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.
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.