Chief justice’s concurrence says gay people aren’t fit parents
February 16, 2002
On Friday, Feb. 15, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, issued a concurrence in In re: D.H. v. H.H., in which he declared that “the homosexual conduct of a parent … creates a strong presumption of unfitness and that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children.” The concurrence rejects scientific and expert opinions on gay parenting in favor of the judge’s own personal religious beliefs concerning homosexuality, and spreads a message of hate and intolerance against gays and lesbians.
The concurrence rejects conclusions reached by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), and the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NCAC), which have all found that gay men and lesbians are fit parents. According to a 1995 publication by the APA, “Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”
The concurrence, however, dismisses scientific research and expert opinions: “Judges should not make decisions based on the latest psychological or sociological study” because these studies are “subject to the bias and philosophical leanings of the researchers.”
In place of science and expert opinion, the concurrence relies on personal interpretations of religious texts to find that homosexuality is “an intolerable evil” and “a crime against nature.” This finding is based upon the judge’s understanding of natural law, as “aided by the direct revelation found in the Holy Scriptures.” In particular, the concurrence relied upon passages from Genesis and Leviticus of the King James Bible.
Apparently, the concurrence believes that applying personal beliefs about homosexuality based on an interpretation of the King James Bible is less biased and subject to philosophical leanings than applying scientific and expert studies on gay parenting.
The opinion is also disturbing because it preaches intolerance of and animosity against gay men and lesbians. The opinion repeatedly stresses that homosexuality is inherently evil: “[h]omosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God upon which this nation and our laws are predicated.” In addition, the concurrence encourages the state to use all of its power to prevent gay men and lesbians from having families: “The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.” (emphasis added).
###