Editorial

A Florida judge’s Nov. 25 ruling finding unconstitutional Florida’s 31-year-old law banning homosexuals from adopting children has predictably received a great deal of attention throughout the state and beyond. Liberal daily newspapers have praised the ruling, while pro-family groups have decried the decision, predicting the law will eventually be sustained in the state appeals process, just as it has been in the federal courts in prior years.

Missing from coverage of the decision by Miami-Dade Judge Cindy Lederman was her blatant religious bigotry on which she based her ruling. Actually, to be more precise, it was bigotry against conservative religious belief on which she built her case for homosexual adoptions that is so disturbing.

Like the celebrated Newsweek cover "essay" finding a "religious case for gay marriage" published only a few days after Lederman’s ruling, it’s not religion, per se, that is under attack in the judicial and media elite of our culture. It’s conservative religion that has become a respectable, regularly practiced form of bigotry in our society.

The absurd Dec. 15 Newsweek apologetic for "gay marriage" based upon a heretical understanding of Scripture has been well debunked by others. As is typically the case, Southern Baptists’ convictions on this matter are well articulated by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president R. Albert Mohler Jr., who eviscerates Miller’s pathetic religious argument for "gay marriage" in a Dec. 8 entry on his Web log ( www.AlbertMohler.com).

What’s interesting to me, however, is the desire of the elite of society to seek a patina of religious approval for their liberal views. It’s not enough to argue for "gay marriage" and adoptions from liberal political, social and even moral views. No, our opponents will not be happy until their agenda can be given validation from the Bible, even if it means totally distorting what the Bible actually teaches on these serious matters.

As to Lederman’s 53-page ruling in which she finds the ban on adoptions by homosexuals violates equal protection rights of homosexuals under Florida’s constitution and "defeats a child’s right to permanency as provided by federal and state law," the heart of the decision is Lederman’s relentless assault on two expert witnesses put forward by the State of Florida to defend the law.

Lederman rejected evidence presented during the trial finding homosexual parenting is harmful to children.

Noting previous federal and state rulings upholding Florida’s ban on adoptions by homosexuals, Lederman found the constitutionality of the ban is now "again ripe for consideration" because of recent "developments in the fields of social science, psychology, human sexuality, social work and medicine, the existence of additional studies, the re-analysis and peer review of prior studies, the endorsements by the major psychological, psychiatry, child welfare and social work associations, and the now, consensus based on widely accepted results of respected studies by qualified experts."

In order to come to this conclusion, however, Lederman has to reject the testimony of the state’s two experts. This she does with gusto, harshly criticizing the experts, largely on the basis of their religious convictions.

Lederman twice notes that George Rekers, a clinical psychologist and behavioral scientist from Miami who testified on behalf of the state, "is also an ordained Baptist minister," almost as an accusation and clearly intended to undermine his scientific credibility.

Never mind that Rekers is distinguished professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science emeritus at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, and he was previously a research fellow in psychology and social relations and a visiting scholar at Harvard University. No, as far as Lederman is concerned, Rekers is nothing more than a Bible-thumping Baptist preacher!

Lederman asserted Rekers’ "testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court cannot consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."

Lederman quoted lengthy sections from Rekers’ published writings in which he asserted religious convictions about homosexuality. In fact, one entire page of the ruling is given over to quotations from his theological and religious literature arguing against various aspects of homosexuality.

Lederman also found Walter Schumm, associate professor of family studies at Kansas State University, "integrates his religious and ideological beliefs into his research," citing several of his writings, including one with Rekers, in which a theological argument against homosexuality is offered.

Interestingly, although Schumm, unlike Rekers, testified against the homosexual adoption ban, arguing instead that adoptions should be awarded by judicial decision on a case-by-case basis, Lederman also felt the need to destroy his credibility as an expert.

Like the Newsweek article, Lederman is not opposed to religion altogether—just conservative religion.

In fact, Lederman makes it a point to note the would-be adoptive homosexual couple at issue in the Florida case takes the children to a "non-denominational Christian church." This, it seems, is to suggest the normalcy of the familial environment, right along with the family "pets, a dog, a rabbit and kitten."

No, it’s only religion that affirms what the Bible actually teaches about homosexuality that is out-of-bounds for the respectable, mainstream, scientific, elite of our culture.

The bigotry of the Lederman decision—like that of the intolerance directed at religionists in California for their role in the passage of Proposition 8 protecting marriage (including those with which we have serious theological differences)—is a chilling reminder of the disdain the cultural elites in our society hold against conservative religion.

This reality should be neither surprising nor discouraging to those of us committed to a biblical morality. The case against adoptions by homosexuals or marriage for homosexuals goes to the very meaning of family—and the well being of our society. That liberal elites do not agree is unsurprising. That we must continue to advocate for pro-family convictions, no matter the scorn of others, is our duty.