A family court judge in Kentucky has recused himself from hearing adoption cases involving anyone who is a “practicing homosexual.” (No word on what he’d do with those of us who are done practicing and pretty much have this thing down.)
Judge Mitchell Nance of Kentucky’s 43rd Circuit Court, which covers Barren and Metcalfe counties, issued an order last week stating his “conscientious objection to the concept of adoption of a child by a practicing homosexual,” and recusing himself from related cases, reports the Glasgow Daily Times. He explained that he did so, however, to reduce the time needed to find a replacement judge and not cause delays in cases involving gay parents. “I wanted to preempt there from being any uncertainty if the situation arose,” he explained.
Another judge in the 43rd Circuit, Judge John Alexander, said he would hear any cases impacted by Nance’s recusal, and asserted Nance’s action “should not affect the ability of any same sex couples to adopt in Barren or Metcalfe counties.”
I suppose it is good if a biased judge does not hear cases in which he cannot be impartial—so we should give Nance credit for recognizing this. And he apparently ruled in favor of a gay couple who were trying to adopt a few months ago, before realizing it would be more “prudent” to recuse himself from having to do so in the future. To that extent, I think it speaks well of him that he did rule in the couple’s favor when his job clearly required him to do so.
Jordan Palmer, secretary-general of the Kentucky Equality Federation, said much the same: “I wish every judge in the Commonwealth would have the moral decency and stateliness to recuse themselves with they are biased. As the judge cited a Kentucky ethical rule that says judges must disqualify themselves when they have a personal bias or prejudice.”
Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign, went further, however, telling the Courier-Journal, “If he can’t do the job, he shouldn’t have the job.”
Personally, I just can’t get past his bias. What person, especially one who feels called to serve his community in public office, would not want to rule in favor of a child who needs a home finding one with qualified, loving parents? Shame on Judge Nance for not being able to do what every family court judge everywhere should do: rule in the best interests of the child.
The problem comes when a judge believes that same sex couples and lgbt people are unfit parents. There are lots of Christian organizations still preaching that despite all research proving otherwise. If he holds that belief then he clearly wouldn’t be able to place a child in their care with a clear conscience. So, while I disagree with him (though I’m biased because I’m a queer parent) I do believe he is doing the right thing. If our president and his staff could cut out their biases and conflicts of interest, as the county judge is doing, then we could get this country back to some semblance of democracy.