Bigots Alive And Kicking In Utah

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34800722

[Zacs-Master]

Mikey, this might give the Stone Age decision some perspective:
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/utah

[ummmm]

This is rubbish I can't understand. It's okay to bring up a child as a single person but not as a couple. Surely two people will always be better than one (presuming they are both nice decent people)

[ummmm]

Lol Zacs...

[waterboatman]

Well, they are 300 years behind the times.

[mikey4444]

I have been to Utah on a number of occasions over the last 25 years. The scenery is breathtaking but, ruddy hell, the people can be weird, even by American standards !

Apparently the best way to to identify yourself as a non-Mormon in Salt Lake City, is either to walk into a Diner and ask for a cup of coffee, or perhaps to stub your toe on an uneven piece of paving, and shout out ******* hell !

[Cloverjo]

I feel sorry for the children in this case. The judge is an idiot.
I'm concerned about Zacs-Master's link. It reminds me of the supposed long-standing, daft laws in Britain, which apparently are just myths.
In fact, on QI Stephen Fry said that when he was making a programme in the States he intended to break one of these silly laws but found there weren't any on the statute books.

[waterboatman]

Sounds about right CJ. Morning. :o}

[ToraToraTora]

So if this judge can remove the child, why were they allowed to foster in the first place? It seems they have a bit of a conflict there.

[anotheoldgit]

/// The foster agency has said that it is unaware of any issues with Ms Hoagland and Ms Peirce's performance as foster parents. ///

Precisely, and even more so ABers sitting at our keyboards over 4,500 miles away.

[naomi24]

^That would be my question. I wonder if there's more to this?

[naomi24]

^That was to TTT.

[youngmafbog]

It's Utah. Perhaps they didnt have a banjo? And clearly they couldn't interbreed so I guess they would be considered not normal!

[Old_Geezer]

There doesn't need to be more to it. The judge may well think that bringing up a child in a household where the relationship is between the same sex is not fair on the child. Indeed the article suggests that was his reasoning. But the legal system there should be consistent. If that is the legal position then it should be consistent and clear. Folk can hold differing opinions without necessarily being bigots.

[naomi24]

OG, //There doesn't need to be more to it. //

I can't help thinking there must be more to it. Who brought this case to court and why? I might have missed it, but I can't see an answer to that in the report.

[Old_Geezer]

True, the report is lacking some details.

[jackthehat]

From the Daily Mail:
//The ruling came during a routine hearing Tuesday for the couple in the central Utah city of Price.//

//A full transcript of the ruling has not been made public and may not be because court records of cases involving foster children are kept private to protect the kids. Johansen is precluded by judicial rules from discussing pending cases, Utah courts spokeswoman Nancy Volmer said.//

[jim360]

It may be that this case came to court not because someone brought it against the parents but that because they were seeking to formalise the adoption, rather than just being temporary foster parents.

[naomi24]

So this was brought before a judge to decide whether or not these people were fit parents and I'm guessing if it's 'routine' then the judge's personal opinion rules. Mmmm... doesn't sound like a good idea.

[naomi24]

Jim, apparently it's 'routine', so a judge's assessment and decision must apply to all foster parents.

[mikey4444]

Latest news :::::

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34813352

Common sense seems to have broken out at last.