Earlier today, the Associated Press (AP) reported that Utah state child welfare officials are “reviewing a ruling by a juvenile court judge who ordered a baby to be taken from lesbian foster parents and instead placed with a heterosexual couple for the child’s well-being.”
Judge Scott Johansen ordered the baby removed from the care of the adoptive mothers citing an idea that “research” supports the claim that homosexual parentage adversely affects children.
According to KUTV in Utah:
The women, who are legally married and were approved as foster parents in Utah earlier this year after passing home inspections, background checks and interviews from DCFS, said the judge told them there was a lot of research that indicated children who are raised in same-sex parent homes do not do as well as children who are raised by heterosexual parents.
However,
Attorney Mandie Torgerson, who represents the baby's biological mother, said Johansen did not cite the research he referenced in court saying only that there are "a myriad" of studies that support his order.
Attorneys are now reviewing how they may possibly challenge the Judge’s order but, in order to do so, I think they should consider the full ramifications of the court order and how the witless Judge, Scott Johansen, almost certainly does not appreciate the door he has opened should his order stand. (The Satanic Temple, an organization I co-founded and act as spokesperson for, always likes to consider the broader ramifications of court rulings and political efforts that are clearly intended to benefit a single distinct viewpoint. For those unfamiliar with our work, I suggest reading over the details related to some of our campaigns.)
Much to nobody’s surprise, Johansen turns out to be of a religious mind, and it is hardly shocking to suggest his ruling against the gay couples’ rights was, in reality, motivated by his superstition over any deference to empirical research.
Having received his law degree from Brigham Young University, and being an active member in the LDS Church, Johansen is predictably of the mind that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”. Such a “choice” then -- if we entertain such notions of a Homosexual Agenda to be true -- is clearly an ideology, and as such is as First Amendment protected as Johansen’s Mormon superstition. It turns out that religious organizations receive no small amount of exemptions from basic child-care standards, and it’s difficult to understand how, in Johansen’s world, a belief in the homosexual “lifestyle” would not also be the beneficiary of such privilege.
Of course, it should be perfectly clear that the author does not endorse the “lifestyle choice” theory of homosexuality. However, if we are working from a legal precedent wherein Lifestyle Choice was a fundamental assumption, we have no choice but to tarry forth to the natural conclusion proposed by those findings.
The LDS Church, with a pedophilic history similar to that of the Catholic Church, arguably is in no position to suggest its superiority in issues related to child care. In fact, research suggests conservative Christian households have an alarmingly high prevalence of domestic violence. This is unsurprising for a belief system that encourages corporal punishment and female subjugation.
However, one might complain, the efficacy of corporal punishment as an appropriate corrective toward child misbehavior is a matter of opinion.
This isn’t so.
Research on the topic overwhelming supports the findings that corporal punishment adversely affects child cognitive development and social and behavioral adjustment.
Contrasted against secular parenting, religious upbringing comes up short with a recent analysis concluding“secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the “cool kids” think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into “godless” adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.”
Of course, a homosexual household is not necessarily a secular household, but that’s beside the point. If a religious view provides justification for discrimination against gay adoptive rights -- veiled behind the disingenous concern for child safety -- it’s appropriate to compare religious households against the non-religious to see if a double-standard is being applied.
If Utah chooses to uphold Judge Scott Johansen’s ruling against the homosexual couple’s right to adopt a baby, I believe the state will have opened the door for questions related to religious opinions held by prospective adoptive parents. After all, if homosexuality is to be considered a “lifestyle choice”, and such perceptual choices are not exempt from scrutiny by the court, there is no reason that questions related to religious affiliation should be exempt. Without citing any specific practice related to homosexual parenting that is believed to adversely affect children, Johansen never once approached the question of whether any such alleged harmful homosexual practices could rightly be attributed to the couple in question. Could one likewise deny adoptive rights to Mormons or Catholics on the basis of an overbroad concern related to pedophilia?
Of course, all of this, according to Johansen himself, comes down to empirical research regarding best child-rearing practices. If that’s the case, I say, let’s have it. Let the games begin on comparing data regarding religious ideologies, domestic violence, child abuse, and homosexual parenting. We’ll see which parental beliefs fare best in ensuring a safe and nurturing household.
I suspect homosexual couples in general will have nothing to fear from the results.