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Moore also quoted scripture, historical documents and previous state court rulings that he said backed his view.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David White, state coordinator for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Alabama, said Moore's opinion reflected outdated thinking.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.
Adulterers and fornicators, if they are "straight", are certainly sinners just as are we all. But, they are not perverts. Sexually deviant. Socially malformed.
Inherently better suited to raising kids than are sexually deviant, socially malformed perverts. You got a problem with that?
Actually, it is queers who are easily given over to their misdirected passions. This fine Judge merely hasn't got what it takes to be a faggot.
Mr. Reporter, I'm from Alabama and he's not embarrasing me.
BTW, the constitution has no direct language on the pro's or con's of homosexuality or lesbianism. If this decision is reviewed by the US Supreme Court, the SCOTUS could use this case to set parameters in the courts definition of individuals rights.
Better still, pass an amendment to the US Constitution that makes Homosexuality and lesbianism "abnormal behavior" and not recognized as "natural". This way, all of the "rights" that the G&L comunity want would evaporate.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.
Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. - Dan 5:5-6
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Mat 10:28
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. - 2 Cor 5:11
Nope. It means shaking in your boots knee-knocking terror to the disobedient.
I'll let the Apostle Paul speak for himself:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. - 1 Cor 6:9
Given that, I wonder on what basis you consider homosexuals uniquely immoral and unqualified to be parents.
Khepera, for what you are saying to be valid, you would have to show through Scripture that homosexuals - versus adulterers and fornicators - are uniquely "evil" and unqualified to be parents. You would also have to show that judges have a moral authority that exceeds their authority granted under the Constitution. I don't believe that you can. But if you care to try, rather than call us "slimy", then I would appreciate it. God bless.
I would like to point out that "Evil" is "Evil" unique or not. I do not support "Evil" people in any endevour. Especially parenthood.
OK, here's one more for you:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Tim 3:16-17
Scripture is useful. The Word of Khepera... not so useful. Know what I mean?
I'm having some problems with this statement, as everything we do, and everything we are is based entirely on our personal beliefs. I often hear from devout christians that our priority list should be 1. God, 2. Family, and 3. Work. whether or not you agree that is the way it should be, it doesn't refute that many people believe it. If we truly are to follow the will of the Redeemer of mankind, then God cannot be separated from our family or work lives. He influences our every decision. While you may disagree with Jefferson's opinion--and I agree the quote presented isn't conclusive to the topic--our founders' thoughts are essential to determining their intents when they formed this nation. Even though Jefferson wasn't present for the convention, he was influential, and the authors of the Federalist Papers even quoted Jefferson in their writings.
Our founders never intended to separate religious thought from public decisions. They knew, in fact, that such a thing isn't possible. So when they wrote the Constitution, they made specific rules about who could do what, and in the process, they forbade Congress from either establishing a religion or prohibiting its free exercise. Moore, as a judge, cannot establish a religion, but he has been granted authority to utilize his discernment that he's accumulated over the years to make decisions/judgements on particular cases. If his religious views prevent him from following the law, that is one thing, but I haven't read anything suggesting that is the case here. Quite the contrary, in fact.
You state that he should follow the law, and I ask you, how has he violated it?
Yeah. That's what I thought. Buh-bye.
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.