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Moore also quoted scripture, historical documents and previous state court rulings that he said backed his view.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David White, state coordinator for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Alabama, said Moore's opinion reflected outdated thinking.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.
I never even hinted at this area. On the contrary, I pointed out that if the judge was to condemn homosexuality as "evil" and rely on the Bible for support, that he would have to also condemn fornication and adultery. If public policy is to be informed by Scripture, then what we apply to homosexuality we should apply to fornication and adultery as well. These behaviors should also be weighed when judging the fitness of a parent. And I do indeed believe that one who openly practices fornication and adultery is less desireable than a parent who practices homosexuality, but is discrete around their children. I base this on a plain reading of Scripture, which condemns fornication and adultery in the strongest of terms, right along with homosexuality and prostitution.
The Church must be a consistent voice against sexual immorality, and not risk being (rightfully) condemned as lopsided in our condemnation of homosexuality.
You seem to assume he does not condemn fornication and adultery. Obviously, the Judge cites all of scripture, as none of it is separable from the rest among believers. Further, there was no allegation of unfaithfulness on the part of the husband. Only "abuse", which the lesbian failed to prove in court.
I didn't say that a homosexual qualifies as a "morally fit role-model (parent)," so I'm not sure where you got lost. I said that if we were forced to choose in a case between two natural parents who were both sexually immoral, I would rather award custody to a homosexual who showed discretion than a fornicator/adulterer who flaunted their sin in front of their kids. We need to model sexual morality for our kids. I would rather a gay person who hides their practices from their kids raise them than a straight person who has their sex buddies coming in and out of their bedrooms in front of the kids.
Is this really such a difficult point for you to absorb?
As for my "scripto-babble", what in the world are you talking about? Come on, friend. I provided some Scriptural evidence, in context, for what I believed. You haven't even bothered yet. Get busy, then, and show me where I'm wrong!
I'm not arguing the particulars of this case, but the ramifications of the judge's comments. If he calls homosexuality "evil" and does not award custody based on that, then he must be aware that if he relies on Scripture to inform his decisions, then he will look at adultery and fornication the same way.
Like you, I have no reason to doubt that the Judge does so believe.
And allow me to correct you: I did cite scripture in my previous relpy to you.
QUESTION: Would you stand before the throne of God and argue this lesbian's case as you have done here? For that is just what you are doing.
Your opinion that a series of unmarried male-female relationships "flaunted" before children is somehow more amoral a lesson than a homosexual relationship which is not flaunted invokes the converse of your very argument...
...neither is acceptable parental role-modeling. Let's leave alone the fact that one falls within God's specific plan for men's and women's sexual behavior, and the other is the perverted, unnatural opposite.
You can't hide things like this from kids. Kids know when mommy's boyfriend is a girl. There is no way to keep this from them, or to keep this from crippling them during their formative years.
I'm not arguing "this lesbian's case." I won't even repeat my point, because this is just getting too old.
Thanks for your time and effort. Be well.
That is revolting, and you're not getting of the hook. Please cite the scripture which you feel supports this nonsense. Or, admit your error.
The main point of my earlier post still stands, though. This is not an opinion holding that the mother's homosexuality makes her an unfit custodial parent. This is a case where the mother previously petitioned for the father to have sole custody, then sought to get custody for herself, but could not show that the facts justified the switch (i.e., did not submit evidence showing the father qualified as abusive and that she could provide a better home).
or a pedophile, or a sheep poker or....
Before you can conclude anything based on that statement, you have to wonder how many New England couples just didn't bother to marry at all, but instead chose the easy way...shacking up?
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.