Posted on 07/31/2002 3:49:59 PM PDT by davidosborne
Some juicy tidbits from Judge Moore's opinion (yes, it was a special opinion...you were right and I was wrong):
1) "...homosexual lifestyle is 'illegal under the laws of this state and in the eyes of most of it's citizens.' Ex Parte D.W.W. 717 Sqd. 793, 796 Ala. 1998. from pages 14-15
2) "This Court is correct in upholding the trial courts 'ore tenus' finding and Alabama precedent (emphasis mine), which holds that homosexual conduct by a parent is inherently detrimental to children (emphasis mine). Here, the trial court did not abuse it's discretion, and the Court of Civil Appeals is clearly in error." from pages 17-18
3) "In the context of child-custody disputes, this Court, in Ex-Parte J.M.F., 730 So. 2d 1190 (1998), recently reaffirmed that it is within a trial court's discretion to determine that the homosexual conduct and relationship of a parent seeking custody or a modification of custody is detrimental to the children." (emphasis mine) from page 18
4) "...conduct inherent in lesbianism is illegal in Alabama (emphasis mine)..." 13A-6-65 (a) (3) Alabama Code 1975 Homosexuality is a Class A misdemeanor in Alabama!
5) Judge Moore also refers to (Ex-Parte?) H.J.B., 628 So. 2d 753, 756 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993), McGinnis v. McGinnis, 567 So. 2d 390, 392 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990), and case law in Missouri, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Virginia in his opinion. pages 20-21
Now, I'm no lawyer. In fact the only schooling in law I've had is one semester of Constitutional Law, and another of Criminal Procedure while attending Western Kentucky University. So I could be completely wrong, but damn if it doesn't sound like Judge Moore cited plenty of case law, legislation, and precedents. I could've gone on, but it's not that slow a day here at the shop. How can you continue to say that Judge Moore is an activist, when he obviously is upholding the law of the state of Alabama! He's also looking out for the welfare of those children, and for the wishes of the people of the state. Is he an activist because he's pointing out the additional facts he took into consideration before he made his decision? Sorry, I disagree wholeheartedly. If the other eight judges were too scared, too PC, or too whatever to point out that homosexuality is illegal in Alabama and therefore queer parents can't keep their kids, then I hope the citizens of the state straighten them out next election.
"The problem with "Natural Law" is that it has no place in our system of laws."
What? Again, read the Magna Carta...our system is based on Natural Law! Natural Law is the foundation from which we started, despite the bastardization of our justice system (which, IMHO began with Marbury vs. Madison!). I find it very interesting that you're such an advocate of the quaint, long-forgotten principle of judicial restraint, but you totally deny the role Natural Law played in the formation of our legal system.
"Your unjustified contempt for me cannot substitute for your failure to see the facts."
Facts? There they are. I admit you were right that Judge Moore didn't write the majority opinion, and that I was wrong. But other than that, your complaint seems to be that the good judge had the audacity to point out that homosexuality is illegal in the state of Alabama. That leads me to believe that you are indeed some kind of DU-type, pro-queer disruptor. I'd love to hear you deny it, but until then, I still believe you're trying to advance a pro-homosexual wolf in a legalistic, pseudo-constitutionalist sheep's clothing, on a conservative forum. It might help if you posted a little more info about yourself on your profile.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Actually, all sex outside of marriage, whether you've been married or not is included in "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
It's called freedom of religion. Last I checked, homosexuality wasn't a religion. Pick a different argument.
Go back and read post 142. Perhaps you have a challenge to my argument. If so you never made it. You simply keep repeating your lie.
Judge Moore did not advocate execution of homosexuals in his opinion. I have no idea what he advocates when not on the bench.
Shalom.
Seems clear cut to me, unless you are trying to further an agenda.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.