Judge to Christian mom: No 'homophobic' teaching

WorldNetDaily ^ | 10/31/2003

[WillRain]

A Colorado mother is appealing a child custody decision in which a court barred her from teaching homosexuality is wrong.

Cheryl Clark, who says she is a Christian, has been ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John W. Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."

The directive arose from the decision to award joint parenting responsibilities for her daughter to a practicing homosexual.

"Forbidding the raising of children in the parent's Christian beliefs is an anathema to parental rights and religious freedom," said Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Florida-based Liberty Counsel. "Must the mother rip out pages of the Bible that say homosexuality is against nature, or must she cover her child's ears if her pastor preaches about sexual purity?"

Staver explained to WorldNetDaily Clark and Elsey McLeod were in a lesbian relationship that broke up after Clark became a Christian and concluded homosexual behavior was wrong.

The Denver court gave McLeod joint custody of Clark's adopted daughter, Emma, even though McLeod had no legal relationship to the girl. It also, in conjunction with the ruling in favor of McLeod, said Clark cannot raise her child with any religious teaching or upbringing that is "homophobic."

Staver said courts cannot "give parents a no-win decision of either abandoning their Christian beliefs or abandoning their children."

The definition of "homophobic," Staver noted, is "all across the board," from being fearful of homosexuals to disagreeing with their lifestyle.

"It takes no stretch of the imagination to envision a judge finding the mother in contempt of court for merely teaching her daughter about the Biblical truths on homosexuality," he said.

Liberty Counsel filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the mother in her case before the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Staver notes the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to "worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience." Similarly, he said, the high court has acknowledged "the values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of our children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society."

Another troubling aspect of this case, he said, is the award of visitation and joint parenting responsibilities to a third-party who has no legal relationship to the daughter or the mother.

The decision, according to Staver, stands in direct conflict with precedent throughout the country that denies visitation to a third party based solely on that person's prior sexual relationship with the legal parent.

Staver told WND he is not aware of any similar cases in the U.S., although there have been some in which a judge has told a parent not to say anything degrading about the other parent's lifestyle.

None, to his knowledge, however, have gone to the extent of Coughlin, issuing a directive that restricts a parent's religious practice.

[aruanan]

Are there any Biblical injunctions against Lesbianism? I was not aware of any.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
--Romans1:24-27

It's funny that some people can read this and not see anything. Verse 24 states the general theme. Verse 26 reiterates it, specifically mentioning relationships between women. Verse 27 specifically mentions sexual relations between men. Those who see nothing in the description of women are doing a Janet Reno. They look at that sentence in total isolation and say, "I see nothing about sexual relations here; therefore, there's no basis for believing that Paul is talking about sexual relationships."

[gridlock]

Of course there is the general prohibition of adultery. I guess that would cover it!

[gridlock]

And the passage from Romans I. Didn't know that one. As you can probably guess, I'm not the most diligent Biblical scholar out there...

[pgyanke]

There is so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to begin! Basically, the judge just ruled that one lifestyle is acceptable and another is not. God forbid the lesbian could be prohibited from infringing on the mother's Christian beliefs!

In case you're wondering, this is called "tolerance".

[PoorMuttly]

The "phobic" part is another advertising ploy, like "gay," to twist and spin things in their favor.

Because you don't agree or like or condone a practice does not necessarily mean that you are afraid of it.

[american spirit]

This woman needs to stand up for her rights (and child) while telling this judge in no uncertain terms that he has no right to make a "legal determination" for her or her children. He has no permission to enter her affairs and if he thinks he's representing her ...HE IS FIRED!. People must understand that if we don't challenge their jurisdiction and demand 'WHERE'S THE CONTRACT' that gives any gov't. official license over our affairs then they will continue to abuse their alleged authority.

[Naspino]

I truly think if he'd said that to me I'd tell him to "F Off".

When it comes to child custody -- the judge and caseworker are the only deities involved. He can tell her that if she does not stop coughing she'll lose custody of her child to a crack addict with a dozen pitbulls and it'll happen and there is absolutely nothing anyone on this earth can do about it.

[KC_for_Freedom]

There is so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to begin! Basically, the judge just ruled that one lifestyle is acceptable and another is not. God forbid the lesbian could be prohibited from infringing on the mother's Christian beliefs!

My sister has a christian child and decided not to put her in my jewish care if she were to die. If she thought I would be able to raise her in a christian belief system while practicing judaism maybe something could have been worked out. But she would rather leave her daughter with a christian family in her church.

I only relate this because to many a belief system is more important than actual family considerations. This judge is asking for trouble with a non-enforcable decree that will result downstream in the homosexual guardien having sole custody. Of course today, there are many sects who are willing to throw in with the liberal definition of a perfect society because their true religion is liberalism and multicultural PC beliefs.

[antiRepublicrat]

That made me think. This sounds the same as if a Judge told a Christian woman divorcing a Jewish man not to preach anti-semitism. Or a white woman divorcing a black man not to preach racism. He's trying to keep her from instilling a sense of hatred or revulsion towards the father who has joint custody. As a father, would you want to come pick up your kid and have him tell you that you're an awful person, or maybe decide not to see you anymore?

[WackyKat]

This woman needs to stand up for her rights (and child) while telling this judge in no uncertain terms that he has no right to make a "legal determination" for her or her children. He has no permission to enter her affairs and if he thinks he's representing her ...HE IS FIRED!. People must understand that if we don't challenge their jurisdiction and demand 'WHERE'S THE CONTRACT' that gives any gov't. official license over our affairs then they will continue to abuse their alleged authority.

The jails are full of "Sovereign Citizens" who have tried the bogus jurisdiction/contractual/strawman arguments.

[birdsman]

Although the 1st amendment only protects us from congress infringing on our religious liberty, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th amendment causes the 1st amendment to apply to the states also. This state ruling is unconstitutional.

[american spirit]

I guarantee you there are more people walking around free from gov't. interference by using that argument than have ended up in jail. While we're at it, why don't you tell me what gives any judge the right to enter our affairs and render these decisions, I'd really like to know.

[m1-lightning]

I always thought the 14th was meant in the same manner as the 1st, meaning a state congress could not infringe on the rights of US citizens. If I read it word for wrod and read the definition of the "state", you are right. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[ZULU]

This is just the latest in a serie of egregious actions by politically connected hacks who also happen to have legal degrees, legislating from the bench.

This vile creature should be impeached and flushed down the nearest storm sewer. But of course he won't be. These legal political hacks have succeeded in intimadating the other branches of the government and the generel public into believing they are sacrosanct - modern day Tribunes.

[Dante3]

In Florida a judge took two biological children from their mother and gave them to a mutilated woman who claims to be a man. One of the reasons was that the mother was "too religious."

[sns5151]

Unbelievable as it sounds....

This is true.

My husband and I have fallen victim to such court orders.
Our court order stated, what church we could attend with the children and it further told us what religious or non-religious events we could attend including persons who would visit us at our home on the weekends we had the children.

My husband I have a hard time with not attending the Christian church of our choice full-time or on a regular basis. It seems Our freedoms only come when we have $ to hire that non existing lawyer to fight for what is right.

Oh by the way, this is a life appointment judge of Billy Clinton.

In an area that Rev. Al, nor Jessie, much less any of the number of civil rights lawyer, will Not be seen out in this neck of the woods.

So we have to wait this one out.



For the love of God and Country,
SemperFi

[m1-lightning]

After knowing the kinds of judges that Clinton appointed you'd think that if Slick Willy's daughter turned out to be an atheist lesbian crack whore PETA member he'd be so proud.

[WackyKat]

I learned long ago never to argue with "Sovereign Citizens" because they live in a hermetically sealed delusional system that is impermeable to logic and reality.

[CommerceComet]

Adultry prohibitions would apply if one of the parties is married. Fornication prohibitions prevent two unmarried people from having lawful sexual relations whatever their sexual preference. The Bible defines lawful sexual relations as between a man and a woman who are married to one another. Anything else, we would agree is sin.