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Moore also quoted scripture, historical documents and previous state court rulings that he said backed his view.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David White, state coordinator for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Alabama, said Moore's opinion reflected outdated thinking.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.

[rwfromkansas]

Just because the chief justice has moral opinions AND PUTS THEM IN HIS OPINION does not mean he is not basing his decision upon the law. He did so, but interjecting his own opinion in addition, which he has a right to do.

[murdoog]

The teenagers were already living with their father. They had no business being uprooted from what appears to be a stable home. The judges came to a proper decision.

Then the judges should have based their decision on that fact and left out the extraneous judges.(I don't disagree with the decision.)

[Burkeman1]

I am sure you are right. It is not the outcome of the case I disagree with. But it is questionable to say the least for a judge to insert what he thinks is right into a decision that should be based on precedent and law. Tht is all I am saying. I am not sure if the bulk of his decision and formal opinion was not based on such factors and the media is just pulling some selected quotes from his written opinion. But regardless- his decision could have rested on simply the law.

[Brad’s Gramma]

You are wrong.

Argue all you want, but I GUARANTEE you.....if you're not fearing God here on earth....uhh...you're gonna be in a little bit of trouble on Judgement Day.

[lavaroise]

I do sense the alarm of a judge who could be recruiting or making judgments to favor recruiting for his cult or interfering with other cults via judicial fiat. THe problem then remains, can a christian judge judge in unchristian ways? Can he allow the violating of his own code? The answer lays in the contract he took with the state and the nation, that, he cannot violate because when went into this contract he already knew whether or not he would be forced in decisions that would violate his own code, decisions which yet would be mandated by law.

So, what is the contract between the judge and the US constitution? If indeed he violated a law because he did not want to violate his belief, then he was wrong. If he followed the law but appended a religious argument that was not in contradiction with the law, but just as support to put the ruling in different light or future additional thesis to research on, then I would not see anything wrong.

[Carry_Okie]

You are entitled to think that, but by universalizing it to ALL G/L parents, you are leaving yourself open to an exceptional example. That example will, in the eyes of the public (and ESPECIALLY the media), will be used to discredit your assertion that ALL G/L parents are destructive to their kids. With that refutation will go the policy that we shouldn't allow G/L parenting (which we should not). A policy should not be based upon exceptions, but that is what rigid thinking like yours unwittingly produces. You thus get what you oppose, and will be judged accordingly.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

Don't care more about your righteousness than the truth, or you will get to wear your righteousness while losing the battle to build a just and righteous society. The truth is, that a very few kids come out of G/L families and become fine decent Godly people in adulthood. That does not mean that the POLICY is a good one for society.

As I said, good outcome, bad judicial opinion.

[Burkeman1]

No- he doesn't have "a right" to do it. He can do it. Judges do it allthe time usually with liberal results but it is not "a right" and it is against what our constitution used to mean.

[Boxsford]

Okay, but surely Judge Moore wrote more than what we see here in this article. It's foolish of some people here to bash the character of this judge based on what this reporter has written.

[Vote 4 Nixon]

Burke you need to lighten up fella. When is the last time that a judge ruled on a moral issue that the judge didnt take a liberal stance? The point is that it has been a very long time since we have seen a judge standing up for American values that we rejoice to have a victory. In every courtroom in America everyday it is our American way of life and our values that are on trial I can't speak for everybody here but I for one am sick of taking sh*t laying down. If it takes judges like this to turn the tide than so be it.

[Vote 4 Nixon]

thks

[rwfromkansas]

This is consistent with tons of early court opinions in this country with invoked God and morality, TIED TOGETHER with precedent. This is perfectly acceptable for a judge to do.

[Burkeman1]

Not sure what you are saying. If you are saying that a Christian judge should base his decisions only on the bible and not the written law or the intent of the people then congrtulations- you have wiped out western political philosophy for at least a thousand years.

[rwfromkansas]

You can write a separate opinion if you so choose expressing why you agree with the majority, but mention different reasons.

[Tennessee_Bob]

You poor excuse for a woman ought to be able to come up with something better than that!!!

Aww, Gramma, you know they won't...it's too easy a ploy to use.

[rwfromkansas]

I doubt you have read any court decisions unless they occurred in this century, which explains your shock that natural law would be invoked. But, this was common in the 1800's. You need to stop acting like it is such a horrible and uncommon thing because that is just not true. Read some of the early legal commentaries as well....religion is everywhere.

[Burkeman1]

Then there is no difference between you and the ones you oppose.

Sir Thomas Moore:

"Would you strike down every law in the land to defeat the devil himself?"

Young student:

"Yes, to defeat the devil I would."

Sir Thomas Moore:

"And having struck down all the law of the land in pursuit of the Devil- when he turns against you - on what will you rely having destroyed all law?"

[Vote 4 Nixon]

right on the money

[Brad’s Gramma]

I know, I know....but a girl can hope? That one really has gotten old, though. I do feel bad for all the guys who've been nailed with this accusation....and on the flip side of that, you cry wolf enough times, people don't listen anymore, and who really gets hurt??????

[Bigg Red]

I agree with the position, just not how he expresses it.

I very much agree with you. My personal opinion is that there is no way the homosexual mother should be granted custody, and I am sure that this judge is a good and decent man. That said, though I have no legal expertise whatsoever, it sounds like he went too far in the way he presented it and put so much religion into his statements that a higher court will throw out his decision. It's as if he's asking for an overturn. Surely, his training prepared him better.

[Brad’s Gramma]

You're most welcome. :-)