Toto

You made a stupid statement, buried in the middle of a paragraph that was hard to follow, where the causal reader probably missed it. You claimed that homosexuality makes a person an unfit parent. We evil atheists don't have to get up in arms about it, it's just an indication of how out of touch you are. If more Christians came out with such sentiments, it would hasten the day when the churches crumbled of their own contractictions.

You seem to think that a homosexual parent is as harmful to a child as an abusive one. This is an allegation that has no facts supporting it. There are studies indicating that it is not true.

Justice Moore's decision that homosexuality should disqualify a parent from having custody of their children was based on the Bible. Do you also think that the Bible should be the guide to child rearing?

SLD

Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

Psalm 137, Verse 9

One of my favorite Bible quotes. I use it on my children all the time. Scares the daylights out of 'em and I have no trouble with them going to bed shortly thereafter. Yep, the Bible is a great help in raising my kids.

SLD

SLD

AFAIK, there is no particular statute in Alabama that has adopted the Common Law. (I could be wrong about that.) We are of course a Common Law state. I have never heard the claim that the Common Law is derived from Holy Scripture - at least not in any particular legal case or treatise. Although, does anyone know if in older treatises or case law that there is such a claim?

Of course, Holmes destroyed the whole notion of any ulterior basis for the Common Law in such an ephemeral idea that it is God given. Moore's opinion challenges the very foundation of modern jurisprudence that has actually advanced us so far as a nation. He returns us to a 19th century view - a view that led to such decisions as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. (And no, FTR, I am not accusing Moore of advocating a return to such a legal system as that.)

fromtheright

Toto,
Out of touch? To see who is "out of touch", why don't you collar ten parents on the street and ask them if they believe that homosexuality would make one an unfit parent, if they would leave their child with a homosexual?

Funny thing is that Christians have believed this for eons, openly enough that you guys are constantly bemoaning the fact. And they apparently aren't crumbling because you atheists whine about that fact even more.

I didn't say that, and don't believe it; I think that would depend on the situation. I do think this would be the legal presumption in most states. And studies, schmudies: there are surely studies on the other side, though you will probably question their validity given their conclusion.

Do I think that Biblical values of honesty, honoring one's parents, kindness, et al should be taught to children, and that these are Biblical values (not to say that there are not other sources for these)? Absolutely? Do I think that one is an inferior parent for not teaching these values? Absolutely. Do I think that one is an inferior parent for not teaching that these values are found in the Bible? Of course not.

SLD,
Liberty Fund is about to come out this summer with a two-volume selection of Coke's legal work, you might find it in there, but I don't know. Also, I seem to recall that Blackstone finds at least some roots of common law in the Bible but I am not sure of that either.

That sounds great but puh-lease show me anything in Dred Scott or Plessy that references the Bible or that is rooted in anything that Moore wrote. I'll go back and read them myself to check.

Edited to add note to SLD

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Toto

Why don't you survey children who are being raised by gay parents? Can you refute the allegation <a href="http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html" target="_blank">here</a> that "of the dozens of studies on kids with gay parents to date, none has shown any noticeable detriment to the child of gay parents"?

Can you deny that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/june99/gays14.htm" target="_blank">"Gay Parents Find More Acceptance"</a>, often by liberal religious groups?

That's just a quick search on Google, and I am not a gay activist or especially up on the state of the evidence. But Moore's opinion would certainly have cited any studies that were out there, and all he could do was quote from someone disparaging the studies.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Arrowman

FYI, this same subject is being discussed on Baptist Board at

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000179" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=000179</a>

Needless to say, there are some interesting opinions being expressed over there!

(Along with the usual incapacity on the part of fundies to distinguish between personal moral and religious beliefs and what is appropriate for public officials)

fromtheright

I think that the detriment to the child is that it teaches the child that homosexuality is normal or natural when it is neither. Yeah, yeah, I know about the arguments that some are born homosexuals; even if that were the case, and I think there are schmudies on the other side too, homosexual acts are unnatural and abnormal, and, yes, immoral. I do not say that homosexuals are incapable of loving their children. I also am not saying that children should be not be taught to be nice to others regardless of their sexual preference, in case you are ready to throw in the "So, should we start dragging unnatural homosexuals down the street?" But these things do not change my point.

SLD

Uhmm, you know a lot of my views FTR, but I don't think someone should have a fear of leaving their child with a homosexual. Now I would agree that you might not find many who would do so if you just collared them off the street. However, I think that such fears are demonstrably false. While I don't let anybody babysit for my kids unless I know them very well, their sexuality probably wouldn't concern me. Their judgment, maturity and intelligence would. I have a few relatives who are gay, and I'm sure they would be fine as babysitters. I don't know if you intend to do so here, but you seem to be furthering the stereotypical view of gays as sexual predators.

<strong> The predominant view of law in the 19th Century was that law existed on some sort of Platonic metaphysical forms. Law was fixed and immutable and the job of the Judge was to discover what that law "really" was. That view dominated and ultimately created the legal decisions of its day - including Dred Scott and Plessy (although they are not necessarily scripture based). It did have a quasi-religious tone to it - in a nation then dominated by White Anglo Saxon Protestant Males whose religion was largely patriarchal, law was seen by many legal scholars as an expression of the Judeo Christian God, as was slavery. Thus Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Of course men did disagree on what Holy Scripture meant with respect to slavery (there were fundys on all sides of that issue!!), and by extension on what the Common Law "really" was. But that it came from God did underly a lot of 19th century jurisprudential thinking. (Witness convictions for blasphemy in the early part of that century.)

Holmes started an entirely new view of the law - the Legal Realist view. His famous phrase was that "The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasisovereign that can be identified." A harmless statement when viewed superficially, but a revolution in the way law ultimately was decided. Once this view was virtually codified in the Erie RR v. Tompkins case, law undergoes a profound change, that allows for all sorts of new concepts to emerge - the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, modern views on product liability law, more modern views on race discrimination. The legal realists argued that law should rest on a rational basis, such as emerging social sciences, as opposed to abstract principles. Many archaic common law rules that no longer made sense in a modern society were swept away. Why is it important in Moore's case, you say? Because Moore's opinion would return us very much to that kind of jurisprudence that created such decisions. If law exists in the aether as some sort of Platonic form then it is immutable and unchanging - we can't change it even though society is demonstrably different. Homosexuals are unfit in Leviticus and therefore they are unfit now and for evermore. Despite social scientific studies showing that they are fit. Society can thus never progress.

OK, I've rambled off enough for now.

SLD

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: SLD ]</p>

SLD

Just an update from Bamaland. I've been listening to the local right wing radio talk show hosts, and am surprised to hear how much criticism Moore's decision is having. At least here in Birmingham, it seems to be drawing widespread opposition, even from conservatives. Many have expressed the view that they disagree with the gay lifestyle, but that the government simply has no business regulating the private sex life of consenting adults. Even some fundamentalists, while condemning homosexuals to hell agreed that it was none of the government's business to get involved as Moore seemed to advocate.

Also tonight, Gay activists rallied on the courthouse steps against Moore and called for his impeachment. We will see in the next few days the bizarre letters to the editors.

SLD

SLD

Well, sure enough after that last post, I found the letters to the editors section of the Birmingham News on line. Below are the responses, they run 5 - 2 against Moore.

I also forgot to add to that last post, how odd it was listening to a slow redneck drawl talk about tolerance towards gays and lesbians. It was so incongrous - I've never heard anything like it before.



Moore crosses ominous line:
Chief Justice Roy Moore has done it again. The man just can't seem to help himself.
It's one thing to disagree with people. But when Moore condemns untold millions of people because of their genetically prescribed sexual orientation, states that they are all automatically unfit to be parents and then says that they are "not to be tolerated," he has crossed a very ominous line indeed.
Does this mean we should go into their homes and throw them all in jail ... or worse? He seems to be more interested in being Alabama's highest priest than its highest judge.
What should not be tolerated is Moore's utter disregard for anyone different from himself. He has now become a total embarrassment to all fair-minded people in this state.
John Heine
Southside

Moore ignores scientific data:
Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote that homosexuality disqualifies a parent from receiving child custody, regardless of circumstances. Thus, a person who is a member of a group (in this case based on sexual preference) is to be judged without regard to personal characteristics whatsoever.
The American Academy of Pediatrics came out with its report on this exact topic earlier this month and drew the opposite conclusion: that no evidence could be found after exhaustive research that homosexual parents are worse or better than heterosexual parents.
Our state Supreme Court chief justice seems willing to judge persons without assessing their individual merits and ignores scientific data that contradict his prejudices. This is not right.
Sten H. Vermund, M.D.
Redmont

Christians should rebuke Moore:
We all breathed a sigh of relief several years ago when Southern Baptists made a bold stand against 19th-century slavery, officially apologizing for using the Christian Bible to defend racism. How sad that Southern Baptists, and even more progressive Christian denominations, now fail to speak out against Chief Justice Roy Moore's promotion of hatred in the name of Christ.
Not content merely to sit in judgment of what is lawful and unlawful, Moore has taken it upon himself to determine who is worthy or unworthy of the law's protection. In his latest theocratic pronouncement, the good judge came down solidly in favor of awarding child custody to a divorced parent accused of physical abuse and against the other parent due to her homosexuality (an "inherent evil," according to Alabama's Grand Inquisitor).
Moore feels free to commit such outrages because so few voices are raised against him. And so it seems likely we'll have to wait another 150 years for another apology from "Christians" who continue to breed and feed insufferable bigots like Moore.
Sean Flynt
Gardendale

Moore's stance biblically sound:
A minister on television took Chief Justice Roy Moore to task for his decision in the child custody case involving a homosexual mother and a straight father. The minister said this gives Alabama a black eye and is further evidence of Alabama's backward ways.
Our voters have taken their stand against the radical left and its lack of morals by placing Moore in office. We could not care less what some California wacko thinks about us.
The decision was 9-0, and Moore only expressed his reasons for his vote in a concurring opinion. Why didn't the media ask the other judges for their reasons? They only wanted Moore's opinion for the controversial value of it.
I would recommend his critics take up a study of the Bible; it speaks volumes against the homosexual lifestyle.
I expect those already calling for Moore's removal from office to be in the middle of any constitutional rewrite, advocating recognition of homosexual unions. If they so love this lifestyle, they should go to California and take their friends with them.
Donald Dunlap
Irondale

Moore encourages anti-gay violence:
Every time I read the hateful terms Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore uses to describe homosexuals, I hope to be awakened from a really bad nightmare.
The mere suggestion that state leaders, especially our state's top judges, would categorize any subset of our population as "inherently evil" is in itself evil. The concept flies in the face of a great number of Alabama citizens who work hard to seek justice and equitable treatment of all people.
The well-being of children at the heart of custody hearings is now at stake. Also, acts of aggression toward homosexuals and people perceived to be homosexual, from harassment of tender-hearted schoolchildren on the playgrounds by their peers, to the violent murder of young men in places like Peckerwood Creek, now seem to have the full endorsement of our chief justice.
David Gary
Crestwood

Moore's argument not based on fact:
Chief Justice Roy Moore reportedly claimed a mother's homosexual relationship made her an unfit parent.
The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on adoption by same-sex parents concludes "a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual."
Thus, Moore's argument is not based on fact.
Wayne Sullender, M.D.
Homewood

Same-sex parents not best for kids:
I am a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, a respected national advocate for the health of all children. The AAP recently issued a policy statement supporting adoption by same-sex parents. The statement was written by a vocal, liberal, activist, elite committee of eight members, and does not represent the opinion of most pediatricians across America.
Clearly, common sense and moral conscience, in addition to medical studies, show that the healthiest setting in which to raise children is a family in which the parents are married and of opposite sex. God instituted the correct "policy definition" of the family in Genesis 2, a policy that is best left unadulterated.
I believe most pediatricians across America are outraged by this social policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
William V. Whitaker, M.D.
Hoover