Commentary by Susan Brinkmann, OCDS
A courageous family court judge in Kentucky recently released an order stating that he won’t be hearing adoption cases involving same-sex couples because he believes these adoptions are never in the best interests of the child.
LifeSiteNews.com is reporting on the decision by Kentucky Judge W. Mitchell Nance who released an order on April 27 stating that he’s ethically required under the law to recuse himself from cases where he has a “personal bias or prejudice.”
“ . . . [T]he undersigned judge believes as a matter of conscience that (although the adoption of a child by a practicing homosexual is not expressly prohibited by law) under no circumstance would “ . . . the best interest of the child . . . be promoted by the adoption . . .”
Therefore, he goes on to say that because his conscientious objection to the adoption of a child by a practicing homosexual may constitute a “personal bias or prejudice” or some other circumstances in which his impartiality could be questioned, he is recusing himself from these cases.
This order was sent to all attorneys in his jurisdiction and directed them to refer all such cases to First Division Judge John T. Alexander who does not share his objections to these adoptions.
Instead of applauding Nance’s prudence, the liberal media pounced on him with the usual hysteria, declaring him unfit for the bench and calling for his ouster.
“If he can’t do the job, he shouldn’t have the job,” said Chris Hartman, director of an LGBT activist group known as the Kentucky Fairness Campaign to the Courier-Journal.
The New York Times trotted out a list of studies alleging that children of same sex parents fare no worse than those raised by heterosexual parents. They make only a brief mention of the landmark 2012 study by Mark Regnus of the University of Texas which arrived at the opposite conclusion.
The Times only reports that the study has been “roundly criticized” by others in academia. Of course, they dare not explain why because it would expose the reader to the fact that the Regnus study was the first large-scale, population-based survey of youth who were raised by same-sex parents.
“Most conclusions about same-sex parenting have been drawn from small, convenience samples, not larger, random ones,” Regnerus said about the study. “The results of that approach have often led family scholars to conclude that there are no differences between children raised in same-sex households and those raised in other types of families. But those earlier studies have inadvertently masked real diversity among gay and lesbian parenting experiences in America.”
In spite of the negative coverage, Nance’s courage has received accolades from many who believe his honesty in recusing himself should be applauded.
“If we are going to let liberal judges write their personal biases and prejudices into law, as we have done on issues of marriage and sexuality, then, in the interest of fairness, we are going to have to allow judges with different views to at least recuse themselves from such cases,” said Martin Cothran of The Family Foundation.
“When adoption agencies abandon the idea that it is in the best interest of a child to grow up with both a mother and father, people can’t expect judges who do believe that to be forced to bow the knee,” said Cothran. “Judges have a right of conscience like everyone else.”
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
