[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?

[skeeter]

He's trying to keep her from instilling a sense of hatred or revulsion towards the father who has joint custody.

Unless you think our beliefs, values & opinions should be dictated by law you should be horrified that any judge would dare to order a parent what they should teach her child.

If this is allowed to stand the end can't be too far off.

[KC_for_Freedom]

You got my point, I don't know the specifics of the case but beliefs are something difficult to set up a restraining order against. In every case of dual child custody, the players seem mostly to try to badmouth the care of the other. This because divorces are usually not pleasant. But the results with respect to the child are best when both parrents teach respect for the views of the other. In this case, there are built-in parameters that make it hard to teach that respect. It can be done, even those of us who don't want to see homosexuality brought into the mainstream know that there are individual homosexuals who live public lives which would not upset the mainstream.