Legal custody was being taken from Miller because she refused to follow court orders for visitation when she had sole custody of the child. The other woman promised to maintain visitation for Miller.
The child did know the other woman — they lived together for the 1st years of her life, and after their divorce visitation was maintained until the girl was 6.
The judge was ruling in the interest of the child, as it is unfortunately interepreted in modern culture. No judge is going to be able to legally rule that a homosexual parent is unfit simply because they are homosexual — no matter how much we wish that were the case.
There is way too much misinformation to have a rational conversation about this.
Who said it:
"I write specially to state that the homosexual conduct of a parent ... creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others."
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society—the family. The law of Alabama is not only clear in its condemning such conduct, but the courts of this State have consistently held that exposing a child to such behavior has a destructive and seriously detrimental effect on the children. It is an inherent evil against which children must be protected."