Judge to Christian mom: No 'homophobic' teaching

Worldnetdaily ^ | October 31, 2003

[scripter]

A Colorado mother is appealing a child custody decision in which a court barred her from teaching homosexuality is wrong.

Cheryl Clark, who says she is a Christian, has been ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John W. 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."

The directive arose from the decision to award joint parenting responsibilities for her daughter to a practicing homosexual.

"Forbidding the raising of children in the parent's Christian beliefs is an anathema to parental rights and religious freedom," said Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Florida-based Liberty Counsel. "Must the mother rip out pages of the Bible that say homosexuality is against nature, or must she cover her child's ears if her pastor preaches about sexual purity?"

Staver explained to WorldNetDaily Clark and Elsey McLeod were in a lesbian relationship that broke up after Clark became a Christian and concluded homosexual behavior was wrong.

The Denver court gave McLeod join custody of Clark's adopted daughter, Emma, even though McLeod had no legal relationship to the girl. It also, in conjunction with the ruling in favor of McLeod, said Clark cannot raise her child with any religious teaching or upbringing that is "homophobic."

Staver said courts cannot "give parents a no-win decision of either abandoning their Christian beliefs or abandoning their children."

The definition of "homophobic," Staver noted, is "all across the board," from being fearful of homosexuals to disagreeing with their lifestyle.

"It takes no stretch of the imagination to envision a judge finding the mother in contempt of court for merely teaching her daughter about the Biblical truths on homosexuality," he said.

Liberty Counsel filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the mother in her case before the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Staver notes the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to "worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience." Similarly, he said, the high court has acknowledged "the values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of our children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society."

Another troubling aspect of this case, he said, is the award of visitation and joint parenting responsibilities to a third-party who has no legal relationship to the daughter or the mother.

The decision, according to Staver, stands in direct conflict with precedent throughout the country that denies visitation to a third party based solely on that person's prior sexual relationship with the legal parent.

Staver told WND he is not aware of any similar cases in the U.S., although there have been some in which a judge has told a parent not to say anything degrading about the other parent's lifestyle.

None, to his knowledge, however, have gone to the extent of Coughlin, issuing a directive that restricts a parent's religious practice.

[Windsong]

"Staver explained to WorldNetDaily Clark..."

World Net Daily? Yeah..THERES a reliable think-tank.

*rolls eyes*

[DannyTN]

"Wasn't a Christian man turned down by big brothers - sisters for character - moral defects ! "

I don't know when Big brothers came to our town, they specifically sought out the churches and encouraged their members to participate.

[RobbyS]

You will enjoy reading the following, if you have not already.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0310/articles/uhlmann.html

[First Amendment]

Their expressed preference for incorporating the laws and mores of Europastad in America rather than be guided by the US Constitution is not just hyperbole from right wing nuts like myself, it's the truth.

Very well said.

We are definitely heading towards (halfway there) oligarchy. And what a bunch of olis.

My only hope (besides faith in the Divine) is that as the DAZIs and homo-nazis (sorry, JR, I always call them that because that's what they are) take their masks off, more and more people who haven't woken up will see the truth, and stand up for what is right. Things may have to get very bad before they get better.

Prayer is an excellent strengthener and eye opener, and then to act on the strength of prayer.

[First Amendment]

Big Brothers and Sisters have a stated agenda to enroll active homosexuals of both sexes to become Big Brothers and Sisters as mentors to children, and to not tell the parents.

[.45MAN]

This is just unbelievable. But I am not surprised and this is not the end only the beginning.

[apackof2]

I can't really say what I want to say.

This is just pure demonic activity

I am sending this story to ACLJ via their web site

[Gargantua]

This judge should be disbarred. She should be tried for her crime of perverting her oath to uphold the law, and imprisoned with the sexual deviants she would so cavalierly subject other people's children to.

I doubt she'd exude the same savoir faire when it comes to anal violation if it were her own backside she was exposing. Freakin' Rogue in a Robe numbskull.

[jjm2111]

Congress shall make no law, but the judiciary can feel free.

[apackof2]

But I am not surprised and this is not the end only the beginning.

John 16 1"All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. 2They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. 3They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.

[DannyTN]

"Big Brothers and Sisters have a stated agenda to enroll active homosexuals of both sexes to become Big Brothers and Sisters as mentors to children, and to not tell the parents. "

Really!? How do you know that?

[Ethan_Allen]

xzyins asked "Where is the biological father"

I have been on the Terri threads, and only saw this article by chance when linking to WND, from there. I just want to say that I was immersed in the Florida Statutes this morning when I linked to Chapter 985 on Juvenile Delinquency. These statutes are ripe for abuse in the same way the disabled, like Terri Schiavo are being abused under "health" and guardianship laws. It was one scary document. I suspect that this crap is going on in all the states. There were many, many things that got my ire up, but check out their definition of PARENT:

(40) "Parent" means a woman who gives birth to a child and a man whose consent to the adoption of the child would be required under s.63.02(1). If a child has been legally adopted, the term "parent" means the adoptive mother or father of the child. The term does not include an individual whose parental relationship to the child has been legally terminated, or an alleged or prospective parent, unless the parental status falls within the terms of either s.30.503(1) or s.63.062(1).

Now, I played tag with this section and that section all morning, and maybe if one would go to s.63.02(1), one would find the inclusion of "biological father" under "parent", but wouldn't one expect to find "biological father" listed as an obvious explanation under the definition of the word "parent"????

Before I even saw this "no 'homophobic' teaching" article, I foresaw just this sort of thing being a crime under the Florida Statutes (and probably under every other State's statutes). According to all the reading I've done over the years warning about the anti-Christian laws making their way through all the legislatures, the law is plainly and ultimately anti-Christian, not to mention anti-freedom, as are what seems to be a preponderance of the judges in this country, starting with 6 of the justices of the highest court in the land, after their remark that the US needs to meld with the laws of the rest of the [pagan, atheistic, anti-Christian] world.

My computer is overloaded, and I cannot link you to the FL Statutes. If I tried to type it, it would probably be wrong, because it is so long. It starts out http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?.......

[Ethan_Allen]

Bump. See my post above.

[WillRain]

Feel free to link us to a completely without bias source.........

Don't forget to pack a lunch while you serch.

[RnMomof7]

This absolutely HAS to be unconstitutional.

If it is not we can kiss our freedom of speech and religion good bye

[jwalsh07]

I have to go now, but the ninth amendment is the operative one in this case.,,To be continued....

But of course, the ninth and fourteenth amendments are the holy grail for the proponents of an overly strong central government as dictated to the proletarait by the judicial tyrannists.

The ninth amendment is a restraint on the feds, not a granting of omnipotence.

[First Amendment]

There have been more than a few articles on FR detailing the agenda of Big Brothers and Sisters. It is really too bad, because they used to be a worthy organization, helping children who had no fathers, or came from broken homes. But the homosexuals have infiltrated them, as they have so many other institutions. This has been their stated plan, read the summary of their admitted agenda in the book "After the Ball" by two homosexual activists, people here have the summary and have posted it numerous times.

There may be some individual local branches of Big B's that do not toe the line on this; scripter may know.

So the Big Brothers are now an arm of the "gay" agenda, and do you think it is wise for a male homosexual to be a mentor and older "friend" of a troubled adolescent or child?

[Protagoras]

The ninth amendment is a restraint on the feds, not a granting of omnipotence.

The ninth is a restraint on anyone who would attempt to enumerate rights. Particularly tyrants in power. Whatever level.

[DannyTN]

"So the Big Brothers are now an arm of the "gay" agenda, and do you think it is wise for a male homosexual to be a mentor and older "friend" of a troubled adolescent or child? "

No of course not. That's a horrendous idea.

I was hoping that it was just a few local chapters that had been infiltrated by the homosexuals and not the entire organization though.

[Political Junkie Too]

What happened to all the Constitutional "penumbras" on privacy? Did the recent solar flares blow them away?

-PJ