Mother appeals ruling on gays

McLeod has no legal standing - she did not adopt the child nor were the two adults ever legally considered man-and-wife. How is it she even gets custody? Another example of a judge gone crazy.

I agree. The judge uses the slippery term "joint parenting" instead of "custody" but I can't see it has any standing in real law. I posted this to illustrate how far the judiciary has already gone in adopting extra-legal methods to accomplish what it can't manage legislatively.

That said, will you recognize your bias against fundamentalist Christians? I have noticed it more than once, but never as clearly as in this thread.

Hmmmm. I consider myself to be a faithful and orthodox Christian -- though I'm an Anglican, and hence perhaps a bit more willing to tolerate ambiguity than are those who one usually calls "fundamentalist."

I think it's probably necessary for you to get more specific than "you have noticed," so that we can consider the context within which my comments were made.

My suspicion is that the thread or threads in question would similar to this one, where one side is screaming "religious persecution."

I believe I have to apologize, I could not find the quote which I was remembering as yours in my quick search of this thread.

I to am an Anglican, althoug I have not worshipped in a church in the Anglican communion since the mid 1980s when I noticed a distinct tendency of the Episcopal Church to ignore orthodox teaching and Biblical authority for whatever was convenient at the time.

If you ever spend time with "fundamentalists", as I have a great deal since I stopped visiting Episcopal churches, you will find they are very comfortable with ambiguities where they exist. In this case there is no ambiguity.

Cheryl Clark, who left a lesbian relationship in 2000 after converting to Christianity, was ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John 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."

If the quoted text is correct, then the only explaination for such sloppy wording is an activist judge trying to make the U.S. safe from homohobic theists. The judge could have easily said, "make sure that there is nothing in the upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered poisonous to Dr. McLeod." IMHO that is much more constitutional and much more enforceable. Can you tell me why it would not have been sufficient?

Shalom.

If the quoted text is correct, then the only explaination for such sloppy wording is an activist judge trying to make the U.S. safe from homohobic theists.

It's not even close to the only explanation. You did a fine job of spelling out how the judge probably meant "homophobic" to be understood:

"make sure that there is nothing in the upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered poisonous to Dr. McLeod."

The only thing missing from this is a reason for the judge to specifically mention "homophobic," and "Christian teaching."

I believe we are both sufficiently well-versed in Scripture to figure out which particular "Christian teachings" he has in mind. The only remaining question is whether he's an anti-Christian activist, or whether he's addressing a very specific allegation made in this case.

You're claiming the former, and I think it's much more reasonable to believe the latter.

If he's addressing a specific allegation, I think we can also reasonably derive what the allegation is: that Ms. Clark is telling the little girl that Ms. McLeod is going to hell because she's a lesbian; and probably that Ms. Mcleod is evil, and that Christians shouldn't consort with evil people; and that if she (the girl) doesn't want to be evil, then she'll stay away from Ms. McLeod.

Now -- just suppose I'm right, and that Ms. Clark is using "Christian teaching" to poison the little girl against Ms. McLeod. Do you think it is morally and theologically correct to use Christian teaching in that manner?

I think it's profoundly wrong to misuse Scripture in that way. From my perspective, the judge (whether he meant to or not) could very well be protecting the spirit of Scripture against a misuse of the letter of Scripture.

Well, I'm not in favor of allowing one parent to turn their kid against the other parent.

She isn't a Parent

She was, at best, a shack up honey. She has no legal rights to the child.

What you don't seem to be taking into account is how case law works in this country. Let's forget, for a moment, that Ms. Clark was a lesbian herself and is very likely to have compassion on those still trapped in the lifestyle (based on my personal experience with ex-gays - they are greatful for the compassionate ministry that helped them and very much want to help others still trapped in the lifestyle). Even if Ms. Clark was doing what you say, by mentioning religion in the ruling, the judge creates a precedent that can be used against any religious teaching that can create a negative impression against any person. If the judge had limited the ruling as I suggested it could only be applied to Ms. Clark and Ms. McLeod. He set a precedent, and I have to believe he knew what he was doing.

Shalom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.