To: r9etb
I suspect McLeod is being a first-class vindictive bitch, trying to get back at Clark through the little girl, who is an innocent pawn. To do that, she's using all means available, including Christian teaching, to poison the child against someone whom she no doubt loves as a parent. My sympathies are with the child. She should not be treated like a piece of meat. If that means keeping McLeod's from acting like a Pharisee, so be it. ON what basis do you state this?? Other than a hostility towards Christians? Dr. Clark converted to Christianity, and SHE is the adoptive parent, not Mcleod. This is a direct attack on freedom of religion and the right of a parent to raise her child as she sees fit.
17 posted on
11/13/2003 8:22:19 AM PST by
ibheath
(Born-again and grateful to God for it.)
To: ibheath
This case is not even close. Totally ridiculous ruling. Mcleod has no blood or legal rights to this child. This is like an old boyfriend coming to take your child just because you lived with him for a long time. Absolutely asinine. People just don't have common sense anymore. This judge just wanted to maintain a homosexual influence over the child. Total idiot.
19 posted on
11/13/2003 8:26:53 AM PST by
bluebunny
(Formerly known as lemondropkid56)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson