Mother appeals ruling on gays

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

[Bernard Marx]

DENVER

[ArGee]

And all involved (with the possible exception of the judge) seem to have lost sight of the fact that there's an innocent little girl who has to witness this ugliness, and whose opinion of what Christianity means is probably being hideously warped -- by Ms. Clark, above all.

Apparently you aren't familiar with activist judges. If I grant you the possiblity that the advocacy lawyers could be twisting their side, will you grant me the possibility that the judge actually has a problem with the Christian teaching that homosexuality is an abomination?

With that in mind, the actual statement that the woman may not provide "Christian" teaching that is "homophobic" goes beyond an attempt to protect an "innocent" child. If that's what the judge wanted to do, he could easily have used language like yours. It is certainly possible to use Christian teaching that homosexuality is wrong to have a child lovingly pray for a homosexual, provide support and healing comfort when necessary, but not learn to accept homosexual behavior. The judge could have easily required such without mentioning religion or the politically charged term "homophobic" at all.

Since we can not prove your assumptions or mine based on the article at hand, I think we must at least criticize the judge for politicizing and "Christianizing" his ruling.

But judges don't get punished for that, unless they are trying to display a monument to the Ten Commandments. Then they can kiss the bench goodbye.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

So single parents should never seek a companion to marry/remarry?

One of the great myths of the late 20th century is that you can't decide whom to marry without having sex with him/her. Statistics show that couples who fornicate are actually less likely to have a stable, long-lasting marriage than those who don't.

Shalom.

[r9etb]

Apparently you aren't familiar with activist judges.

I'm aware of activist judges. And I'm also aware of ugly divorces. And I'm further aware of the all-too-common tactic of taking the trial to the media. And I'm aware of the tendency of advocacy lawyers to make inflammatory claims, especially when they're taking the trial to the media. And (this happened to my brother), I've learned that "Christian" divorce lawyers can be worse than the normal lot.

Beyond that, rather than fall for the spin put out by lady's hired gun lawyers, I actually paid attention to, and tried to understand, what little has been reported of what the judge actually said.

Now, it's possible that the judge is a persecutor -- but I really, really doubt it. It's highly unlikely that he would have invented such a ruling out of whole cloth.

Since we can not prove your assumptions or mine based on the article at hand, I think we must at least criticize the judge for politicizing and "Christianizing" his ruling.

The judge didn't politicize it, nor did he take it to the media. That little job was done by Ms. Clark's lawyers -- which (as noted above) is a big reason why I do not trust anything they say about this case.

[ArGee]

The judge didn't politicize it, nor did he take it to the media. That little job was done by Ms. Clark's lawyers -- which (as noted above) is a big reason why I do not trust anything they say about this case.

I was attempting to keep our comments to what we know about the ruling. The judge used the term "homophobic." That is a meaningless political term. It is certainly not a legal term. Therefore, the judge politicized his ruling - i.e. he made it a political one not a legal one.

Shalom.

[Central_Floridian]

Whereas the currently lesbian mother has nothing but compliments for Clark?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I think that having a parent bad mouth their former spouse in the name of their faith is a great idea. Protestant parents can refer to Catholic exes as hellbound, while the Catholic ex can talk about how the Protestant ex is a heretic. And everybody can pick on Jewish exes, while the Jewish ex can refer to a Christian former spouse as an idolator.

Yep, this would be a great for business - we could tie stuff up in courts for years and make zillions of dollars dragging the courts into theological disputes.....

[Central_Floridian]

Obviously you assume that raising a child to hate decency and those who try to lead a life of integrity is no different than teaching a child that sodomy is unhealthy.

[texson66]

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This judge is another one of those "absuses and usurpations"

The time is rapidly approaching.....

[Leatherneck_MT]

It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that we don't need "Gun Control", Drug Laws, family laws or anything else for that matter.

What we need is JUDGE control. This bastard should be taken out and tarred and feathered.

[r9etb]

The judge used the term "homophobic." That is a meaningless political term. It is certainly not a legal term. Therefore, the judge politicized his ruling - i.e. he made it a political one not a legal one.

I disagree. What we do know of the case is that it is very acrimonious, and that the Judge defended his ruling on the basis of allowing "joint parenting" to continue. I think we can safely read between the lines to conclude that Ms. Clark's "Christian teaching" is of a sort that uses something like Romans 1 -- not to teach her about homosexuality, but instead to turn the little girl against Ms. McLeod.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So what do you do if one parent is teaching a child that atheists are evil, all while the ex expressly has no faith in a deity?

[Modernman]

Whereas the currently lesbian mother has nothing but compliments for Clark?

I think that's part of the point- this is an ugly, ugly situation. I'm sure the two women only talk to one another through their lawyers and the kid is caught in the middle. I wouldn't trust anything either of these two women had to say about the situation. I do trust the judge more, however, as he is the only disinterested party involved. People on this thread have tried to paint him as some sort of radical pro-gay activist.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

A friend of mine once made a brilliant observation - always believe the worst thing that each party to a breakup has to say about the other. Once you have that mastered, the rest flows easily.

[Rummyfan]

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 carzy.

[Rummyfan]

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.

[F.J. Mitchell]

You honestly and fairly explained your opinion to me. I owe you nothing less than an honest explanation of my own opinion.

If the adoptive Mother of this child is using the Bible and her new found salvation and committment to following the teachings of Christ and invoking her knowledge of the scriptures, for no other reason than to turn the child against her former same sex partner,her motive would be selfish, unfair and un-Christian. If she wishes to remove her adopted daughter from further contact and influence from the ex-partner, who is still embracing the life style that the mother knows is sinful, but also escapable, as she herself has proven; for the welfare of the child, both her motive and method is to be applauded.

The adoptive Mother would be remiss if she did not want with all her heart and soul, to shelter her daughter from any possibility of being sucked into the sick, pretence of a life, such as she recently escaped from.

[Modernman]

always believe the worst thing that each party to a breakup has to say about the other.

You shouldn't believe anything my exes say about me. They're the crazy ones. Really. I'm serious.

[Bernard Marx]

What we need is JUDGE control. This bastard should be taken out and tarred and feathered.

I think he needs "sensitivity" indoctrination on Constitutional law. The essential point in this controversy is that the judge is engaging in thought control. He ruled the adoptive mother can't exercise her First Amendment right to engage in the free exercise of religion by teaching her religion's doctrines to her daughter. That's unconstitutional. The fact that he used a term like "homophobic" and didn't ask for tolerance from the other party says a lot about his mind-set. The decision should be overturned.

Meanwhile, if you want to learn how bad the judge situation is, see my new post at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1021814/posts

[F.J. Mitchell]

"People on this thread have tried to paint him as some sort of radical pro-gay activist."

Wrongo! The Judge painted himself. We are merely discussing whether the color he painted himself is gay or stupid.

[ArGee]

I disagree.

I can live with that.

I recognize that I have a bias here. There is a culture war and the warriars for deviancy are everywhere. I am likely to believe the judge was slamming the adoptive mother for her Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong and not nearly as concerned about the child.

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.

Shalom.