I'd have a touch of respect for the ACLU if they took up this case.
thomas tucker | 10.31.03 - 11:41 am | #

Unbelievable.

I thought it was settled all the way back to Meyer v. Nebraska in the 1920s that parents have a right to control the upbringing of their children? I can think of at least five other cases off the top of my head that would suggest this directive and custody decision is constitutionally questionable at best, and unconstitutional at worst (not to mention, of course, morally wrong!)

Keep highlighting these stories, Mark. It's the only way we know where to fight back and what we're fighting against. They can only win by pushing their agenda in courts if no one notices.
Kimberly | 10.31.03 - 11:48 am | #

I totally agree that this is ridiculous but my immediate thought was...well, that woman made her bed when she embraced homosexuality, now she has to lay in it and accept the fallout from her previous behaviour. There are consequences to sin, unfortunately.
Michelle K. | 10.31.03 - 11:49 am | #

Yeah, that is amazing.

So judges now think they can limit free speech rights in the private home, eh?

I wish I was in that bastard's precinct so I could vote him out.
Yahmdallah | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 11:50 am | #

Well, this is what happens when lovers of whatever sex are accepted into the home and made part of "parenting", and then society and the courts accept that. It's hardly surprising. I mean, you have the biological mother, who is obviously unstable and will teach her daughter to be a bigot, or the "non-biological parent", who is obviously loving and caring or she never would get involved in the first place, and is obviously totally pure and righteous in person and motive - I mean, what would you do? (she asked, tongue firmly in cheek - but that's how secular people are starting to see these things and we have to understand this - we're fighting a totally different view of the world)

And if the ACLU did come into this for any reason, now which side do you think they'd come in on???
Meg Q | 10.31.03 - 12:13 pm | #

There is another intersting side to the issue. The judge's order was around the word "homophobic". If taken literally, this order could make sense: don't bring her up to be AFRAID of homosexuals. I don't think anyone would object to that.

Unfortunately, as the article states, this word now means a whole variety of things, from being violent to homosexuals (the meaning with which gays try to bully us) to considering homosexuality wrong (the concept gays refuse to consider).

And so we have lost another word to the vocabulary of the secular culture. How are we to discuss anything if the proper words for that discussion are taken away?
Roberto | 10.31.03 - 1:03 pm | #

And actually, Roberto, the phrase the article quoted from the decision was "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."

"Can be considered homophobic"??? By whom? So, her rights to parent her child are to be governed by somebody's (whose?) subjective judgment that something is homophobic? Does that mean she cannot have a certain look on her face when she passes two men making out in the street?

Legally and morally, this decision is obscene.
Kath | 10.31.03 - 1:53 pm | #

A precedent for this incident might have been the infamous Turkey Baster case. The lesbian who inseminated her lover via turkey baster was allowed full visitation rights to the subsequent child when the pair broke up.
Sandra Miesel | 10.31.03 - 2:35 pm | #

I know you guys probably dont get it but thats what this is all about. The demand for "significant other" insurance coverage and all. Its about control. Abuse is so high in gay circles they think if they have mock marriage it will make things more stable but dont think about the fact that it will just stabalize the abuse. I gaurantee the one lady left because of control issues and is now going to be tortured daily by the other woman. This little girl is going to go visit with her other mommy and be taught to report back everything her mother does. That and theres gonna be the "Well I dont make you do that so tell the judge you want to live with me" situation. Adult unrelated to the child should not have visitation right.

Kinda makes me wonder whatss gonna happen when a jilted lover is gonna try to take 3rd party custody of a womans kids because he/she and the mother/father had an affair. If custody is based on who you have sex with then alot of people are gonna be in alot of trouble. That and I(my husband really) have tried to help 2 young men by letting them stay with us. Do they have a right to custody to my children because they made a PB&J or 2.. Yikes?
Josephine | 10.31.03 - 3:01 pm | #

Michell K,

I understand your sentiment but I can tell you frfrom years of starvation beatings(incuding being burned with cigeretts) and sexual abuse that noone willpay more than this child. The homosexual pagan lifestyle is disgusting and horrifying to the point when you come out of it there is no base for reality. She might have made her bed but the child has done nothing wrong. Can you imagine walking into a bathroom looking into a tub full of pinworms and thinking "should I just rinse them down the drain and hope the dont come back up or wait till I get to school to shower?", Well bet she will have to. And yes pinworms were the most commen thing I had to see. That and aunty yuck mouth with the shiny lip blisters. Its nasty. I wouldnt be opposed to taking every child from thier "gay parents" and putting them somewhere safe. As Ive said before you dont get past age 4 untouched!
Josephine | 10.31.03 - 3:08 pm | #

I didn't see anywhere in the article that the non-biological woman had legally adopted the child. (I don't know if the legal issues in regard to a situation like this.) But if she did not adopt the child, why does she get any sort of visitation at all? If the couple were an unmarried & straight, would the non-biological person be given visitation rights? What about a married couple? Would the non-biological adult be given visitation if he or she didn't legally adopt the child? I suspect there's precedent for such examples. If the answer to these questions is *NO*, then I guess the real question here is: Why is a homosexual couple given such a privelage & not a straight couple?

Obscene, indeed.
Gene Branaman | 10.31.03 - 4:25 pm | #

Josephine, I am horrified by what you have written and I think perhaps you misunderstood me. I don't mean to say that the child has made her bed and must now lay in it. What the child is exposed to is a tragedy. What I meant was that that her mother, once a practicing homosexual and probably responsible for furthering the "gay as victim" agenda (e.g. don't persecute me by telling me that I'm living in sin, what we're doing is a-o.k.)is now having to live with the consequences of her previous choices in a very nasty way. It's sad, but predictable. We see it in the heterosexual population too.
Michelle K. | 10.31.03 - 9:13 pm | #

Greetings!

Mark - I just sent you an email a little bit ago explainign why it is inappropriate to compare gay activism to the Nazis (or Fascists).

And all of you commentors who moan over the so-called "cult of victimhood", just stop it!!!!!!

Whatever you think of homosexual acts, people who experience same sex attraction are the minority. These popel are harrassed in life, both verbally and physically!

The difference between gay tactics and nazi (or fascists) is that the nazis and fascists were the majority who were persecuting an innocent minority without provocation.

Gays and lesbians who stand up to the majority are only exercising self defense, which is drastically different than the nazis and fascists!

And this whole crying about "cults of victomhood".....

People. Get over yourselves!

There are victims of real injustices in this world.

A tenn called a "fag" and beat up by his classmates is suffering an injustice! Matthew Shepherd suffered an injustice. More gays are beaten and even killed in a year than than straight people even verbally threatened in your life-times!

The article Mark quoted says a lawer asks if pages are to be ripped form the Bible. That would only be 4 pages according to footnote 140 to paragraph 2357 of the CCC, and in my own blog, I show all 4 of these passages do not refer to what we mean by homosexuality today!

There are more pages of the Bible supporting slavery (and terrorism). Do Chritsians feel a need to rip these pages out in order to disuade slavery and terrorism?

C'mon.

Again, I am not arguing aboyt sexual acts here. I am arguing about the way MARK and the rest of you refer to people who are suffering just because they experience life differently than many of you. Instead of trying to understand and show love for these people, you vilify them by them nazis and fascist in a disengenuous manner.

Others are saying that you should keep posting this stuff Mark. I am telling you that your actions appear sinful to me!!!!!!

But I still love you brother. (Love the sinner and hate the sin).

It is morally wrong to call gays and lesbians nazis and fascists just because you disagree with them....and they are justified to push back (even with threats) in a way the nazis and fascists were not justified!

Peace and Blesings!
jcecil3
jcecil3 | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 11:16 pm | #

More gays are beaten and even killed in a year than than straight people even verbally threatened in your life-times!

Err -- what percentage of all murders and assaults in this country do you claim are committed against homosexuals?
Mary | 11.01.03 - 3:40 pm | #

As a compromise, I would suggest that the child be raised as an Episcopalian.
Jeff | 11.03.03 - 8:51 am | #