Utah judge removes child from lesbian foster parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marie5890 said:
The News just broke…

Judge recinded his own order. The kid will remain with the gay couple
Click to expand...
Wow I knew the kid was going to be send back with the couple but never expect it to be this quick.and by the same judge.
 
marymary1975 said:
Wow I knew the kid was going to be send back with the couple but never expect it to be this quick.and by the same judge.
Click to expand...
I think the one thing judges dislike the most is being overturned on appeal… It’s not that surprising that he rescinded, seeing how even the governor had negative things to say about his ruling.
 
SeannyM said:
I think the one thing judges dislike the most is being overturned on appeal… It’s not that surprising that he rescinded, seeing how even the governor had negative things to say about his ruling.
Click to expand...
True too. And in this case he knows for. A fact that he is going to be overturned so maybe he sis not want to get into.trouble
 
marymary1975 said:
True too. And in this case he knows for. A fact that he is going to be overturned so maybe he sis not want to get into.trouble
Click to expand...
I doubt he would get into too much trouble beyond a sanction from the court… But if he has any hopes for a seat on a higher court, he must keep his number of overturned opinions low.
 
SeannyM said:
I doubt he would get into too much trouble beyond a sanction from the court… But if he has any hopes for a seat on a higher court, he must keep his number of overturned opinions low.
Click to expand...
I see. So justice is a matter of not ruffling too many of the feathers of those with the power to keep you in your place or help you to a better place at the trough.

Wonderful, this system of American "justice.”

I now have a glimpse into why it now operates as it does. Very educational. :sad_yes:
 
Peter_Plato said:
I see. So justice is a matter of not ruffling too many of the feathers of those with the power to keep you in your place or help you to a better place at the trough.

Wonderful, this system of American "justice.”

I now have a glimpse into why it now operates as it does. Very educational. :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
When did I say that? I didn’t. Just because you think theocracy is the best option, doesn’t mean the rest of the world should subscribe to it.
 
Good news from today’s Guardian:
**A Utah judge reversed his decision to take a baby away from her lesbian foster parents **and place her with a heterosexual couple after the ruling led to widespread backlash.
Click to expand...
Judge Scott Johansen signed an order, which was released on Friday, that will allow the nine-month-old baby to stay with April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce, a married couple who live in the city of Price.
Click to expand...
It comes after Johansen said in court on Tuesday that the baby would be removed from the couple’s home. Utah officials and the couple filed court challenges demanding the judge rescind the order.
Click to expand...
theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/13/utah-judge-reverses-babylesbian-foster-parents
 
SeannyM said:
When did I say that? I didn’t.
Click to expand...
Well if the implications of a ruling is that a judge will decide or overturn his own findings strictly on the basis of whether he hopes to gain a seat on a higher court, then apparently that – and NOT what is right or just – is the de facto criteria for making a ruling – at least, according to you.
SeannyM said:
Just because you think theocracy is the best option, doesn’t mean the rest of the world should subscribe to it.
Click to expand...
In your words: "When did I say that? I didn’t.”

But we could discuss the matter, though.

I see no possible argument against ACTUALLY being ruled by the omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God that created the universe. Care to give one?

Do you want to argue AGAINST that form of government? In fact, if you are a Christian, it would be called “The Kingdom of God” and is what Christians hope and pray for: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done.” Not you?

Do you honestly think that being ruled by fallible human beings is a preferred form of government? To be preferred over being ruled by the God who created human beings to begin with?

I guess this is when we find out where your true sympathies lie.

Ever read Augustine’s City of God?
 
Peter_Plato said:
Well if the implications of a ruling is that a judge will decide or overturn his own findings strictly on the basis of whether he hopes to gain a seat on a higher court, then apparently that – and NOT what is right or just – is the de facto criteria for making a ruling – at least, according to you.

In your words: "When did I say that? I didn’t.”

But we could discuss the matter, though.

I see no possible argument against ACTUALLY being ruled by the omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God that created the universe. Care to give one?

Do you want to argue AGAINST that form of government? In fact, if you are a Christian, it would be called “The Kingdom of God” and is what Christians hope and pray for: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done.” Not you?

Do you honestly think that being ruled by fallible human beings is a preferred form of government? To be preferred over being ruled by the God who created human beings to begin with?

I guess this is when we find out where your true sympathies lie.

Ever read Augustine’s City of God?
Click to expand...
His ruling would be overturned by a higher court… When a judge has a record of decisions that are overturned on appeal, it is a sign that he has been ruling incorrectly. Now maybe, just maybe he reexamined his motivations for the original ruling and reexamined the pertinent case law, but based on this particular judge’s penchant for bizarre rulings, that is unlikely. It is more likely that he realized his ruling would be overturned, and decided to cut his losses.

Now as to where my sympathies lie, I am a Christian, and I follow my church’s teaching. But, I am also an American and have no wish to use civil law as a vehicle to impose my religious beliefs on others who believe differently. When I joined the Navy I swore an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, and as a Christian, it would be a grave sin for me to break that oath. The only way for us to have true freedom of religion is to have a secular government. While I don’t agree with many other religions, I respect their right to worship as they wish… And imposing biblical law or Sharia law, or any other religiously based law would infringe on the rights of those who believe differently.
 
SeannyM said:
When did I say that? I didn’t. Just because you think theocracy is the best option, doesn’t mean the rest of the world should subscribe to it.
Click to expand...
Theocracy is government by the religious authorities (priests, imams, etc).

It is different from ruling in accordance with the rules of God, which is a concept very difficult for Americans to understand given our cultural background and the existing plurality of ideas.

This whole SS thing should be under the banner of “tolerance as defined as accepting the presence of a bad thing due to the social upheaval which would occur trying to stop it.” Most people should see what is being tolerated as wrong. It does not mean that anyone gets beaten up or *unjustly *discriminated against, but that the wrongness is understood and therefore not supported in any way.
 
marymary1975 said:
Yes Napoleon is right as to.this.not.standing an appeal. The reason is.Because there is a lot.of case law throughout the US stating that homosexuality is.not a reason to.remove a child. You cannot remove a child.based solely on sexual orientation, and now after the SCoOTUS imposed SS M on everyone, little.less.
Click to expand...
He or she is not right because if the judge is trying to put the child in a home with a mother and father, the homosexual arrangement per se was not the deciding factor. It could have been a single parent and the judge likely would have ruled the same.

The judge appears on firm ground (not that that matters in our corrupt system). Children unarguably fare best in stable mom-dad relationships. Other arguments must submit to that or admit that is just propaganda, forcing a belief doctrine on others.

Edit to add: Looks like the child’s welfare took a back seat to the propaganda.
 
lax16 said:
What do you know about this couple that makes you absolutely sure they are the best placement for the child?

One of the women involved admitted that the baby would end up going to another loving home.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what article you’re referring to in your last sentence here so I can’t say with certainty what was meant. That said, it could be that she simply meant that most foster homes offer a loving environment.

My understanding is that their homosexuality is the only issue at play here – they satisfactorily met all the pre-reqs to become foster parents (and anyone familiar with fostering knows how many they are and how rigorous the process can be). There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that they were or are unqualified according to the DCFS.
 
gracepoole said:
I’m not sure what article you’re referring to in your last sentence here so I can’t say with certainty what was meant. That said, it could be that she simply meant that most foster homes offer a loving environment.

My understanding is that their homosexuality is the only issue at play here – they satisfactorily met all the pre-reqs to become foster parents (and anyone familiar with fostering knows how many they are and how rigorous the process can be). There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that they were or are unqualified according to the DCFS.
Click to expand...
There was a video (in the OP?) in which the couple was talking about the situation. One of the women was very upset and said if the baby did not go to them she would probably go to another loving family.

I know that. I was wondering why the poster was clapping. I assume he knows all the facts and that they are, hands down, the best choice as parents for the baby. Meaning, he knows of all the other parents who might be ready to adopt her but did not meet the same standards.
 
MarcoPolo said:
He or she is not right because if the judge is trying to put the child in a home with a mother and father, the homosexual arrangement per se was not the deciding factor. It could have been a single parent and the judge likely would have ruled the same.

The judge appears on firm ground (not that that matters in our corrupt system). Children unarguably fare best in stable mom-dad relationships. Other arguments must submit to that or admit that is just propaganda, forcing a belief doctrine on others.

Edit to add: Looks like the child’s welfare took a back seat to the propaganda.
Click to expand...
That actually is arguable. Multiple studies show that children raised by gay couples do just as well as those raised by straight couples… There is one study, by Mark Regerus, that was funded by a shell of an anti gay rights group, that says otherwise.
 
SeannyM said:
That actually is arguable. Multiple studies show that children raised by gay couples do just as well as those raised by straight couples… There is one study, by Mark Regerus, that was funded by a shell of an anti gay rights group, that says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Those studies are really flawed; the Regnerus study pointed out its flaws–it was not intended to study that particular issue; there was an insufficient representation of children totally raised by a homosexual couple.

The other studies are very small, consist of self-selecting parent reports. And they do not consider one of reported outcomes–increased willingness to experiment sexually with members of the same sex–to be a bad outcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top