Parent Forbidden To Say Homosexuality Wrong

[Morgan]

This is an interesting multi-faceted court case taking place in Colorado, whose final outcome may influence what happens in Canada in the future, since the judges here openly admit that they take international case law into consideration in the course of their deliberations. I'll cut and paste the gist of the article.

*Is this an example of gay rights suppressing the rights of others -- free speech rights, religious rights?

*Or this a case of the courts rightly looking out for the interests of children in a divorce? ie. the judge feels that negative statements about homosexuality will jeopardize the child's relationship with the other parent, who is a practising homosexual.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22726-4541r.htm

Mother appeals ruling on gays

By Valerie Richardson, Washington Times, Nov.5,2003

-A Christian mother is appealing a judge's decision that prohibits her from teaching her daughter that homosexuality is wrong.

-Cheryl Clark, who left a lesbian relationship in 2000 after converting to Christianity, was ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John 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."

-Dr. Clark filed her appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals last week. Her former lover, Elsey McLeod, was awarded joint custody of the child, an 8-year-old girl who is Dr. Clark's daughter by adoption.

-The case has raised red flags among some Christians, who say the decision infringes upon the mother's right to freedom of expression and religion.

-While custody cases involving homosexual parents are becoming more common, the Denver decision goes beyond previous court orders, said Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a public-interest law firm based in Orlando, Fla.

-"We've seen cases around the country where the court will order one parent not to say anything negative about the other spouse's lifestyle, but this goes much further than anything we've seen," said Mr. Staver, whose firm specializes in constitutional issues involving marriage. Mr. Staver said he filed a friend-of-the-court brief last month with the Colorado Court of Appeals at the request of Dr. Clark's attorney and that the order effectively prevents the mother from practicing her religion in her daughter's presence.

-"The mother is a Christian, and that's a major part of her lifestyle," he said. "She would be prohibited from reading her daughter Romans 1 or anything in the Bible on sexual fidelity in marriage, going to Bible study, or listening to a sermon on marriage or fidelity."

-Dr. Clark had argued that Miss McLeod should not have joint custody because she was not interested in the adoption while it was taking place and that it was never their intention that she would act as a parent.

[SirRiff]

Her former lover, Elsey McLeod, was awarded joint custody of the child, an 8-year-old girl who is Dr. Clark's daughter by adoption.

well this is the important point. the child has another parent, equally imporant i would assume, and its not good parenting to demean this other women, who has a great deal of importance in teh childs life. just like a man telling her child that his black mother doesnt love her because she is black. its obviously harmfull to the child and could needlessly traumatize her relations with her other parent.

any parent that teaches hate is really doing a disservice to their child. its not like every children is perfectly educated, and perfectly feed, and perfectly attended to. teaching hate just shows you are willing to waste time instead of helping your child in many other areas.

there are so many obese kids these days, or under-educated kids taht you gotta wonder what it more important to that childs quality of life.

SirRiff

[Moderate Centrist]

I don't believe the court should interfer with what people think.

The law should punish action not thought. Lots of negative statements are made about spouses in divorce cases so this is to be expected.

Divorce always harms the child but I don't think special rulings are required here.

[Nuclear]

The courts are trying to tell this women her religious beleifs are wrong and that she has to teach her child a policially correct version of her religion. I plan to teach my children that homosexuality is sinful, in compliance with my religious beliefs. I will not teach them to treat these people as less than human but I will teach them that their practices are forbidden by my religion. This is what this woman is doing and they have no right to stop her.

[righturnonred]

QUOTE 

Her former lover, Elsey McLeod, was awarded joint custody of the child, an 8-year-old girl who is Dr. Clark's daughter by adoption. 

I think that's outragous. Imagine a court granting joint-custody of a woman's adoptive child to a former male cohabitor. It would never happen! This is an example of some liberal activist judge pushing his a anti-Christian/Pro-homosexual agenda.

any parent that teaches hate is really doing a disservice to their child.

Many people, including myself, believe that Homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that it is not an acceptable alternative lifestyle. I do not believe it is sinful according to religious beliefs but simply because it is a malfunction within nature. To teach your child that it is an aberration among normal human beings and not acceptable in any way does not constitute teaching hate.

Teaching your young Arab children to kill Jews is an example of teaching hate.

[Elder]

Honestly, a parent, no matter what the circumstances, has a responsibillity to him or her self, to that child, and to God to do her best to teach a child what is right and wrong, what her values are. It's part of being a parent. It is one of the most important things that a parent can do. I don't see how a parent can stand by and let her child be taught something that he or she believes is wrong and just let it go. If the homosexual parent wants to teach the girl one thing, at least give the straight parent equal access.

[Guest pbier]

Many people, including myself, believe that Homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that it is not an acceptable alternative lifestyle. I do not believe it is sinful according to religious beliefs but simply because it is a malfunction within nature. To teach your child that it is an aberration among normal human beings and not acceptable in any way does not constitute teaching hate.

I doubt this fundamentally; yet I think it is no use to prohibit a parent to express

such beleif to her or his child.

I am afraid that it depends very much on the way a child is told by its parent that

homosexuality is not acceptible, whther this is not teaching hatred. "Inacceptable"

conduct is often stigmatized, and it's only a short step for some to feel entitled

to prevent others from such conduct. This is very close to teaching hatred in my

eyes.

I think that it's absurd that to former partners try to solve a dissent whether

one of them may tell her daughter that she considers her former relationship

as essentially wrong at court.

If there is a relationship between the former partner and the child, it might

be no good advice to teach the daughter that this woman who has not changed

her behavior, her preference and her conduct is "suddenly" wrong.

I can't avoid making a remark that is slightly off-topic:

It's another question if I consider it a good idea to do so. I do not. I think there

is only one way of little substance to conclude this from whatever philosophy. And

that would come from the fact that homosexual engagements cannot lead to re-

production. But that would render any pregnance-prevention inacceptable conduct

as well. Otherwise it's only the kind of genders that have to be involved in

a sexual ingagement to render it acceptable. I can only ask: what are the

premises that lead to such a conclusion.

[Guest pbier]

I am sorry about my last post being so confusing:

when I wrot the last paragraph that was slightly off-topic, it refered to the quote

I inserted at the beginning of my post. I tried to argue the simple statement

that homosexuality is not acceptable. I tried to express that I have no idea

from what foundations such reult can be concluded and that the only argument

besides simply postulating it might be related to reproduction which doesn't

occur very convincing to me, because there is a lot of sexual interaction that

is not "targeted" on reproduction.

So why can I declare homosexual conduct as inacceptable behavior ??

[Elder]

Many people believe that homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons. Many people use religion as their basis for what's right and wrong. As I said before, it's a parent's responsibility to teach their child what they believe is right and wrong to the best of their ability.

[righturnonred]

Whether or not someone believes homosexuality is right or wrong is not the issue here. The issue is that the former lesbian lover of a born-again christian, recovered homosexual, adoptive mother has no legal right to have custody of or teach this child ANYTHING.

The lesbian woman is not a biological parent nor a legal gaurdian of the young child and therefore should get lost.

The judge is a certified wackjob.

What is there to argue about here?