Moi
Active Member
This message board is not about what the GOP does, it's a forum to discuss our personal views and advocacy for what we believe is right.
Your point is moot. And, I might add, clearly self-serving and foolish.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lawmaker wants to impeach 'activist' judge
- Thread starter jimnyc
- Start date
Your point is moot. And, I might add, clearly self-serving and foolish.
- Thread starter
- #22
Originally posted by acludem
According to the family court, the women have joint custody, that means they are both legal guardians, regardless of who originally adopted the child. Chances are, the women agreed on this originally. I still haven't heard any response to my question about why the GOP leaders in Colorado haven't jumped on the bandwagon for this. Could it be because there is more to this case than what is in this article? I'm guessing the answer to that question is yes.
acludem
You didn't receive a response because it's obvious we are not the GOP leaders in Colorado! We can't possibly answer that question.
Just as there is likely a lot more to this case as you admit, there can just as likely be GOP leaders pressing the issue behind the scenes.
Whether they do or they don't it doesn't matter anyway. A judge should not and cannot tell me or anyone else not to teach a certain religious belief to their child.
lilcountriegal
Senior Member
According to the family court, the women have joint custody
the joint custody ruling (as I see it) was made after the break-up. If you notice, it says the woman was the sole parent according to adoption records.
I am a single mother. There is no difference than if I were to have a boyfriend for an extended period of time, breaking up with him, and the family court awarding joint custody to my ex-boyfriend. Its ridiculous. The joint custody ruling should not have even been made in the first place. It matters not that this child was adopted, what matters is that she had one legal parent.
Moi
Active Member
Thank you Lil, you said what I tried to. Only you said it clearly.Originally posted by lilcountriegal
the joint custody ruling (as I see it) was made after the break-up. If you notice, it says the woman was the sole parent according to adoption records.
I am a single mother. There is no difference than if I were to have a boyfriend for an extended period of time, breaking up with him, and the family court awarding joint custody to my ex-boyfriend. Its ridiculous. The joint custody ruling should not have even been made in the first place. It matters not that this child was adopted, what matters is that she had one legal parent.
A judge should not and cannot tell me or anyone else not to teach a certain religious belief to their child.
when they want to raise my kid for me, pay for his upkeep, and put him/her through school, then they can have a little say. but until then, the parties involved shuold be the ones dictating what the child is taught.
Moi
Active Member
I might add here that your revised language clearly states that in the case you were witness to, there were 2 PARENTS. That is not the case here.Originally posted by acludem
According to the family court, the women have joint custody, that means they are both legal guardians, regardless of who originally adopted the child. Chances are, the women agreed on this originally. I still haven't heard any response to my question about why the GOP leaders in Colorado haven't jumped on the bandwagon for this. Could it be because there is more to this case than what is in this article? I'm guessing the answer to that question is yes.
Noone told this woman she can't take the kid to church or teach her religion, she just can't say that the other parent is wrong for being gay. That's it. I had several friends growing up who had divorced parents, and in two cases the parents vehemently disagreed on religion. I grew up across the street from two kids like this. Their Mom was a devout Catholic, and their father became a devout Pentacostal. The parents agreed that they would alternate churches each week. They both eventually chose one church, but not Catholic or Pentacostal interestingly.
acludem
Here's an interesting summary of this case from Libertarian blogger Eugene Volokh:
from http://volokh.com/2003_11_02_volokh_archive.html#106804218767311360
Eugene Volokh, 11/5/2003 06:23:07 AM]
Parents' free speech and the best interests of the child: The Washington Times runs this story (thanks to Michael Williams for the pointer):
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." . . .
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. . . .
Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a public-interest law firm based in Orlando, Fla. . . . [said] 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." . . .
Judge Coughlin, who issued his ruling April 28, did award Dr. Clark sole responsibility for the girl in the area of religion, although with the caveat about exposing the child to anything "homophobic." . . .
Mr. Staver pointed out that the judge gave no similar orders to Miss McLeod regarding remarks or teaching about Christianity or Christians. "It's a real one-way street on this," he said.
In his order, the judge said there was "a great deal of strife" between the two women. 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. . . .
The girl spent more than seven years as part of Miss McLeod's life, however, prompting Judge Coughlin to rule it would be in the best interest of the child for joint parenting to continue.
If his ruling stands, it could affect Christian parents across the nation, said Mr. Staver. "These things progressively build on one another, so we're trying to stop this before it goes any further."
This is a troubling story, and it supports the arguments of some that the pursuit of gay rights is now sometimes suppressing the rights of others -- free speech rights, religious rights, associational rights, and so on. I like to think that it's possible to prevent oppression of homosexuals while at the same time preventing oppression of those who oppose homosexuality, but it's true that there's some oppression happening of the latter, just as in the past -- and in some measure in the present -- there's been tremendous oppression of the former.
But the story is also, I think, a bit more complex. I haven't yet gotten a copy of the court order (I asked the library for it this morning) but I suspect that what's happening here is that the court is applying the best interests of the child standard. In child custody decisions, the official rule is generally that everything -- who gets custody, how much visitation rights there are, what are the conditions on custody and visitation -- is supposed to be decided according to the best interests of the child. But what if a court believes that it's against the best interests of the child for a parent to say certain things to the child? Or expose the child to a certain religion? And what if this belief on the judge's part is buttressed by the concern that certain statements might endanger the child's relationship to the other parent?
If a judge honestly applies the best interests of the child standard, then the answer might well be that it's in the child's best interests for the parents' speech and religious practice around the child be restricted. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that you were dying, and you were trying to decide whom to select as your child's custodian. Presumably your main concern would be the child's best interest. If you have two people from whom you can choose, wouldn't you consider what each person is likely to tell the child as part of your evaluation of who the best parent would be? And if you had the power to somehow order the custodian not to say certain things to the child as a condition of giving the person custody (assume your child is much in demand, so such a condition would stick), and if you found that the best prospective parent was generally very good except for some belief that you thought it would be really bad for the child to learn, wouldn't you consider using that power (unless you thought that such an order would be counterproductive in other ways)?
Well, the best interests of the child standard more or less puts the judge in that same position. It's true that the judge in this case made a subjective decision about what's best for the child that others might not make. But that's the nature of the "best interests" standard.
The key difference between my hypothetical and the normal judicial custody decision, of course, is that the judicial decision involves an agent of the state making a decision about someone else's child -- and I think it's a tremendously important difference. But what this means, I think, is that sometimes the parents' constitutional rights should prevent a judge from rendering a decision that he thinks is in the child's best interests. The judge might well have honestly made a decision that he thought was in the child's best interest. In fact, the decision may indeed have been in the child's best interest, since it might have prevented one parent from condemning the other as sinful to the child, something that may well be bad for the child (I stress the "may" because of course that too is quite a subjective decision). It's just that the "best interests" standard may well be inadequate here.
Unfortunately, it's not particularly clear what the best alternative standard would be; one possibility might be that such speech-restrictive orders can't be issued unless there's some showing that the speech is psychologically harming the child, or seems highly likely to do so imminently. Some courts have used this standard in deciding whether to restrict a parent's religious teaching to a child in cases where the parents want to teach the child different religions: A parent is free to teach whatever religion he or she pleases while the child is with that parent, even if the religion is inconsistent with that taught by the other parent, so long as the inconsistency doesn't seem to be harming the child.
Other courts, on the other hand, have theorized that it's generally not in the child's best interests to be taught two conflicting religions, and thus give the custodial parent (when there's only one) full control over the religious upbringing, and block the other parent from teaching contrary religious views. (Note that in this case, the judge seems to have given Clark the authority to oversee the child's religious upbringing, and imposed the "no anti-homosexuality teachings" condition as a compensating benefit to McLeod, who might have reasonably feared that Clark's religious teachings would interfere with the child's relationship with McLeod.) But even the "psychological harm" standard has flaws: even it can be extremely vague (what's "psychological harm"), and can thus be applied quite subjectively, and by definition it also does allow some damage to the child's best interests, which some people might think is too high a price to pay to protect the parents' free speech rights.
And of course this issue doesn't just come up when anti-homosexual speech is involved. I've collected cases on this subject for over a decade; I've found cases where judges (1) make child custody decisions based on a parent's likely future speech, (2) order a parent not to say certain things to a child, or (3) order a parent to say certain things to a child -- which, I think, all implicate the First Amendment -- where the speech that was being disfavored was:
Pro-Nazi speech (in the 1940s).
Pro-Communist speech (in the 1950s).
Advocacy of atheism (from the English child custody case involving the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley in the early 1800s to just a few decades ago).
Advocacy of polygamism (from the 1950s to a decision just a year or so ago, in Pennsylvania of all places).
Advocacy of the propriety of homosexuality (in the 1970s).
Advocacy of racism, both black racism and white racism (from the 1970s to the present).
Teaching of religious beliefs that conflict with those of the other parent.
Condemnation of the other parent, either on personal grounds or religious grounds.
A mother's saying (accurately though likely maliciously) that the father wasn't really the child's biological parent.
Again, in all these cases the judges probably sincerely -- and sometimes probably correctly -- thought that it would be in the child's best interest not to be taught or told certain things, or to be taught or told other things. The question is when the parent's free speech rights (and sometimes religious freedom rights) should prevail over the best interests of the child standard. So the Colorado order is the latest skirmish both in the battles over the rights of homosexuals and the rights of those who disapprove of homosexuality, and in the legal battles over the best interests of the child standard and parental rights more broadly.
One final item: Throughout the post, I've talked about the two parents, but McLeod is neither the biological nor the adoptive parent. Perhaps that alone is reason to grant full custody to Clark, with no rights on McLeod's part; and if that's so, then the argument that it's harmful for the child to be taught antihomosexual views becomes weaker (though it doesn't vanish entirely). That's mostly a question of Colorado state child custody law, though there might also be a federal constitutional claim that Clark's parental rights prevent a state from giving similar rights to anyone but a biological or adoptive parent (see Troxel v. Granville). I don't know enough about that particular issue to opine on it; I felt comfortable providing the above analysis because I have followed closely the First Amendment issue where the parties are definitely legal parents, and because this question may well arise in any event in future cases, where the other homosexual partner had indeed adopted the child.
But I should also say that I don't feel particularly bad for Clark (or for McLeod) on that parental rights score: She chose to raise the child for seven years with McLeod (just as McLeod chose to raise the child knowing she had no firmly established legal rights). I suspect that the child has at least something very close to a child-parent psychological relationship with McLeod, as well as her parent-child relationship with Clark.
While I can't speak to what exactly Colorado law has to say about that (and while the federal constitutional parental rights rules here are very murky), I can certainly see why a judge -- if given discretion by state law -- might very reasonably conclude that it's in the child's best interest for the relationship with McLeod to continue. If Clark now has the legal or constitutional right to sever that relationship, that to me is a bug (at least in this instance), not a feature, because here I do think that the best interests of the child should make the difference. (Query whether that means the best interests of the child should also be completely dispositive as to the parents' speech rights -- I think the answer is probably no, but as you can tell I can't say I'm completely sure.)
from http://volokh.com/2003_11_02_volokh_archive.html#106804218767311360
Eugene Volokh, 11/5/2003 06:23:07 AM]
Parents' free speech and the best interests of the child: The Washington Times runs this story (thanks to Michael Williams for the pointer):
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." . . .
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. . . .
Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a public-interest law firm based in Orlando, Fla. . . . [said] 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." . . .
Judge Coughlin, who issued his ruling April 28, did award Dr. Clark sole responsibility for the girl in the area of religion, although with the caveat about exposing the child to anything "homophobic." . . .
Mr. Staver pointed out that the judge gave no similar orders to Miss McLeod regarding remarks or teaching about Christianity or Christians. "It's a real one-way street on this," he said.
In his order, the judge said there was "a great deal of strife" between the two women. 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. . . .
The girl spent more than seven years as part of Miss McLeod's life, however, prompting Judge Coughlin to rule it would be in the best interest of the child for joint parenting to continue.
If his ruling stands, it could affect Christian parents across the nation, said Mr. Staver. "These things progressively build on one another, so we're trying to stop this before it goes any further."
This is a troubling story, and it supports the arguments of some that the pursuit of gay rights is now sometimes suppressing the rights of others -- free speech rights, religious rights, associational rights, and so on. I like to think that it's possible to prevent oppression of homosexuals while at the same time preventing oppression of those who oppose homosexuality, but it's true that there's some oppression happening of the latter, just as in the past -- and in some measure in the present -- there's been tremendous oppression of the former.
But the story is also, I think, a bit more complex. I haven't yet gotten a copy of the court order (I asked the library for it this morning) but I suspect that what's happening here is that the court is applying the best interests of the child standard. In child custody decisions, the official rule is generally that everything -- who gets custody, how much visitation rights there are, what are the conditions on custody and visitation -- is supposed to be decided according to the best interests of the child. But what if a court believes that it's against the best interests of the child for a parent to say certain things to the child? Or expose the child to a certain religion? And what if this belief on the judge's part is buttressed by the concern that certain statements might endanger the child's relationship to the other parent?
If a judge honestly applies the best interests of the child standard, then the answer might well be that it's in the child's best interests for the parents' speech and religious practice around the child be restricted. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that you were dying, and you were trying to decide whom to select as your child's custodian. Presumably your main concern would be the child's best interest. If you have two people from whom you can choose, wouldn't you consider what each person is likely to tell the child as part of your evaluation of who the best parent would be? And if you had the power to somehow order the custodian not to say certain things to the child as a condition of giving the person custody (assume your child is much in demand, so such a condition would stick), and if you found that the best prospective parent was generally very good except for some belief that you thought it would be really bad for the child to learn, wouldn't you consider using that power (unless you thought that such an order would be counterproductive in other ways)?
Well, the best interests of the child standard more or less puts the judge in that same position. It's true that the judge in this case made a subjective decision about what's best for the child that others might not make. But that's the nature of the "best interests" standard.
The key difference between my hypothetical and the normal judicial custody decision, of course, is that the judicial decision involves an agent of the state making a decision about someone else's child -- and I think it's a tremendously important difference. But what this means, I think, is that sometimes the parents' constitutional rights should prevent a judge from rendering a decision that he thinks is in the child's best interests. The judge might well have honestly made a decision that he thought was in the child's best interest. In fact, the decision may indeed have been in the child's best interest, since it might have prevented one parent from condemning the other as sinful to the child, something that may well be bad for the child (I stress the "may" because of course that too is quite a subjective decision). It's just that the "best interests" standard may well be inadequate here.
Unfortunately, it's not particularly clear what the best alternative standard would be; one possibility might be that such speech-restrictive orders can't be issued unless there's some showing that the speech is psychologically harming the child, or seems highly likely to do so imminently. Some courts have used this standard in deciding whether to restrict a parent's religious teaching to a child in cases where the parents want to teach the child different religions: A parent is free to teach whatever religion he or she pleases while the child is with that parent, even if the religion is inconsistent with that taught by the other parent, so long as the inconsistency doesn't seem to be harming the child.
Other courts, on the other hand, have theorized that it's generally not in the child's best interests to be taught two conflicting religions, and thus give the custodial parent (when there's only one) full control over the religious upbringing, and block the other parent from teaching contrary religious views. (Note that in this case, the judge seems to have given Clark the authority to oversee the child's religious upbringing, and imposed the "no anti-homosexuality teachings" condition as a compensating benefit to McLeod, who might have reasonably feared that Clark's religious teachings would interfere with the child's relationship with McLeod.) But even the "psychological harm" standard has flaws: even it can be extremely vague (what's "psychological harm"), and can thus be applied quite subjectively, and by definition it also does allow some damage to the child's best interests, which some people might think is too high a price to pay to protect the parents' free speech rights.
And of course this issue doesn't just come up when anti-homosexual speech is involved. I've collected cases on this subject for over a decade; I've found cases where judges (1) make child custody decisions based on a parent's likely future speech, (2) order a parent not to say certain things to a child, or (3) order a parent to say certain things to a child -- which, I think, all implicate the First Amendment -- where the speech that was being disfavored was:
Pro-Nazi speech (in the 1940s).
Pro-Communist speech (in the 1950s).
Advocacy of atheism (from the English child custody case involving the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley in the early 1800s to just a few decades ago).
Advocacy of polygamism (from the 1950s to a decision just a year or so ago, in Pennsylvania of all places).
Advocacy of the propriety of homosexuality (in the 1970s).
Advocacy of racism, both black racism and white racism (from the 1970s to the present).
Teaching of religious beliefs that conflict with those of the other parent.
Condemnation of the other parent, either on personal grounds or religious grounds.
A mother's saying (accurately though likely maliciously) that the father wasn't really the child's biological parent.
Again, in all these cases the judges probably sincerely -- and sometimes probably correctly -- thought that it would be in the child's best interest not to be taught or told certain things, or to be taught or told other things. The question is when the parent's free speech rights (and sometimes religious freedom rights) should prevail over the best interests of the child standard. So the Colorado order is the latest skirmish both in the battles over the rights of homosexuals and the rights of those who disapprove of homosexuality, and in the legal battles over the best interests of the child standard and parental rights more broadly.
One final item: Throughout the post, I've talked about the two parents, but McLeod is neither the biological nor the adoptive parent. Perhaps that alone is reason to grant full custody to Clark, with no rights on McLeod's part; and if that's so, then the argument that it's harmful for the child to be taught antihomosexual views becomes weaker (though it doesn't vanish entirely). That's mostly a question of Colorado state child custody law, though there might also be a federal constitutional claim that Clark's parental rights prevent a state from giving similar rights to anyone but a biological or adoptive parent (see Troxel v. Granville). I don't know enough about that particular issue to opine on it; I felt comfortable providing the above analysis because I have followed closely the First Amendment issue where the parties are definitely legal parents, and because this question may well arise in any event in future cases, where the other homosexual partner had indeed adopted the child.
But I should also say that I don't feel particularly bad for Clark (or for McLeod) on that parental rights score: She chose to raise the child for seven years with McLeod (just as McLeod chose to raise the child knowing she had no firmly established legal rights). I suspect that the child has at least something very close to a child-parent psychological relationship with McLeod, as well as her parent-child relationship with Clark.
While I can't speak to what exactly Colorado law has to say about that (and while the federal constitutional parental rights rules here are very murky), I can certainly see why a judge -- if given discretion by state law -- might very reasonably conclude that it's in the child's best interest for the relationship with McLeod to continue. If Clark now has the legal or constitutional right to sever that relationship, that to me is a bug (at least in this instance), not a feature, because here I do think that the best interests of the child should make the difference. (Query whether that means the best interests of the child should also be completely dispositive as to the parents' speech rights -- I think the answer is probably no, but as you can tell I can't say I'm completely sure.)
Originally posted by jimnyc
Republican state Rep. Greg Brophy introduced a resolution yesterday to begin impeachment proceedings against Denver District Judge John Coughlin.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Cheryl Clark, a convert to Christianity, was ordered by 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."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37670
In a saner world, enforcing Coughlin's ruling would be problematic simply because it uses the term, "homophobic".
Our politically correct cultural establishment often resort to either mangling the English language, or manufacturing language out of whole cloth, in order to help us all become right-thinking, tolerant little liberals. A prime example of this deception is the idiotic non-word, "homophobic".
Any honest attempt to make sense out of combining the prefix "homo" and the word "phobic" would yield a bizarre definition like, "possessing a neurotic, unnatural fear of human beings". In other words, it's meaningless; that's why it's not really a word.
The fact that it has made it's way into dictionaries and everyday speech is a triumph of social manipulation over truth. We now understand that if you find homosexuality repugnant, unnatural and immoral, you've got the problem! You're the hateful, intolerant bigot asshole.
In like manner, this case is an even more convoluted nightmare because of the PC mangling of the term, "parent".
Love that Newspeak. To manipulate language is to shrink the range of human thought. All goes according to plan.
Bullypulpit
Senior Member
Originally posted by Avatar4321
Out of curiousity. If gross abuse of the bench is not grounds for impeachment, what is?
How about gross abuse of the Office of President?
rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 512
- 48
Good one bully.
Acludem, what are you going to teach your children about conservatives? Can we trust you to give a fair summary?
Acludem, what are you going to teach your children about conservatives? Can we trust you to give a fair summary?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 50
- Views
- 528
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 161
- Replies
- 59
- Views
- 632
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 839
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 138
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 64
- Views
- 357
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 127
- Views
- 674
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8018
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-