Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's an incredible case. A Spanish judge has ordered a woman to stop being a lesbian or lose her children:
A Spanish judge has ordered a woman to either enter a relationship with a man or turn her children over to her former husband after the court was told the woman is a lesbian.Judge Fernando Ferrin Calamita said that having a lesbian mother would harm the children and "raised the risk" that the girls would also become gay the EFE news agency reported Monday.
Oh, and it gets worse:
"It is understood that [a parent's] drug addiction, child abuse, prostitution, belonging to a satanic sect or heterosexual affair would negatively affect the children and serve as a reason for a change of custody. Well, it's the same with homosexuality," EFE quoted him as saying."Ferrin Calamita, who presides over family court in the eastern region of Murcia said he would allow the unnamed woman to keep the children only if she were in a heterosexual relationship.
The judge assailed Spain's law allowing same-sex couples to wed and to adopt children.
Ethics charges have been filed against the judge and the decision is being appealed. Spain allows gay marriage fully and allows gay adoption, which means there is no possible way the judge had legal grounds for his ruling.
Comments
How soon before American judges follow this example? I suppose on a positive note, it happened in a part of the world where the law recognises the basic human rights of gays.
It does make me wonder - since Spanish law is based on code law rather than common law, wouldn't the courts have even less grounds to make things up as they go along than they do in a common law country?
Posted by: IanR | July 25, 2007 10:11 AM
How soon before American judges follow this example? I suppose on a positive note, it happened in a part of the world where the law recognises the basic human rights of gays.
It does make me wonder - since Spanish law is based on code law rather than common law, wouldn't the courts have even less grounds to make things up as they go along than they do in a common law country?
Posted by: IanR | July 25, 2007 10:11 AM
No worries Ian, this happens already in the USA. My partner has lost the custody of her child based on this, and had to pay many thousands in attorney fees and experts to get the case reversed. In the long run, she lost anyway because he became more and more violent and she just could not continue the fight.
Posted by: Kim | July 25, 2007 10:22 AM
This sort of thing has happened routinely in the US, where there is no Federal protection for sexual orientation discrimination and where state laws in this regard are piecemeal. But Spain actually has gay marriage and gay adoption legalized at the national level; that makes this ruling incomprehensible there.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 25, 2007 11:52 AM
Had this story been from the US, I wouldn't doubt its credibility for a second, but as another commenter pointed out, Spain already has many more laws acknowledging and protecting gay rights. The "something ain't right here" meter is acting up. The scientist in me says that more research needs to be done before any conclusions should be drawn. We're missing part of the story.
Posted by: Paul | July 25, 2007 12:25 PM
Yeah, 'somethin ain't right' with the judge and his silly superstitious god-bothering.
Posted by: stogoe | July 25, 2007 12:40 PM
Good news (in Spanish): the theoasshole is in the process of being Roymoored.
Posted by: Argos | July 25, 2007 1:16 PM
Good for the judge. Homosexuality is being shoved down my throat on every turn and its despicable.
Posted by: Jordan | July 25, 2007 1:28 PM
I love it when bigots claim homosexuality is being "shoved down their throat." Mr. Freud, call your office.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 25, 2007 1:32 PM
Jordan: Assuning your post is not satire, I have to ask WHAT, exactly, is being "shoved down your toroat," and why ou seem unwilling to stop it. Are you letting some fantasy of your own cloud your judgement?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 25, 2007 1:33 PM
The only BIGot is that picture in the top left hand corner. Just because I dont agree with you means I'm a bigot. Its funny I'm supposed to accept the other side but yet you can't. The hypocrisy runs rampant in the leftist camp. I see you have an eagle's eye on your huge runaway blog success.
Posted by: Jordan | July 25, 2007 1:36 PM
Posted by: Narc | July 25, 2007 1:46 PM
Jordan,
A hint: If you stop getting on your knees, unzipping men's pants, and opening your mouth, things will generally cease being shoved down your throat.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 25, 2007 1:56 PM
Jordan -
What's wonderful about this country, is that you don't have to accept anything you don't want. No one is forcing anything down your throat. What makes you a biggoted moron, is that you think it's ok to restrict the rights of others. Don't think homosexuality is right, don't fuck members of your sex. Just don't think people are going to sit idly by, while you press to take away the kids of people who do, or otherwise restrict their rights.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 25, 2007 1:58 PM
On one side, you have the bigots. On the other, you have gays and their supporters. Neither side likes the other's message. But which side wants the other side to be second class citizens?
Until anybody here suggests a law saying bigots can't get married or adopt kids, I fail to see the hypocrisy.
Posted by: Brandon | July 25, 2007 2:07 PM
Those damn peddle pusher pants (capris, I suppose they call them) are being shoved down my throat everywhere I turn. It's despicable. Women who wear those pants should be forbidden from ever wearing them again if they want to keep their children.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 25, 2007 2:09 PM
Link missing in action in my previous post: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/264481/0/juez/murcia/lesbiana/
Posted by: Argos | July 25, 2007 2:11 PM
"Good for the judge. Homosexuality is being shoved down my throat on every turn and its despicable."
Is it being shoved up your ass too? If so, that is indeed despicable. I hope they at least use lube.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 25, 2007 2:19 PM
What is ironic about people like Jordan is that we, as alleged "leftists" would protect to the death Jordan's right to live his life as he wishes, unmolested, but that he and is ilk--by definition--is not willing to grant us a similar courtesy.
Which, of course, explains why we need laws protecting us from them.
Posted by: gary l. day | July 25, 2007 2:45 PM
Ah, but Jordan (and other bigots of that ilk) would argue that "living his life as he wishes" includes making sure gays can't live the life they wish.
Posted by: Dono | July 25, 2007 3:13 PM
I'm not entirely certain that Jordan doesn't want to be molested, he may just be baiting us.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 25, 2007 3:32 PM
The article does not provide the end of the story: the judge has been disbarred! The Spaniards understand the dangers of having people like this judge in positions that are determinant of societal behaviours. We in the USA should learn from them! Just look at the mess created by the dismissal of the nine judges by the Bush administration because they did not meet their conservative policies.
Posted by: Pedro Bermudez | July 25, 2007 4:19 PM
Judges do this all the time in North America. Another reason people lose custody is for being an atheist, or even for just not being a church goer. Judges seem to have far to much leeway in how they rule on these things.
Posted by: Kevin | July 25, 2007 4:27 PM
Judges do this all the time in North America. Another reason people lose custody is for being an atheist, or even for just not being a church goer. Judges seem to have far to much leeway in how they rule on these things.
Posted by: Kevin | July 25, 2007 4:27 PM
Pedro, that is good to hear. Just out of curiosity, do you know, what is the procedure that was used to disbar the judge in question? Is there some kind of higher court with the ability to do this in such cases, or what?
Also, just to let you know, the nine people the Bush administration dismissed were not judges, they were federal prosecutors. This is still really bad but not the same thing as dismissing judges (something which the presidency doesn't actually even have the power to do).
Posted by: Coin | July 25, 2007 4:27 PM
He's been disbarred already? The article that Argos linked to only said that the CGPJ unanimously agreed to investigate him, and that article's was written today.
Posted by: Skemono | July 25, 2007 6:55 PM
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
I fail to see how you don't meet the American Heritage Dictionary defination of Bigot Jordan. Here in America you can be a bigot all you want, but don't expect the rest of us not to call you on it, and to refuse to associate with you due to your narrowminded hatefulness.
Have fun with Life.
Posted by: Robert | July 25, 2007 9:26 PM
When this judge is roasting for his intolerance in the eternal fire (to which God will feed all bigots and homophobes), I strongly suspect he will have Jordan's screams to comfort him.
I've always believed that the best test for those who truly 'believe in' Gay marriage and adoption/IVF is to entrust their children to a homosexual person of the same gender for a week. If at the end of the week they ask their child about suspicious/paedophilic activities, they are a hypocrite. With homosexual couples increasingly casting about for ways to procreate, if you can't trust gays around children, you can't honestly defend gay marriage.
For the record, I do trust gays around children; my only concern is that their offspring are, for the foreseeable future, doomed to become objects of derision among their less tolerant classmates. Until such time as they turn the tables and do to the intolerant what the intolerant have, for so long been doing unto them. Let a few gay-bashers get beaten up behind the bike sheds at lunchtime, and there'd be less gay-bashers.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | July 25, 2007 9:28 PM
Did anyone click on Jordan's website? It goes straightly to Rushlimbaugh.com.
Ho hum, should I expect more?
I doubt he's reading this, but how are we (the leftists or people who generally believe that homosexuals should have equal rights) hypocrites? I'd love to know.
For me, I think the right to find love and happiness in this life is a universal human right and can only be restrained when if conflicts with the rights of others.
Thus, homosexuals have the right to find love and be loved, but cannot hurt others, meaning that they cannot force their love onto children, animals, or anyone else who cannot freely consent.
If I'm a hypocrite, please explain, as I apply this standard to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
This is the core of my belief. The other ideas such as homosexual marriage providing a number of practical benefits including child custody or inheritance, or icing to the cake.
Posted by: royale | July 25, 2007 11:37 PM
"...but how are we (the leftists or people who generally believe that homosexuals should have equal rights) hypocrites? I'd love to know."
My guess is we are hypocrites because we preach tolerance but then turn right around and are intolerant of the intolerance of the Right. Rush has been saying crap like that for years.
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | July 26, 2007 3:04 AM
Paul has it. You people are all anti-bigot bigots.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | July 26, 2007 6:35 AM
(Hi, Spanish reader of scienceblogs.com passing by)
Today's El Pais says that the judge has received 19 complaints and is being investigated for at least one of them, by an unanimous vote. He's going to be facing a fine at least, more if it is determined that he has prevaricated.
It is the second high-profile case about him in a month or so -- the other time he was delaying the adoption of the child of a lesbian couple by the non-biological mother. But he has been giving polemical rulings for a very long time.
Posted by: Elena | July 26, 2007 7:56 AM
Homosexuality is being shoved down my throat on every turn and its despicable."
I'd suggest closing your mouth.
Posted by: dr x | July 26, 2007 11:13 AM
Elena's article explains (although that newspaper tends to have a certain ineffable bias that makes me unconfortable) that this guy has made other unlawful rulings.
According to it, 20 years ago, he saw 2 women sunbathing topless, and he ordered them to put some clothes on. They declined, stating that recent municipal ordinances gave them the right to do so there and then. So he called the cops and had them arrested, and they were in custody for 3 days until another judge ruled that they have not commited any sort of crime.
Then he followed up with ridiculous things realted to lesbians.
Furthermore, according to that article, the man is a fundie kook; he is proud to admit that eh reads and obeys the Bible, and other Christian literature, and parrots what I recognize as common talking points among anti-gay kooks in the US.
That article amazed me, I have to say. Such kooks are rare in Spain (we have kooks of other brands, if you see what I mean).
Posted by: valhar2000 | July 26, 2007 11:30 AM
Every so often (and in some places, maybe not so seldom), you get a judge with whacko ideas trying to push his agenda from the bench. I recall a case about 25 years back, in which a judge in New Brunswick tossed out a case of intra-marital attempted rape, on the grounds that rape by definition did not apply if the assailant and victim were married (he was wrong: Canadian law did and does make no exception based on marital status), adding a few pithy comments about the complainant along the uppity-woman sort of line. Even the accused husband felt the judge had been out of line.
To the credit of the system, he was removed from the bench PDQ, and was last heard from claiming to be the victim of a Masonic(!) plot. Unsurprisingly, he had recently joined a fundamentalist church.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 26, 2007 12:17 PM
Wow, thank you very much for this story Ed. It is important to stay on top of what is happening in the community at large and not solely in the US. Sometimes, it's hard to discuss these issues without becoming defensive and to devolve into things which won't affect change. I get so angry sometimes, but it's important to open a dialogue so that we can understand how individuals come to such conclusions.
Posted by: David | July 27, 2007 10:49 AM