Second, Judge Moore's comments have no precedential value. The opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court, which Judge Moore did not author, merely holds that a state appellate court was wrong to overturn the state trial court's factual (as opposed to legal) determination that the mother did not bear her burden to prove that the father was abusive and that a transfer of custody to the mother would materially improve the lives of the children. Her homosexuality entered into the Supreme Court's opinion only minimally, if at all. The Supreme Court did not hold that homosexuality was grounds for denying custody.
Judge Moore wrote a concurring opinion in which he offers his opinion that (among other things) traditional legal and extra-legal abhorrence of homosexuality should be grounds for denying custody. Judge Moore's concurrence, which no one else signed on to and which in my view is rambling and nearly incoherent, does not bind any court.
The opinion is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=al&vol=1002045&invol=2 (Sorry, I don't know how to link)
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).