William Flowers, left, with partner Jim Evans and their family

Well, let’s start off the day with a rousing debate, shall we? One of my male GEMs (oh yeah, we have them) alerted me to this story out of Houston, Texas,  and boy is it a doosey.

William Flowers has two children with his ex-wife, whom he divorced in 2004. He then married his partner,  Jim Evans, in Connecticut where same sex marriage is legal. Flowers and his ex-wife agreed that she should have custody initially, then changed his mind and petitioned to change that. A judge said the kids should remain with the ex-wife, but Flowers could continue with his visitation and then added this; the children are not allowed to be alone with any other man, not related to them by blood or adoption, without Flowers’ ex-wife consent. Oh boy.

Okay, there are three things I take issue with:  

*This order seems to imply that gay men are the same as child molesters. That’s simply not the case. Even the American Psychological Association says gay men are not more likely to molest children than other groups.

*This order implies that friends and relatives DO NOT molest children: According to the Child Molestation and Research and Prevention Institute, children are most at risk from those in their own family and those in their parents’ social circle.

*This smacks of vindictiveness on the part of the ex-wife: Look, I don’t know the ins and outs of their relationship; only she and Flowers do. But to me, it feels like she got pissed off that he dared to challenge her for custody and decided to get back at him with this.

And while all of these bother me, it’s that last one that feels the ickiest. I don’t care what your stance or personal belief on homosexuality is, but to use your kids in pawns in your adult matter is just wrong. Flat.Out.Wrong.

That’s my take on this but I want to hear yours, so let’s debate. Do you think the Houston judge was right to impose this order on William Flowers? Do you think the ex-wife was right or is she being just pissed off? Do you think the children will harmed by this order or protected? Let me hear ya!