'Judge Won't Hear Gay Adoptions Because They're Not in a Child's 'Best Interest'"

[Skwim]

"Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who begins court each day by requiring everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, said in an order this week that he would recuse himself from all adoptions involving gay people.

Nance cited a judicial ethics rule that says a judge must disqualify himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice.

He said in the order issued Thursday that “as a matter of conscience” he believes that “under no circumstance” would “the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual." Kentucky state law allows gay couples to adopt, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that all states must permit same-sex marriage."
source
​

Regardless of the judge's asinine view of homosexuals and adoption, at least he had brains enough to recuse himself. That said, I have to agree with what Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign [which isn't explained] said, “If he can’t do the job, he shouldn’t have the job.”

Thoughts?

​

.

 

[Kenny]

It's an explosive issue.

 

[Wirey]

I agree. If any part of the job is too much, all of it is too much. Either you serve the law or you serve the Lord, but there's no middle ground.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I agree with Chris Hartman.

 

[Valjean]

In a free society, it's not the government's job to prohibit 'Ickyness' or novelty.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who begins court each day by requiring everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, said in an order this week that he would recuse himself from all adoptions involving gay people.

Nance cited a judicial ethics rule that says a judge must disqualify himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice.

He said in the order issued Thursday that “as a matter of conscience” he believes that “under no circumstance” would “the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual." Kentucky state law allows gay couples to adopt, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that all states must permit same-sex marriage."
source
​

Regardless of the judge's asinine view of homosexuals and adoption, at least he had brains enough to recuse himself. That said, I have to agree with what Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign [which isn't explained] said, “If he can’t do the job, he shouldn’t have the job.”

Thoughts?

​

.

Credit to him for doing the right thing, at least.

 

[Wirey]

Credit to him for doing the right thing, at least.

???

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Regardless of the judge's asinine view of homosexuals and adoption, at least he had brains enough to recuse himself. That said, I have to agree with what Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign [which isn't explained] said, “If he can’t do the job, he shouldn’t have the job.”

I have to fully disagree with this Hartman. Our legal system at least acknowledges that such biases and prejudices occur, rather than trying to pretend they don't, and it allows for a way out if you know you can't hear a case as disinterested party. Is it perfect? No. But it's much better that this guy recuse himself than forced to judge a case he knows he is biased against.

 

[Shiranui117]

"Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who begins court each day by requiring everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, said in an order this week that he would recuse himself from all adoptions involving gay people.

Nance cited a judicial ethics rule that says a judge must disqualify himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice.

He said in the order issued Thursday that “as a matter of conscience” he believes that “under no circumstance” would “the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual." Kentucky state law allows gay couples to adopt, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that all states must permit same-sex marriage."
source
​

Regardless of the judge's asinine view of homosexuals and adoption, at least he had brains enough to recuse himself. That said, I have to agree with what Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign [which isn't explained] said, “If he can’t do the job, he shouldn’t have the job.”

Thoughts?.

While I can respect his opinions, there are most definitely circumstances where it would be in a child's best interest to be adopted by a nurturing, happily married gay couple with a solid financial position, rather than remain with an abusive biological family or stay in a household where the parents or guardians in question are unable to provide proper care for the child.

 

[SomeRandom]

At least he recused himself. I would rather a judge do that than possibly allow themselves to judge a case unfairly.

 

[Skwim]

I have to fully disagree with this Hartman. Our legal system at least acknowledges that such biases and prejudices occur, rather than trying to pretend they don't, and it allows for a way out if you know you can't hear a case as disinterested party. Is it perfect? No. But it's much better that this guy recuse himself than forced to judge a case he knows he is biased against.

I tend to agree with you; however, I think Hartman's point is that judges should either be free of bias and prejudice, or be capable of putting them aside.

.

 

[VioletVortex]

I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality and gay marriage, however, gay adoption seems like a bad idea. This has nothing to do with sexual morality. Things work the way they do for a reason; heterosexual parents would be the best psychological influences on the child.

 

[Nietzsche]

I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality and gay marriage, however, gay adoption seems like a bad idea. This has nothing to do with sexual morality. Things work the way they do for a reason; heterosexual parents would be the best psychological influences on the child.

...

Do you intend to adopt children? If not, I don't want to a single word from anyone against gay people adopting kids. There aren't enough people doing this as it is, and you want to make the number even smaller?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I tend to agree with you; however, I think Hartman's point is that judges should either be free of bias and prejudice, or capable of putting them aside.

.

Such a thing is simply not possible.

Things work the way they do for a reason; heterosexual parents would be the best psychological influences on the child.

Emotionally/psychologically, heterosexual parents can provide nothing more than what homosexual parents can.

 

[columbus]

Things work the way they do for a reason;

What things? Work what way?
The whole reason for adoptive parents is because so many heterosexual people can breed when they're quite unable to parent.

heterosexual parents would be the best psychological influences on the child.

In what way?
I am really glad I got my real, adoptive, parents. Instead of the stupid college kids who conceived me without having a clue.
The advantage to being adopted is that your parents really really wanted you. They didn't just forget to wear a rubber. They jumped through hoops and gave detailed personal information and wrote checks and proved that they were fit to be parents to a skeptical agency.
They really wanted you or they wouldn't have you.

The screening for gay people is doubtless even more severely thorough. I would much rather see a kid get a forever home that has undergone that level of scrutiny than what most kids end up with.
Tom

 

[VioletVortex]

...

Do you intend to adopt children? If not, I don't want to a single word from anyone against gay people adopting kids. There aren't enough people doing this as it is, and you want to make the number even smaller?

You do make a valid point. I am against the idea of adoption, however, other peoples' idiocy and irresponsibility make it necessary. Maybe a good solution would be to do away with the adoption system altogether, and force parents to actually take care of their own children.

 

[Kenny]

In a free society, it's not the government's job to prohibit 'Ickyness' or novelty.

Is there such a thing as a free society? Aren't there many things that are 'icky' that should be prohibited?

 

[VioletVortex]

???

He meant that, by his recuse, he did the right thing by preventing his bias from affecting any cases.

 

[Kenny]

...

Do you intend to adopt children? If not, I don't want to a single word from anyone against gay people adopting kids. There aren't enough people doing this as it is, and you want to make the number even smaller?

Actually, there are many people doing it... but the cost is prohibitive.

But is about the adoptive parents? Or is it about the children?

 

[Skwim]

Such a thing is simply not possible.

I disagree.

.