Posted on 02/18/2002 2:50:21 PM PST by 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Moore also quoted scripture, historical documents and previous state court rulings that he said backed his view.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David White, state coordinator for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Alabama, said Moore's opinion reflected outdated thinking.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.
Where did he a'hem...."insert" [LOL] his political opinion?
That's what I said--as opposed to your statement that the law is what the people say it is.
Or do you think judges should be able to say the law means whatever they say it means regardless of what it actually says.
I didn't say or imply that--nor did Judge Moore do that, so your argument is a non-sequitor. Judge Moore based his decision on the law. Homosexuality is immoral and evil, and past courts have so ruled.
Our judicial system is based on biblical law so the Judge has every right to state his opinion on the subject; after all, we Christians have to put up with the views and opinions of atheist judges who may also be morally bankrupt.
I'm one of those "love the sinner, hate the sin" kinda person, myself. I lived back in the olden days when homosexuality was considered a mental disease until a group of homosexuals pressured the American Psychiatric Association into modifying its stance on homosexuality which renders the narcissitic component moot, academically, but the roots of homosexuality do not disappear through focusing mainly on the sexual component. There's alot more involved in homosexuality than the sex.
IMHO, we, as a country, better start trying to reverse the effects of liberal/leftist decadence in our society before we spiral down to the point where the good will become prey to the unevolved in our midst.
I will assume the Court and State in this case isn't leaving the father to abuse his children. That said, I'm disturbed at the number of "conservative" "freepers" on this thread who would accept judicial activism because they agree with a decision. There's much praise on this thread for the judge following his religious faith, not the law alone or even simply Natural Law, and offer kudos to him for expressed feelings in a judicial opinion. As a judge, not unlike a juror, it's his sworn duty to set aside personal bias--in this case regarding homosexuals and render a decision founded and defended only in legal precident and legal thought.
There was no need to interject 'Biblical precident' into this opinion and that may well, under the operating Church/State separation doctrine, undermine the opinion should it be appealable. IMHO, seemingly easily given over to his passions, he's demonstrated that he hasn't got what it takes to be a Justice. He should be satisfied interpreting and applying the law or find a new line of work.
This man is a judge, not a sunday school teacher.If we had more Sunday School teachers serving as judges, ruling in favor of families instead of perverts,
maybe this country wouldn't be so far gone, our cities tyrannized by hoodlums and criminals.
Huh?
Not so. What conservatives oppose is the twisting and mangling of Constitutional intent to fit the whims of our latter-day Socialists who infest the halls of power.
I tell you this: If this judge had ruled in 1802 the way he ruled in 2002, not one person would have raised an objection, because in those days this was a Republic understood to be founded on Judaeo-Christian principles.
That said, his ruling will be overturned because the only "religious" principles acceptable in court decisions are those of the God of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
On that we agree. Many of the things we rail at here on FR, we lay at the feet of "leaders." But in our Republic, leaders don't arise as the result of a drunken rally in a Munich beer hall, nor a meteoric rise at the head of a vast army of plebians.
We elect them. When we elect good men and women, we get "good" government that is benign with respect to its own people.
When we elect bad people, we get... Well, we get pretty much what we decry today.
Note the reporter stated the Court's decision was based on a host of things, including scripture, etc..
This is about as credible as a new book claiming that there is a hitherto-unknown fifth Galilean moon of Jupiter. The notion that such a thing could have gone unnoticed until now is ludicrous on its face.
I thought that is what all EX's are..
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.