I am *still* disgusted that such a decision could have ever been made in this country. Spanks to The Imp, I discovered that I was not the *only* one with knickers in a twist from an issue that happened in 1970. The good news is that the New Jersey Supreme Court *did* overturn the decision in 1971.
This article, as a social object, is causing quite a stir in the wankosphere. As of this moment, it's the most popular item on time.com. Wonder if they will do more to draw attention to the fact that this is OLD news?
Original post:
I'm disgusted.
I just read about the couple who were told by a judge that they couldn't adopt a child because of their religion - or more specifically, their lack of one.
As a rather famous fellow Virginian once wrote:
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
- Thomas Jefferson
Color me crazy, but I believe that adopting children falls within the realm of a "civil capacity". This couple had already proven themselves capable of adopting and raising one child. Who does this effing judge think he is to say that they aren't worthy of doing so again because of how they do or don't worship? Is he not familiar with the first amendment?
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for 60 years thereafter, the courts took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to restrict substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".) - From Wikipedia
I'm vehemently intolerant of intolerance. And yes, that makes me a hypocrite. But I'm a happy one. This judge failed to do his job, and is foisting his intolerance on others in the face of legal precedent. Here's hoping the New Jersey Supreme Court smells the bullshit for what it is.
/rant mode off
From Hugh MacLeod's gapingvoid.com
