Today's Denver Post is reporting on a case where a woman is forbidden to teach so-called homophobia. The argument for the Pledge of Allegiance case is based on the principle that the state ought not abridge parental rights — particularly the attempt to inculcate their religious beliefs to their children. This case is far more direct. In the case of the pledge, an optional statement was at hand. Here we have a court order. Thus, the state is directly inserting themselves into this issue. From my standpoint, this is facially unconstitutional.
Mom can't teach hate of gays
But Christian fighting clause in custody pactBy Eric Gorski
Denver Post Religion WriterThursday, November 06, 2003 -
A Denver woman is fighting a judge's order that she must shield her adopted daughter from any "homophobic" religious teachings as part of a contentious joint custody agreement with a woman who once was her lesbian partner, court documents show.
Cheryl Clark, a Denver physician, broke off the relationship with Elsey McLeod after converting to Christianity, according to court records and interviews.
Clark fears she will be limited in raising the 8-year-old girl in the faith, which Clark believes condemns homosexuality, said Matthew Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel in Orlando, Fla., which takes up conservative Christian legal causes.
Clark last week appealed the April 28 custody order from Denver District Judge John Coughlin.
The order gives Clark responsibility for the girl's religious upbringing. In dispute is a clause that says Clark is 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 order notes that evidence in the case shows the two women "will never be able to agree regarding the religious upbringing" of the child.
The Liberty Counsel became involved - and brought the case to light - by filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Clark's appeal in October.
The Colorado Court of Appeals will likely hear arguments in early 2004, Staver said.
Staver said one problem is that the definition of homophobia varies "from being in fear of someone who is homosexual to disagreeing with someone's homosexual lifestyle."
...
Joan Hollinger, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who specializes in adoption law, said precedents exist for courts to decide which parent should take responsibility for raising a child in a particular religion. Oftentimes, the parents hold different faiths and are in disagreement.
"But it seems way beyond the authority of a court to attempt to control the content of religious instruction, or the lack thereof," Hollinger said.
She said it would be difficult to enforce such a court order.
What an interesting mess. I don't agree with that court order. It involves government in religion a bit too much. However, I don't think that teaching your daughter that one of her parents is a sinner is healthy either. I think the lack of ability to compromise is a sign of bad parenting on both parts too bad the solution of taking parental rights from both is not an option. I just wish there were a solution that didn't involve the government.
Posted by: Jason | November 08, 2003 at 08:03 AM
The constitutionality of the judges order is an important aspect of this case, but not the most important one. This is just the logical consequence of a child having "two mommies". What the hell did these women expect -- a NORMAL upbringing?
Poor kid...
Just one more example of why gay marriage and gay adoption are crimes against nature.
Posted by: Vigilance Matters | November 10, 2003 at 06:02 AM