WTF mate?

If a judge of the courts treated me like a pedophile or neglectful parent with their only evidence against me being that I was not straight, I would find the best lawyer I could and sue the SHIT out of them.

 

So the kids can never be with a teacher? Good job Texas, you'll now be contributing to more illiteracy unless all their teachers are women >_>

 

That is completely bogus and a disgusting move against men. I absolutely agree.

But what is this^ supposed to mean? Being a feminist doesn't mean that you hate men.

 

This is a horrible, but easily countered ruling. Any higher court is going to see this for what it really is: Discrimination to the max.

 

let's see how long it takes for this one to get overturned

 

I don't even understand what's going on here. Is the kid pretty much prohibited from being alone with men without the parent nearby? What does the order mean legally?

 

Exactly what you just said. The child is not allowed to be alone with any non-related male without his parents there too.

 

I still don't understand why the court would do this though. Are they afraid the child will be around gay men? Is this more a masculinist issue than it is a gay issue?

 

It's both really. The way it looks to me anyway is that the mother/ex wife is all mad and so she went to court and got them to legally prohibit the guy's partner from being alone with the kid--and any other unrelated male on the planet--even though there was no complaint or sign of abuse, neglect or general mistreatment of the child.

 

This is one of the most ridiculous rulings I have ever seen from a judge. It is probably unconstitutional, and I can't see how such a broad ruling is in the best interest of the child. In all likelihood, the appellate court will reverse the order. Unfortunately, it will take significant time and money for the appeal.

 

you
have
got
to
be
kidding
me

 

That is just ridiculous, how could such a ruling be made in the first place? .___.

 

What's wrong isn't just the ruling, which is utterly ridiculous, but it seems like before now the boy had no contact with his father.