[quote]Originally posted by ung:
I don't understand why the dept of justice or at the very least, the ACLU hasn't stepped in to challenge what is a very obvious and blatant disregard for a constitutional tenet.
It's really a very simple political PR parlor trick (now that's some damn fine alliteration ). The chief justice wrote the _concurrent_ opinion. The opinion that is actually law was written by an associate justice. The inflamatory nature of the Cheif's opinion gauranteed that it would get the media attention, but the actual law was written in more moderate and less religious tones. This insulates the basic court decision from interference on the basis of first amendment violations. However the court, and particularly the chief, get a world stage on which to air their opinions without having to actually accept the legal responsibility for those opinions.
The summary of the actual holding seems to bear this out.
Quoted from
a court watcher's website"HOLDING: the Supreme Court held that the Court of Civil Appeals impermissibly reweighed the evidence in this case; the Court noted that while there was some testimony, standing alone, that might suggest abuse, this evidence was disputed at trial and that the trial judge, who was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the testimony and who observed the demeanor of the witnesses, found that, although the father's disciplinary actions may occasionally be excessive, no abuse had occurred; the Court held that the Court of Civil Appeals adopted the mother's arguments without acknowledging the existence of contradictory testimony that supported the trial court's holding; the Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals) (NOTE: Chief Justice Moore wrote a special concurring opinion more than 30 pages long supporting his position that that the homosexual conduct of a parent –– conduct involving a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender –– creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others)"
It would appear that the court as a whole really didn't care whether the woman was a lesbian. They cared about the fact that there were equal counter allegations in the case, the woman had once given up custody to the father and was now trying to get it back and that there really isn't evidence of systematic abuse in either situation. What this really is, is a tragic, but entirely run-of-the-mill custody battle. One justice has decided to plant his flag on the issue of homosexuality, which everyone else involved in the case doesn't seem to care about, including the other justices of the Supreme Court.
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]