Alabama Chief Justice Calls Homosexuality 'Evil' in High Court Decision

Nando Times / AP ^ | 2/18/2002 | Phillip Rawls

[ex-Texan]

Alabama Chief Justice Calls Homosexuality 'Evil' In High Court Decision

By Phillip Rawls

Associated Press

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - In awarding custody of three teenagers to their father instead of their gay mother, Alabama's chief justice on Friday wrote that homosexuality is "an inherent evil" that should not be tolerated.

The nine-judge Alabama Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a Birmingham man and against his ex-wife, who now lives with her gay partner in southern California.

The parents weren't named in court documents to protect the identity of the children, ages 15, 17 and 18.

Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote that the mother's relationship made her an unfit parent and that homosexuality is "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature."

Moore also quoted scripture, historical documents and previous state court rulings that he said backed his view.

Moore is known for his decision to place washing machine-sized monuments of the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building after he became chief justice last year. He earlier became known nationally as the "Ten Commandments judge" when he fought to keep a plaque of the Biblical commandments in his courtroom as a district judge.

David White, state coordinator for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Alabama, said Moore's opinion reflected outdated thinking.

"It's unfortunate Alabama is going to be embarrassed once again by a religious fanatic in a position of power in Alabama," White said. "It's obvious he cannot judge a gay person fairly and he should be removed from office."

John Giles, state president of the Christian Coalition, said Moore's decision protected the institution of marriage and strengthened the traditional family.

The father had held custody since 1996, but the mother petitioned for custody in June 2000, contending the father had been abusive.

John Durward, the father's attorney, said his client "is very relieved." The mother's attorney, Wendy Crew, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

[Burkeman1]

Forget it- you are not following my argument. Most law is based on religion and it is quoted all the time in decisions in that context. But when a judge say that in his opinion a certain act is evil then that is quite something else altogher. I refer youto Bowers vs Hardwick in which anti sodomy laws were upheld. No need for the judge to say it was an an "evil" act. That fact had already been decided upon by the people who passed the law to begin with! We decide what is evil- that is the friggin point! Not Judges!

[cactmh]

How would it make it from Alabama to Mississippi? How do you know that the case will be overturned?

[Vote 4 Nixon]

Forrest Gump: "Somtimes you just gotta do the right thing"

[rwfromkansas]

he wrote for the court. Did you even read the statement he put in the majority opinion? The full selection was posted on this thread and it is quite clear that it is being stretched way out as some opinion...he backs up the statement with law.

[Burkeman1]

What? Huh? What is right? Funny me- I thought that is what the people decided and judges merely ruled on the law we passed and did not insert their own opinions? But thanks- I guess now we can dispense with legislative bodies altogher and just have judges rule us- thanks for the insight.

[cactmh]

Massachusetts is more conservative than Alabama?! Bwhahahahaahahahaahaahahaha....heheheheheheheeh...hahahaah.

You've got to be kidding. Just look at who Massachusetts has voted for during the last 30 years. Look at your congressmen, governors, Senators...need I go on? I've been to Massachusetts quite a bit, and it is an okay place. But, to say that Massachusetts is even close to conservative is crazy talk...

[Burkeman1]

And from my first post I said that I have not seen the whole opinion and that I hoped he backed his decision with law which he most likely did. Still- it is inappropriate to insert ones own personal beliefs into a judicial decision. I am just saying that I oppose conservative judicial activism with the same rigor that I oppose liberal judicial activism even though I may happen to agree with the outcome of conservative opinions reached in such a manner.

[rwfromkansas]

In other words, the judges are out to serve the people, now what the law says? That is a very messed up view.

[Burkeman1]

Not really. Conseravtive has many meanings. True- our elected reps are some of - if not the most - disgusting lying liberals the country is currently plauged with. But look at the local reps and our state government. The mass legislature has a large pro life faction. In fact - many of the state reps and senators who are democrats are more conservative than many southern national politicians. Boston and Massachusetts has had a weird balance for the past 30 or 40 years. Our local laws are quite conservative. There is no gay marriage bill before the house here or will there ever be. For a state that is supposed to be "liberal" we actually run our affairs socially quite the opposite. Much has been written about the subject and it gets into tribalism- Irish vs yankee- blah blah- and it is very complex- but rest assured- Massachusetts is extermely conservative in practice in local matters even though we foist liberals on the rest of the country.

[connectthedots]

Well good- perhaps you missed my original post. I said I hoped he based his ruling on law and don't know the full story. But - regardless- his quoatation of scripture (unless quoted from prior legislative record or some duly elected body of the people) is utterly beyond the pale and should raise warning flags.

If "Alice in Wonderland" cacan be cited in at least 10 U.S. Supreme Court decisions, certainly the Bible can be cited in the Alabama Supreme Court.

[Burkeman1]

What do you think judges are supoosed to do? They are supposed to analyze and interpret the meaning of the law as passed by the elected reps of the people! Not insert their own beliefs like dictators do and make up law! What is so hard to understand! This is basic civics!

[Labyrinthos]

If it is a spade you call it a spade. That judge is a true American. Thomas Jefferson himself called homesexuality a black evil.

How do you know he's a "true American?" Just because he proclaimed that a lezzie isn't entitled to custody of her child? Hitler killed homos just for sport, but that didn't make him a "true German." For all we really know this judge could have a secret, perverted life style that makes the lezzie mom look like a choir girl.

[Burkeman1]

I am not opposed to the bible being used by judges in decisions if it is relevant to the basis of the law they are ruling on! I do have a problem with a judge simply saying something is evil or wrong based on his own personal beliefs.

I am not a libertarian. If a small town in Ohio wants to outlaw dancing then so bit it- they can- and if they want to site the bible as the basis on which they pass their town ordinance banning dancing- then they can- all law comes from somewhere! But I don't want some judge in Ohio overturning that law becasue he reads the bible differently or becasue his pastor at his church says dancing is ok!

[cactmh]

Believe what you want buddy...I lived in VT for a few years and I am quite familiar with the prevailing ideology in the region. The typical Republican in the North East would be a democrat here. BTW, how is Massachusetts with respect to gun control laws? (you don't have to answer that one)

[Zack Nguyen]

Ah, but without the Bible we wouldn't have law. At least not law that would make much sense, anyway.

[Burkeman1]

Therein lies the rub. A Democrat in Massachusetts is often times more conservative than a GOP baystater. I voted for John Silber- a conservative Democrat- for governor over William Weld- the very definition of a RINO. Parties mean nothing here. You have to live here to understand. Dapper O'Neil- a city councilman and Democrat from South Boston was more conservative and vocal about it than George Wallace well into the 90's. A democrat from Alabama would be a member of the GOP here and a Democrat from Massachusetts would more than likely be a Republican in Alabama.

[Burkeman1]

Sigh- I am not saying that law can't be based on religion. It obvioulsy can and indeed that is where most law comes from. But judges are not supposed to decide cases on what they think law should be based on- but on what the law says as passed by the elected reps of the people.

[FormerLib]

...his quoatation of scripture...is utterly beyond the pale and should raise warning flags.

I'm sure the combined memberships of the ACLU and the so-called People For the American Way agree with you 100%.