Most of you probably know that a state judge, Cindy Lederman, recently single-handedly overturned a 31 year old Florida law barring homosexual adoption. Forgetting that the constitution says "We, the people" and not "I, the judge", Lederman reminded us why the recent Amendment 2 drive was so necessary and why another one addressing adoption will now be needed as well.
In this specific case, judge Lederman heard ample evidence suggesting that children do better with a mom and a dad. However she threw out that evidence (Are you ready for this?) because the psychologist who testified on behalf of the state (in support of the adoption ban) was also an ordained baptist minister. Apparently, his baptist faith kept him from being able to objectively view the evidence regarding what is best for children!
Isn't it funny how activist judges like Cindy Lederman can use outright bigotry against Christians while claiming to rid the world of bigotry against gays?,! When judges use the religious faith of witnesses to bar their testimony outright, they are no longer fit to serve.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Unfit to Serve
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hold up. She did not attack Christians. She ruled the way she did in a particular case. To say she attacked anyone is a stretch.
And that person who testified for the state said that he would not allow Native Americans to adopt children for the same reason he would keep gays from adopting children.
His name is George Rekers and he has gotten into trouble on more than one occasion for offering discredited testimony. He is supposed to be objective despite the fact that he is a minister. A judge in Arkansas did the same thing Lederman did in throwing out his testimony in another case regarding gay adoption. Conspiracy amongst judges? No. Rekers is not credible and the state of Florida did itself a costly disservice by referring to his testimony.
She didn't attack Christians? Let's allow her to speak for herself:
"Dr. Rekers' beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with science."
How did she come to this conclusion? From BP...
"Lederman quoted lengthy sections from Rekers' published writings in which he asserted religious convictions about homosexuality."
If Lederman's dismissal of evidence is not based on anti-Christian bias, why even bring up his religious beliefs? Why even mention that he is Baptist? How is that her place to bring up his faith? If the science is faulty, tell us why the science is faulty, but leave the scientists' religious views out of it. The fact that Lederman did not proves, in my humble opinion, that she suffers from her own case of bigotry.
And as for your comments, what do they reveal? You said of Rekers "He is supposed to be objective despite the fact that he is a minister." DESPITE? As if someone being a minister means they are usually not capable of objectivity? C’mon. You don’t really believe what you said, do you? You really don’t see the lack of objectivity in your own statement? You shouldn't stereotype people, including ministers.
The truth is, no evidence presented by anyone with conservative, theological leanings was going to be considered by Lederman. It has nothing to do with the credibility of the science and everything to do with the agenda of an activist judge.
I have a question: Instead of asking one person to decide the law for everyone, why not do the leg work and collect the signatures and bring this before the people in true democratic form? I know it’s hard work, but if the evidence is so strong in support of homosexual adoption being in the best interest of children, do it. Maybe that’s not in your plans because the evidence is too flimsy to make the case state-wide? Thus, you have to settle for one liberal woman in a black robe who already agrees with you before the evidence is presented? Please prove me wrong by doing the same work that the rest of us have to do. I'd love to see you succeed in getting this on the ballot. I’ll even add my signature. Show me where to sign.
Post a Comment