Utah Judge Removes Foster Child (pending adoption) From Home Because Parents are Lesbian

Ugh! Self righteous old fart.

I just hope they win their appeal.

And kudos to the birth mom for recognizing a loving family and choosing happiness for her child.

a reply to: Abysha


No it's not "obvious." One wacko, does not a nation make.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: Gryphon66

Probably in time, as the older generation die off, so to will their ways.

Perhaps you're right; I just wish no one had to die for there to be legal equality in this Country.

It's better for everyone in every way.

You'll die off someday, too. What will YOUR kids do to further f*ck up YOUR society? When does it end?

My "kids" are two ornery Pugs and a Brussels Griffon with Asperger's.

Aside from an occasional mistake in the house, they aren't messing up anything, least of all society.

I am truly sorry for your misplaced anger.

Extremely chill, I am. Nice guess, though.

I believe a child needs two parents. Whether, they are gay, or straight, or black or red, or white, etc. is inconsequential. They key is two, positive role-models.

The Judge is wrong, needs to be challenged on his decision, and more than likely removed from the bench all together.

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And it's not the first time he's imposed his personal opinion onto the people he "serves".

Oh, it bothers you when people do that? I guess the left can do it but no one else?

You mad, bro?

I think you're missing her point. A judges personal "opinion" does not belong behind the bench. They are to interpret the law, and apply it to the case at hand. Nothing more. They can give their personal opinion, but they aren't supposed to rule from it. A bit different than what you're talking about.

Ah, got it. The law is open to interpretation by a left-leaning judge, but not by a right-leaning one. Understood.

Note what I said: It is the judges job to interpret the law in relation to the case at hand. Whether he is left or right leaning is irrelevant if he is doing his job properly.

Agreed, but it doesn't always work that way, does it?

When the SCOTUS decides a case, what is the result called? An OPINION.

It's actually a DECISION. The opinion is written to explain the decision. Because opinions don't carry actual legal weight, whereas decisions, orders, etc do.

Semantics and such.

i see it as both sides here are correct,for starters they are not actually lesbian but infact bisexual as they have their own kids already,
so they do not actually need the other kid to make their life complete,
now there are other couples of any combination you can think of who have none at all,
so i surmise that this child would be better of with a couple of either combination who have none.
the child with a baronless couple would not have to compete for affection in a already extended family,so for that reason i fully
support this decision,give the child to a couple who have NO children....

they have kids some couples are not that lucky

originally posted by: eriktheawful
How about we stick to the topic here?

As for the other thing: use the Complain feature, or use the U2U to ask a staff member.

OK, sorry about the off topic

On topic, this judge should be removed from any position of power IMHO.

This is coming from a Christian that has a gay couple as very good friends. They are some of the most trustworthy, honorable people I have ever met. It is not my place to judge or condemn them because I don't agree with their lifestyle.

I also have Christian acquaintances that I would not trust my dog with.

If Christians, and IMHO people in general, would follow the 2 most important commandments from Jesus, Love God with all your heart, and love others as you love yourself, the world would be a whole lot nicer place.

Again sorry about the OT posts, I was just curious why that would happen, but not enough to bother a MOD with. It wont happen again
Peace,
Steve

ETA: This whole fiasco makes my heart break for this child.

a reply to: stuthealien
But that has nothing to do with the law in this case, nor the judges reasoning for taking the child from the couple. The judge blatantly discriminated against this couple because they are not at present heterosexual.

originally posted by: stuthealien
i see it as both sides here are correct,for starters they are not actually lesbian but infact bisexual as they have their own kids already,
so they do not actually need the other kid to make their life complete,
now there are other couples of any combination you can think of who have none at all,
so i surmise that this child would be better of with a couple of either domination who have none.
the child with a baronless couple would not have to compete for affection in a already extended family,so for that reason i fully
support this decision,give the child to a couple who have NO children....

they have kids some couples are not that lucky

Wow, that's a whole host of assumptions on your part ...

1. Do you know that having a child doesn't make you bisexual?
2. Why would a child be better off with parents who don't have other children?
3. How do you know what will make the couple's "life complete"?

The point is the child was THERE and there was no reason to take her away because she had two moms. Period.

a reply to: Lysergic

Can I correct this attitude about the older gen? I am 65 and all my friends up to 90 would not condone this. They have children and grandchildren who are gay. This is not a generation issue. This is religion.

a reply to: Klassified

I agree with you i think this judge need to repeat that class in law school that teaches why lady justice wears a blindfold and carries a scale.

a reply to: stuthealien

So because they have kids they can't adopt???? What? And why are they bisexual? Where you there when they conceived? You do know that it can be done without the use of a penis right?

How about this:

A child was taken in my TWO loving parents who already had other children. This little girl was living in a home with 2 loving parents, siblings, food, clothes, and LOVE! And some judge thinks he knows what is best???? BLUH! I am so SICK of everyone telling me what is best for me!

a reply to: MOMof3

I would blame it more on bigotry and ignorance of religion.

But that's just me.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Lysergic

Can I correct this attitude about the older gen? I am 65 and all my friends up to 90 would not condone this. They have children and grandchildren who are gay. This is not a generation issue. This is religion.

Hardly... There are openly gay churches, with gay pastors. I go to a Unity-Church, when I do go to church..

I don't think pinning this on "religion" is is accurate, nor necessary.

Mor mons plan to quit over church’s new policy banning baptism in gay families - Washington Post

Why is the Mormon Church Punishing Children of Gay Marriage? - Observer.com

Christian parenting group calls for boycott of wholesome American Girl magazine after it featured a 'sinful' story about an adopted girl with two gay dads - Daily Mail UK

Against gay dads, One Million Moms urges Mattel to take 'neutral stand' - Christian Science Monitor

(Yes, I do know that the Christian Science Monitor is not "Christian" LOL)

I'm just sayin' it does seem possible that religion might have something more to do with these matters than some thing.

That is not to say that all Christians (including Mormons) are Against Same-Sex Adoption ... but many obviously are.

oh look at the anger my anti-bias post produced, of course i know children can be produced in other ways,
but the op's thread does not define how they become impregnated,
now as they both have children the likely hood is that it was a natural conception.
and not both artificial.

have you any proof that they are artificial insemination ?????
so i conclude that they are bi-sexual from this.

and i do believe its in the interest of the child to have a fresh start in life,and not be the subject of some pro- lesbian publicity campaign for lgbt rights .

also there are parents with no kids ,who would love this kid just as much..

now this whole thing has the lgbt crowd shouting its unfair ...
i stick by my first statement ,its about the kid not gay rights..
they have kids fact some do not...

a reply to: stuthealien

Anger stu? I think you're flattering yourself.

Some of us were just trying to help with some rather obvious mistakes in your post.

What does it matter if the parents are Lesbian or bisexual???

"The child" has been with her moms for quite some time now ... why would you favor ripping her away from that for now reason unless ...

Ah ... you see this as "the subject of some pro-Lesbian publicity campaign for LGBT rights" ... starting to make a little more sense now.

Oh please ... if you cared about the welfare of the child involved, you'd want her to stay with her moms, not be postulating about what they may like to do in bed and getting in your own swats at what you don't like about equal rights.

a reply to: Gryphon66

its clearly not the childs mum ,as this child would not been of able to suck from her teat,this is you trying to state that she is the mum,so now i am correcting you.
its clear this child is being used as a pro-lgbt rights case ,that is unfair on the child and you really should be ashamed of yourselfs.
and again they are not the mum or mums of this child.

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Gryphon66

its clearly not the childs mum ,as this child would not been of able to suck from her teat,this is you trying to state that she is the mum,so now i am correcting you.
its clear this child is being used as a pro-lgbt rights case ,that is unfair on the child and you really should be ashamed of yourselfs.
and again they are not the mum or mums of this child.

Oh my.

What does the child's "nursing" have to do with this, again? This is really starting to get kinda embarrassing.

It is anything but clear that this is "being used as a pro-lgbt rights case" ... it's two moms trying to get their daughter back.

If it does become a "pro-LGBT rights case" ... do you think that might be because the Judge MADE that the focus of his taking the little girl away from her new moms? You did read the OP, right?

Johansen said that “through his research he had found out that kids in homosexual homes don’t do as well as they do in heterosexual homes.” She added that, when the judge was asked to show the research, he wouldn’t.

... and your bias is getting more and more obvious with every post. Maybe stop and think a minute?

a reply to: stuthealien

That isn't the two women's fault or the kids' fault. It's the judge's fault for saying that he was removing custody of the kid because he didn't think that two lesbians could take care of a child as well as a heterosexual couple (AND cited erroneous data for it).