Mother appeals ruling on gays

Washington Times ^ | Nov. 5, 2003 | Valerie Richardson

[Bernard Marx]

DENVER

[agrace]

And since homosexuals are usually well aware of what Christianity teaches and thereby have some definite opinions on Christianity, this judge should have gone out on the same limb with regard to the lesbian parent. Or better yet, kept his mouth shut when it came to restricting the religious rights of the Christian.

[Modernman]

And since homosexuals are usually well aware of what Christianity teaches and thereby have some definite opinions on Christianity, this judge should have gone out on the same limb with regard to the lesbian parent

I'd have no problems with that. We don't have the entire case history here. My guess is that there have probably been some instances where the formerly lesbian mother has said some highly uncomplimentary things about her former partner to the child. I doubt this order came out of nowhere.

[Politicalmom]

These are not "parents". The lesbian has NO legal relationship to the girl.

[netmilsmom]

>>Those who sleep with many partners increase the risk of STDs, perhaps condemning one to death
Define "many partners." A father should have his kid taken away if he dates a lot? Or engages in any activity that might increase the risk of death? Okay, what if the father rock climbs in his spare time? That's an activity that is risky and might condemn one to death. What if the father is a soldier? That's an activity that's risky and might condemn one to death.

No one is talking about taking a kid away, they are talking about restricting the right of the child's parent to TALK about an ex-lover's lifestyle.
In the case of a father and a risk taking behavior, I have the right as the mother to tell a child that I think the behavior of the father is stupid. (If you think a parent in a lifestyle does not normalize it for a child, look at the gay agenda). This judge has taken that right away from the child's MOTHER.

And if you think having different women in and out of a child's life for a man's pleasure is ok, I'll put you in touch with my dear friend, a Psychiatrist, who dealt with these cases. He can tell you stories to curl your hair.
Your job as a parent is to parent, not find a new woman to masterbate with as often as you can.

[HamiltonJay]

The judge should be summarily dismissed for this ruling... it violates so many things its insane.

[Modernman]

These are not "parents". The lesbian has NO legal relationship to the girl.

I'm not sure how Colorado custody law works, but judges in family law cases generally have the power to look at the big picture and cut through legal technicalities. It's not terribly uncommon for judges to grant long-term live-in significant others some type of visitation rights.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Sickening.

For that pro-gay judge to award joint custody to a non-related, non-adoptive person is horrific.

I hope Clark has the funds to push this through the legal system.

Then I hope she takes her daughter to church regularly and listens to weekly denunciations of homosexuality.

[Modernman]

No one is talking about taking a kid away, they are talking about restricting the right of the child's parent to TALK about an ex-lover's lifestyle.

Well, I'm not in favor of allowing one parent to turn their kid against the other parent. It puts the child into an impossible situation- mommy is telling the kid that daddy is a scumbag. You don't see a problem with that? Judges are supposed to look out for the best interests of the child- allowing parents to constantly badmouth the other parent is not a good thing for a kid.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

some type of visitation rights.

But not joint-custody.

That judge should be disbarred.

[Modernman]

But not joint-custody.

Joint custody is a pretty general term. It doesn't just mean 50/50 custody. We don't know the exact visitation set-up.

That judge should be disbarred.

For what, making a bad ruling?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

...the other parent...

The other woman is NOT the child's parent.

She never adopted the child and she is not related to her.

As such, she should have NO legal rights regarding the child.

If she were a live-in boyfriend, that would be the ruling.

"Visitation rights" is not the same thing as "legally-enforced joint-custody," which is what that non-relative, non-adoptive person was awarded.

That judge is an idiot with an agenda who should be disbarred.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The case has raised red flags among some Christians, who say the decision infringes upon the mother's right to freedom of expression and religion.

Sorry, but these particular Christians don't have a right to any say on this case. Remember, according to them, the mother, whose only connection to the child is via a lesbian relationship, isn't really a mother at all and shouldn't have any rights at all to the child. But somehow, when it suits THEIR purposes, they want to forget all that and have the courts order that an unrelated adult participate in raising the child in a way that totally conflicts with the natural mother's beliefs. Can you say "hypocrites"?

[netmilsmom]

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

This is not the child's parent, first of all.
Second, do you have kids?
Third, I have a friend right now who divorced because of the father's constant risky behavior (taking his girls for rides on his Harley w/no helmets {against the law}, and losing them at biker rallies). Sorry but rock climbing does not compare to this. Should this mother not tell her children that it is not right to break the law and not safe to wander around alone in large crowds?
Should the mother never tell the child the risk, for fear of offending the father?

[netmilsmom]

>>Remember, according to them, the mother, whose only connection to the child is via a lesbian relationship<<

No you have it backward. The Born Again is the legal mother. She adopted her. The lesbian did not.

[Bernard Marx]

You're allowed to disagree. But I disagree with you.

[Politicalmom]

WHAT?? That made no sense whatsoever.

There IS no "natural mother" in this case.

There is a Christian ADOPTIVE mother, and a lesbo ex-lover with NO legal relationship to the child.

[Modernman]

Third, I have a friend right now who divorced because of the father's constant risky behavior (taking his girls for rides on his Harley w/no helmets {against the law}, and losing them at biker rallies). Sorry but rock climbing does not compare to this.

Putting kids in physical danger is one thing, as is breaking the law. Living a lifestyle where the father does dangerous things but never puts the kids in danger is quite different.

You brought up the example of a promiscuous father. That's not like the father taking the kids on a motorcyle ride without helmets since the only risk was to him, the consenting adult.

If the mother wants to tell her kids not to sleep around or to always wear a motorcylce helmet, that's fine. Saying bad things to the kids about their father because she doesn't like his lifestlye is completely different.

[Bernard Marx]

If a judge can't step in and run the family, then we might as well not have judges.

LOL. Interesting thought.

[Warhammer]

but judges in family law cases generally have the power to look at the big picture and cut through legal technicalities.

Because he's doing family law, he has the "power to look at the big picture" and ignore the law? We go into fits when the Supreme Court does this (witness Sandra Day O'Connor's comments on having to view our Constitution through the lens of international law) and yet it's OK for a family law judge to do it? Does he get a pass because it's for the children?

His job is to rule on the law, not legislate from the bench.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not judges. That is what most of us on this forum are fighting for.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Joint custody" means that both parties share in the legal responsibility for raising the child and have equal say in that child's upbringing.

But the other woman is not an adoptive parent nor a relative. She has no legal standing. She had more than seven years to adopt this child and didn't.

This isn't just a bad ruling on precendent. It's a corrupt, illegal, anti-Christian, pro-sodomite, unhealthy, damaging and ultimately, reversible ruling.