Court Case On Parental Rights

[cmotherofpirl]

Judge to Christian mom: No 'homophobic' teaching

In

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: October 31, 2003

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A Colorado mother is appealing a child custody decision in which a court barred her from teaching homosexuality is wrong.

Cheryl Clark, who says she is a Christian, has been ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John W. Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."

The directive arose from the decision to award joint parenting responsibilities for her daughter to a practicing homosexual.

"Forbidding the raising of children in the parent's Christian beliefs is an anathema to parental rights and religious freedom," said Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Florida-based Liberty Counsel. "Must the mother rip out pages of the Bible that say homosexuality is against nature, or must she cover her child's ears if her pastor preaches about sexual purity?"

Staver explained to WorldNetDaily Clark and Elsey McLeod were in a lesbian relationship that broke up after Clark became a Christian and concluded homosexual behavior was wrong.

The Denver court gave McLeod joint custody of Clark's adopted daughter, Emma, even though McLeod had no legal relationship to the girl. It also, in conjunction with the ruling in favor of McLeod, said Clark cannot raise her child with any religious teaching or upbringing that is "homophobic."

Staver said courts cannot "give parents a no-win decision of either abandoning their Christian beliefs or abandoning their children."

The definition of "homophobic," Staver noted, is "all across the board," from being fearful of homosexuals to disagreeing with their lifestyle.

"It takes no stretch of the imagination to envision a judge finding the mother in contempt of court for merely teaching her daughter about the Biblical truths on homosexuality," he said.

Liberty Counsel filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the mother in her case before the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Staver notes the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to "worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience." Similarly, he said, the high court has acknowledged "the values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of our children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society."

Another troubling aspect of this case, he said, is the award of visitation and joint parenting responsibilities to a third-party who has no legal relationship to the daughter or the mother.

The decision, according to Staver, stands in direct conflict with precedent throughout the country that denies visitation to a third party based solely on that person's prior sexual relationship with the legal parent.

Staver told WND he is not aware of any similar cases in the U.S., although there have been some in which a judge has told a parent not to say anything degrading about the other parent's lifestyle.

None, to his knowledge, however, have gone to the extent of Coughlin, issuing a directive that restricts a parent's religious practice.

[Anna]

yikes!

And has the lesbian lady been ordered by the courts not to be "heterophobic" in front of the child?

[Jake Huether]

You know...

I wasn't gunna post this, because I know it's a sensative topic.

But:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nciesacceptgays

This really upsets me. They are so blind.

Children will be brought into a loving family?

What!

A loving family that statistically wont last but a few months.

God have mercy on us!

What adults do amongst themselves is one thing, but when it has to do with the life (physical and spiritual) of a CHILD, then...

It would be better if they had a great millstone hung around their necks and they were cast into the sea.

[BeenaBobba]

The ruling of the judge was kind of scary, actually. It so blatantly infringes on the Christian mother's right to practice her religion. It also infringes upon her freedom of speech. But let me guess: The pro-lesbian "mother" will be able to say whatever she pleases in regards to this. The scales definitely aren't balanced on this one.

Funny how the ACLU isn't all over this, but then again, the media and a good part of academia are liberally biased. To them, discrimination is a one way street.

Sheesh.

God bless,

Jennifer Benjamin

[hyperdulia again]

WHY did i click on this?

These two women had and raised a child together, their relationship ended, that does not mean that relationship between the child and the other parent should have to end.

Lord please do have mercy on us.

[Anna]

Hi hyper,

I didn't read the story that way.

I read it as the one woman is a parent, and the still-practicing lesbian is not.

If they had both adopted this child together, they would both be parents.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

So, this judge appears to be forcing a child to have visitation with someone who isn't legally or biologically a parent, and giving that woman not only equal, but (it appears) supreme authority over what is taught the child.

If we substituted "pro-choice" for lesbian, and "abortion" for homosexuality and "anti-abortion" for "homophobia," I would still feel the same way.

Pax Christi. <><

[hyperdulia again]

neither law nor blood define a parent child relationship, mama. :P

[cmotherofpirl]

Maybe not in your heart , but certainly legally.

I love my extra kids but if something happened to them I wold have no say in their care or treatment.

[Winchester]

How does one teach a child to have a phobia? Oh, I get it, the judge is using a loaded buzzword, thereby dismissing any reasonable opposition to his position.

I hate newspeak

[Good Friday]

From my weblog, The Tower:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... - The Constitution of the United States

Make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic. - A ruling by Denver County Circuit Judge John W. Coughlin

- - - - - - - - - -

For starters, the above two statements -- one of them from the Constitution, another from a judge who thinks he's God -- are polar opposites. One of them says that the government can't tell people what religious beliefs to hold or prohibit their freedom of speech, and another says that this parent should not allow the child to have a religious upbringing that teaches anything "homophobic." That flies in the face of religious freedom and freedom of speech. It flies in the face of the Constitution itself. It is another example of judges making laws rather than interpreting existing laws, which is their true function.

Lest someone think I am "homophobic," let me clear that up right away. In actuality, as a quick reading of my conversion story will show, I am a homosexual who has chosen to live a chaste life in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. In other words, I have chosen to be celibate rather than acting on my impulses. Therefore, it would be idiocy to say that I am afraid of or that I hate homosexuals, since I am a homosexual. I'm just a different kind of homosexual, the kind society doesn't want you to see. But I am not, by any means, homophobic -- if by homophobic you mean that I am afraid of and/or that I hate homosexuals.

And therein lies the problem. What is the actual definition of homophobia? In its strictest sense, homophobia should be defined as fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. If it were defined in its strictest sense, I wouldn't think you would find too many homophobes in the world. There are not many who are actually afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality; rather, they dislike homosexuality. And yes, some do dislike homosexuals.

I think it's fine to say that a parent should not be allowed to teach a child to do violence -- physical or mental -- to homosexuals. If that's the definition of homophobia we're going with today, then that's okay with me. I think it's wrong for any parent or any religion to teach violence against homosexuals. The slogan "love the sinner, hate the sin" should apply in this situation and in all others. But I think it's quite another thing to say that a child should not be exposed to "homophobic" teaching, because the word "homophobic" has no standard definition.

For example, the Catholic Church teaches that living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong. The Catholic Church also teaches that homosexuals have the same human dignity as everyone else, and that violence should not be done to them. Nevertheless, many have interpreted the Catholic Church's teaching against homosexual sex as "homophobic." If this is the definition of homophobic, we're all in trouble. Because the courts have finally begun their invasion into our religious freedom, and secularism is prevailing.

Unfortunately, the standard definition of homophobia used by the secularists is anything that goes against the full expression of the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, many Protestant denominations, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, the Baha'i World Faith, Tibetan Buddhism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, and even some Neo-pagan and Wiccan groups could be seen as "homophobic" and thus not allowed to be taught to our children if the secularists have their way.

It's easy to see, then, that this is not simply a conservative vs. liberal, Christian vs. World issue. This is an issue that could affect the religious beliefs of millions and millions of non-Christian people -- from the Baha'i to the Zoroastrians. Therefore, those of all like-minded religions who wish to preserve their religious teachings regarding homosexuality should stand up in solidarity with the Catholic Church in America and declare that they will not allow the secularist judges in this country to eliminate their religious freedoms. It is crucially important that we do so.

[Aloysius]

that was an amazing piece u wrote there Good Friday!

i 100% aggree wthya.

this is an abomination to the Constitution of the United States of America. parents, not the state, have supreme authority to raise their kids according to their religious convictions.

May God have mercy on this once great nation. may we not lose the liberty which has become so dear to this great land.

:ph34r:

[marielapin]

Seriously, Nathan have you thought about becoming a writer. You are so inspiring to me. By spreading your message you could be a wonderful witness to Christ and His Church.

[JP2Iloveyou]

From my weblog, The Tower:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... - The Constitution of the United States

Make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic. - A ruling by Denver County Circuit Judge John W. Coughlin

- - - - - - - - - -

For starters, the above two statements -- one of them from the Constitution, another from a judge who thinks he's God -- are polar opposites. One of them says that the government can't tell people what religious beliefs to hold or prohibit their freedom of speech, and another says that this parent should not allow the child to have a religious upbringing that teaches anything "homophobic." That flies in the face of religious freedom and freedom of speech. It flies in the face of the Constitution itself. It is another example of judges making laws rather than interpreting existing laws, which is their true function.

Lest someone think I am "homophobic," let me clear that up right away. In actuality, as a quick reading of my conversion story will show, I am a homosexual who has chosen to live a chaste life in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. In other words, I have chosen to be celibate rather than acting on my impulses. Therefore, it would be idiocy to say that I am afraid of or that I hate homosexuals, since I am a homosexual. I'm just a different kind of homosexual, the kind society doesn't want you to see. But I am not, by any means, homophobic -- if by homophobic you mean that I am afraid of and/or that I hate homosexuals.

And therein lies the problem. What is the actual definition of homophobia? In its strictest sense, homophobia should be defined as fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. If it were defined in its strictest sense, I wouldn't think you would find too many homophobes in the world. There are not many who are actually afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality; rather, they dislike homosexuality. And yes, some do dislike homosexuals.

I think it's fine to say that a parent should not be allowed to teach a child to do violence -- physical or mental -- to homosexuals. If that's the definition of homophobia we're going with today, then that's okay with me. I think it's wrong for any parent or any religion to teach violence against homosexuals. The slogan "love the sinner, hate the sin" should apply in this situation and in all others. But I think it's quite another thing to say that a child should not be exposed to "homophobic" teaching, because the word "homophobic" has no standard definition.

For example, the Catholic Church teaches that living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong. The Catholic Church also teaches that homosexuals have the same human dignity as everyone else, and that violence should not be done to them. Nevertheless, many have interpreted the Catholic Church's teaching against homosexual sex as "homophobic." If this is the definition of homophobic, we're all in trouble. Because the courts have finally begun their invasion into our religious freedom, and secularism is prevailing.

Unfortunately, the standard definition of homophobia used by the secularists is anything that goes against the full expression of the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, many Protestant denominations, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, the Baha'i World Faith, Tibetan Buddhism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, and even some Neo-pagan and Wiccan groups could be seen as "homophobic" and thus not allowed to be taught to our children if the secularists have their way.

It's easy to see, then, that this is not simply a conservative vs. liberal, Christian vs. World issue. This is an issue that could affect the religious beliefs of millions and millions of non-Christian people -- from the Baha'i to the Zoroastrians. Therefore, those of all like-minded religions who wish to preserve their religious teachings regarding homosexuality should stand up in solidarity with the Catholic Church in America and declare that they will not allow the secularist judges in this country to eliminate their religious freedoms. It is crucially important that we do so.

By far the best piece I've ever read on this debate. Very well written inDouche.

[hyperdulia again]

Pie Jesu Domine, Libera Me!

Yhwh yireh!

[foundsheep]

Amen Good friday. We should all pray that the appeals are successful.