Posted on 10/30/2003 10:37:12 PM PST by 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.
Clark and Elsey McLeod were in a lesbian relationship that broke up after Clark became a Christian and concluded homosexual behavior was wrong.
Another example of someone having their **genetics altered**??? This woman was homosexual. And now, after coming to Christ, is no longer homosexual. Since the pro-death-by-AIDS/homosexual crowd says that homosexuality is genetic she must have had her genetics changed.
Clark and Elsey McLeod were in a lesbian relationship that broke up after Clark became a Christian and concluded homosexual behavior was wrong.
Another example of someone having their **genetics altered**??? This woman was homosexual. Now, after accepting Christ, no longer is. Since the pro-death-by-AIDS/homosexual crowd says that homosexuality is genetic she must have had her genetics changed.
My bad...
You're not going to believe this outrageous decision ... bump!!!
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
A few Tammy Bruce articles posted on Free Republic:
SUNDAY Q & A: A lesbian takes on the 'thought police'
LOL< this goes beyond unconstitutional and enters the realm of anti-constitutional.
But if Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Kennedy and their fellow travelers on the left side oof the SCOTUS get their way, the US Constitution will simply be a guideline for the oligarchies, not the law.
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.
She would be within the clymer's order as long as she taught to have a healthy natural feal for homosexuals.
What is it, agrophobia? An unatural fear of heights. Nobody in their right mind would deny there should be a natural fear of heights.
Think so?
Read SCOTUS' decision re LAwrence v Texas.
Pay particular attention to their citing of European mores and their declaration that homosexuals are entitled to respect. Take a glance at Kennedy's "transcendent liberty" thesis and then get back to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.