#1, That sounds really surprising! Indiana's a pretty conservative state, but 13 years ago when my ex and I agreed and put in writing that neither of us would have boyfriends/girlfriends spend the night when the kids were with us, attorneys scoffed at how ridiculous and unenforceable that was. "No judge would ever presume to get that involved in your love life!" And later, when he only became interested in having overnight visits AFTER he started shacking up with a girl I *knew* he wasn't serious about (i.e., she wasn't going to be a lasting part of our kids' lives), I COULD NOT FIND an attorney willing to stand in front of a judge and make the argument that my ex and I should stick to our agreement...an agreement HE drafted and signed.
#2, If the judge really does give you problems, get prepared to appeal. I can't imagine that any sanctions he would give you could stand up to an appeal, especially since his pet clause isn't even in your orders. Besides, the spirit of the judge's approach is that it's better for kids not to form attachments that FEEL like family, with people who aren't going to stick around. But if you and your partner have already stuck together for 3 years and are only a couple months from your wedding, obviously he's not some guy they're going to start calling "Daddy Joe", only to have him disappear from their lives by spring!!! I mean, there's moralizing and then there's just silliness.
#3, What kind of society have we created, when there's a financial DISadvantage to you marrying the man you love, live with and are raising children with???