|
I used to think “Rocky
Mountain high” was merely an expression; I am now beginning to
wonder whether those beautiful peaks grow more than just pine
trees. Or perhaps Colorado is jealous of the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals’ reputation as home of the nation’s
wackiest judges.
In May of
this year a Colorado judge overturned the death sentence of a man
who kidnapped, raped, and strangled a 25-year-old woman because the
jury’s hotel rooms had not been stripped of their Bibles. Some of
the jurors, heaven forbid, had actually read them. Late last month
another of Colorado’s finest, Denver County Circuit Judge John
Coughlin, issued a ruling forbidding a Christian mother from
teaching her child the Biblical view of homosexuality.
It’s an outrage, what about freedom of religion, free
speech, blah, blah, blah. Let’s not waste time on those quaint
notions and go straight to the case: As reported by World Net
Daily, the situation involved Cheryl Clark, an adoptive mother who
ended a lesbian relationship after converting to Christianity.
Elsey McLeod, the jilted lover, sued for joint custody of Clark’s
daughter.
Judge Coughlin took the extraordinary step of granting
joint custody despite the fact that McLeod has no legal relationship
to Clark’s daughter. He then jumped completely off the judicial
deep end, ordering Clark to “make sure that there is nothing in the
religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to
that can be considered homophobic.”
Freedom of religion and
speech aside, what on earth does “considered homophobic” mean?
Considered by whom? I doubt Clark’s opinion will carry much weight;
my guess is that those decisions will be left to McLeod.
Coughlin’s ruling will likely
be overturned due to its vagueness if nothing else. Since Colorado
is not under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit the decision should
be reversed on any of a number of grounds, but let’s suppose it
stands. What other religious teachings might a judge prohibit, and
at whose request?
Teaching any type of sexual
restraint would certainly be out. Murder would stay illegal, though
the punishment would depend on whether any of the jurors were people
of faith. Since we wouldn’t want anyone being too judgmental
(except judges), lying, cheating, and stealing would depend on
motive.
As no legal relationship to a
child would be needed to ask for limits on religious instruction,
teachers, coaches, neighbors, or a parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend,
could argue for legal standing. An overweight teacher, for
instance, might sue to prevent a parent from sharing Biblical
lessons on gluttony. Jenny Craig would be a higher moral authority
than God, if only because she has more lawyers.
These scenarios are no more
absurd than overturning a death sentence because of hotel room
Bibles. And though there is clear anti-Christian bigotry in the
decision to restrict the religious, speech, and parental rights of
Cheryl Clark, I’d advise folks with no particular religious
orientation not to get too smug. Coughlin’s ruling and the trend it
represents isn’t as much about disregarding Christian values as it
is about indifference to the Constitution or any other form of
judicial restraint.
As a group, the judicial
branch of government is less directly accountable to the public than
either the executive or legislative branches. Many judges are
appointed, some for life. This was meant to isolate them from the
popular whims of the day; instead it has come to shelter rogue
judges from accountability.
When judges are not held to
the clear language of our nation’s highest law, they make themselves
the law. While the public may not be able to directly remove judges
who impose their personal agendas, it can get the attention of the
elected leaders who can. Just ask Gray Davis.
|
