Spanish Judge Disbarred for “Homophobia”

by CoreForce

by CoreForce

Homophobia Accusation Costs Judge a Job

Without breaking any law, a Ferrin Calamita, a juvenile court judge, was removed from the bench and banned from practicing law for two years for his concern over the welfare of a child.  His actions were construed to be “homophobic” and religiously based because the prospective adoptive parents were lesbians.

Mazon, a lawyer for the couple, said he was pleased that Ferrin Calamita would be removed and would be unlikely to return to the bench, and added that

“if there is a judge in Zamora or in Caceres who wants to do the same thing, his head will be cut off.”

Ham handed activists playing the “homophobe” card are producing knee-jerk reactions in court rooms world wide as people scramble not to be placed under the dread “homophobic” label, especially in jurisdictions where the law is ambiguous.  In this case, careful hesitation cost a man and his seven children their livelihood and more.

The underlying question is whether homosexual couples can provide for all the needs of a child, a question that was never answered in this case.

While there are many studies that show the strength of the traditional family and the benefits of that family structure for children, the studies on homosexual child rearing are spotty at best.  The questions are real, and should be looked into thoroughly before subjecting the next generation to untested and experimental philosophies.

—Beetle Blogger

Spanish Judge Convicted of “Homophobia” for Not Approving Adoption by Lesbian Partner

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MURCIA, SPAIN, January 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Spanish judge has been convicted for the “homophobic” act of failing to quickly award custody of a child to a lesbian who sought parental rights over her sexual partner’s daughter.

Fernando Ferrin Calamita, a Family Court judge from the Spanish province of Murcia, was removed from the bench by a tribunal of three provincial judges, who further barred him from serving on the bench for 27 months, and ordered him to pay 6,000 Euros ($8,182) in restitution to the lesbian pair, as well as court costs.  The decision was announced on December 23.

“The politicization of justice is evident,” said Ferrin Calamita, who promised to appeal the case to the nation’s highest courts, and even the European Court of Human Rights.  “I have been made the victim of an inquisitorial process alleging that my actions are guided by religious principles. Today is a sad day for the rule of law and for the thousands of people who support me.”

Judge Ferrin Calamita was charged with deliberately delaying the case by seeking a psychological opinion about the probable effect of the couple’s lesbianism on the child’s development, which was never produced by government psychologists, who acknowledge that they refused to do so.

The judge also claims that the lesbian pair was never examined directly by the government psychologists, who nevertheless produced a positive evaluation of the couple, an accusation reportedly verified by the women themselves.

Ferrin Calamita also sought the opinion of the nation’s Supreme Court on the constitutionality of homosexual adoption.  The case lasted two years before it was removed from his jurisdiction. He has refused to apologize for the delay and says that he was motivated by concern for the well-being of the child.

The three-judge tribunal, however, ruled that Ferrin Calamita “consciously delayed the adoption of a child by a lesbian couple” and was guided “by an authentic homophobic compulsion.”

See full story here.

Advertisements

25 Comments

  1. January 8, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    This is exactly why those lawyers in Arizona are concerned about changes to the oath. Read “Could lawyers be thrown out of the profession based on their religious conviction against homosexuality?”
    Here is a judge getting sacked because he is accused of being “homophobic”. If the Arizona state bar make changes to their oath and include sexual orientation, they also may be sacked if they make judgments or suggestions which don’ t please their “homosexual customers.”

  2. rubyeliot said,

    January 8, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    the saddest part: the children were ignored to trump “homophobia”

  3. beetlebabee said,

    January 10, 2009 at 1:07 am

    “if there is a judge in Zamora or in Caceres who wants to do the same thing, his head will be cut off.”

    This poor guy, he’s trying to support his family, he’s got seven kids to feed. The quote up at the top is just chilling…by design I suspect. It all comes down to intimidation.

  4. Liberty Belle said,

    January 10, 2009 at 1:09 am

    If homosexuality is just another choice in a smorgasbord of equal choices, why do they have to threaten and intimidate to get their way?

  5. goldnsilver said,

    January 11, 2009 at 6:29 am

    This poor guy, he’s trying to support his family, he’s got seven kids to feed.

    If he is as qualified as his profession entails than I doubt he will have trouble finding another job, whether it be within the legal field or in something else.

    As for the matter at hand…

    Unless the children have suffered any reported physical or mental duress, it is discrimination for a judge to study the suitability of a lesbian couple for parenthood. Think about this in reverse; would it be acceptable for a homosexual judge to call for psychological reports on whether a child raised in a straight family is likely to suffer any mental trauma?

    I expect your answer will be no and this is correct, because it is wrong to judge someone’s parental rights based on their sexual orientation.

  6. beetlebabee said,

    January 11, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Practicing law is his career. If the man had lost his livelihood because he was promoting gay adoption would you be so blasé?

    That this situation has caused him great hardship is well documented. At least on a human level if not an ideological one, you have to admit that this story is somewhat extreme. I am not an expert in Spanish law, but to be disbarred for something that is not against the law seems like a shot across the bow attempt at a political statement, or as the lawyer for the plaintiffs declared, a blatant threat.

    If the position of the country is so clear that the judge needed to be removed from office, why isn’t it codified clearly in the law?

    As for the rights of the child in this case, I would have to point out that straight parents are called on to perform psychological evaluations in family court all the time. It is not a hardship, but rather a precaution. Of interest in this story is the fact that the psychologists in charge of evaluating the couple never did their job, yet the judge is the one taking the heat.

    The main crux of your complaint seems to be the idea that sexual orientation is a protected right, and that homosexual relationships should be accepted as equal to the gold standard of married relationships without question. You and I would have to disagree on that point.

  7. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 3:42 am

    Practicing law is his career. If the man had lost his livelihood because he was promoting gay adoption would you be so blasé?

    I’m not being blase, just practical – a man intelligent enough to become a judge will find work. I have a question for you; would you be so sympathetic to his job loss if he were defending homosexuality?

    That this situation has caused him great hardship is well documented. At least on a human level if not an ideological one, you have to admit that this story is somewhat extreme. I am not an expert in Spanish law, but to be disbarred for something that is not against the law seems like a shot across the bow attempt at a political statement, or as the lawyer for the plaintiffs declared, a blatant threat.

    If the position of the country is so clear that the judge needed to be removed from office, why isn’t it codified clearly in the law?

    I know nothing about Spanish law, I will admit that. If this is a case where he has been heavily punished just because they are lesbians, then it is wrong. However, if he was trying to hold the case up because of bias (which is basically the death nell for someone who is supposed to be a symbol of impartial authority), then he should have been reprimanded.

    As for the rights of the child in this case, I would have to point out that straight parents are called on to perform psychological evaluations in family court all the time. It is not a hardship, but rather a precaution. Of interest in this story is the fact that the psychologists in charge of evaluating the couple never did their job, yet the judge is the one taking the heat.

    The point of straight parents being called to perform psychological evaluations in family point is true. But a couple should only need to be psyche assessed when necessary – it appears that in this case, had they not been lesbians, it might not have been necessary at all. This is the point of the issue.

    The main crux of your complaint seems to be the idea that sexual orientation is a protected right, and that homosexual relationships should be accepted as equal to the gold standard of married relationships without question. You and I would have to disagree on that point.

    Fundamentally, yes.

  8. Mark Lemine said,

    January 12, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    Some more quotes from the judge that show his personal view:

    “Children need a father and a mother,” Calamita told the media yesterday during the first day of the trial. “A man and a woman complement each other. Two women don’t.”

    The judge also expressed fears that turning a child over to a lesbian couple would make the child “a human guinea pig.”

    The charges against Calamita stem from his insistence on obtaining an assessment of the likely psychological impact of the adoption of the child. Although court-appointed psychologists issued two psychological analyses of the women, Vanesa de las Heras and Susana Meseguer, Calamita claims they did not investigate the likely impact on the child, Candela.

    The reports, said Calamita at the trial, “didn’t go to the heart of the matter. The Psychosocial Department didn’t tell me what the interest of the child was. What the General Family Directorate said was that the couple had a good relationship.” However, he added, “no one has clarified to me if this adoption would or would not be harmful to the child.”

    In addition to the assessment, Calamita also sought a ruling from the nation’s Constitutional Tribunal on the constitutionality of same-sex adoption, which further delayed the case. The hearings lasted a total of two years. Calamita never ruled in the case.

    The potential of psychological harm to children arising from homosexual adoption was highlighted by Spanish doctors in their report on the subject, “It’s Not the Same: Report on Child Development with Same Sex Couples,” published in 2005 (see original in Spanish at http://www.narth.com/docs/noesigual3.pdf). In the report the authors lament the lack of rigorous studies on the issue, but observe that existing studies indicate that children adopted by same-sex couples “more frequently suffer from psychological problems, in particular: low self esteem, stress, insecurity regarding their future life in relationships and having children,” and “sexual identity disruption” among other effects.

    During the hearing yesterday, which took place before the Supreme Court of the Province of Murcia, Calamita stated that he had nothing against the lesbian pair, but noted that “as a family judge, I had to look out for the interests of the child, because both the adopting mother and the biological mother are legal adults and free to do what they want.” He also told the court that no one has the right to adopt, “whatever sex they may be, it is the one being adopted who has the right.”

  9. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    “I’m not being blase, just practical – a man intelligent enough to become a judge will find work. “

    The point is that he shouldn’t have to find work, because he didn’t break the law, whether that work is easy to find or not is irrelevant. Being forced to change careers is an effective weapon of intimidation being wielded in this case. Short of breaking the law, the conclusion drawn here is completely inappropriate.

    Were he defending homosexuality within the law, I would not support the personal destruction of the judge, I would go after the law.

  10. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    Some more quotes from the judge that show his personal view:

    “Children need a father and a mother,” Calamita told the media yesterday during the first day of the trial. “A man and a woman complement each other. Two women don’t.”

    From wiki:

    Today, Spain is one of the six countries around the world that allows same-sex marriage and has the most progressive laws, since they also permit adoption by same-sex couples.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Spain

    Now is it becoming clear that for the judge to ask for psychological tests for the parents based on their lesbianism is actually against the law and discrimination in that country?

    In the report the authors lament the lack of rigorous studies on the issue, but observe that existing studies indicate that children adopted by same-sex couples “more frequently suffer from psychological problems, in particular: low self esteem, stress, insecurity regarding their future life in relationships and having children,” and “sexual identity disruption” among other effects.

    Isn’t the inclusion pointless? He even admits that there isn’t enough studies to make a conclusive point about the issue.

    Were he defending homosexuality within the law, I would not support the personal destruction of the judge, I would go after the law.

    Fair enough, good luck with that.

  11. January 14, 2009 at 2:30 am

    goldnsilver, You’re right. A judge should never consider the developmental effects of homosexual parenting on children. All those studies that show that it is detrimental to the health and well-being of children were probably all just made up by right-wing conspirators, instead of actual experts in their fields. And, when there “isn’t enough studies to make a conclusive point about the issue,” we should probably just assume that everything will work out just fine and not, under any circumstances, try to FIND a conclusion to the issue. That might actually be in the best interest of the child, and we can’t have that. Someone might call us “homophobic.”

  12. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    A judge should never consider the developmental effects of homosexual parenting on children. All those studies that show that it is detrimental to the health and well-being of children were probably all just made up by right-wing conspirators, instead of actual experts in their fields. And, when there “isn’t enough studies to make a conclusive point about the issue,” we should probably just assume that everything will work out just fine and not, under any circumstances, try to FIND a conclusion to the issue. That might actually be in the best interest of the child, and we can’t have that. Someone might call us “homophobic.”

    If there is to be a conclusion about homosexual parenting it will take years to form a conclusion, if ever.

    A judge standing there dumbly going ‘ahhhhhhh, I think there might be possible problems here’ is insulting. If he wants to research that himself he can do it on his own time, with his own money.

    Besides, him holding up the proceedings has probably cost those lesbians a great deal of money that they could have put towards the rearing of their children.

  13. January 15, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    There are already several studies that have determined conclusively that homosexual parenting/adoption are directly related to an increase of multiple serious physical and mental health risks. Already. Right now. Studies that are not being taken into consideration in this case. It doesn’t take years. It takes days, at most. The people involved just need to review the existing studies. As a matter of fact, you can read an overview of several of these studies yourself here:

    Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting

    by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science,
    University of South Carolina School of Medicine,
    Columbia, South Carolina

    The following excerpt is from the article:

    “Editorial Note:
    Most of this research review of empirical evidence applies to public policy regarding child custody decisions, adoption, and foster parenting of children, even though it was specifically prepared to defend the Arkansas regulation prohibiting the issuance of foster parent licenses to homes in which there is any adult involved in homosexual behavior. The attorney assigned to defend the Arkansas regulation, Kathy Hall, curiously made motions in court to exclude all scientific evidence regarding the higher frequency of domestic violence, pedophilia, and sexual disease transmission by homosexual adults to children compared to married couples to children, which undermined her own case. So Kathy Hall instructed Professor Rekers not to review research in those areas.

    Then, after seeing Dr. Rekers’ review (included in this paper) of the evidence of higher rates of psychiatric disorders in practicing homosexuals compared to heterosexuals, attorney Kathy Hall made last minute motions to exclude that scientific evidence from consideration in the case just prior to Dr. Rekers’ courtroom testimony. Ultimately, Kathy Hall did not allow Professor Rekers to present even 20% of the evidence in this paper that he provided her prior to his scheduled testimony in court, and as a result, Kathy Hall lost the case for the State of Arkansas. In contrast, the State of Florida used this kind of scientific research provided by Dr. Rekers in defending the law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children, which defense succeeded all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in January, 2005. The Boy Scouts of America similarly relied, in part, on this line of research provided by Professor Rekers, and won their case through all appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  14. waltzinexile said,

    January 15, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    DRK,

    You mentioned that “there are already several studies that have determined conclusively that homosexual parenting/adoption are directly related to an increase of multiple serious physical and mental health risks.” Yet you provide a link to only one, and the Rekers study was not published in a peer-reviewed journal (likely because its methodological problems render it unreliable.) Can you provide citations for a different study?

  15. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    Are you talking about the Rekers review? DRK is providing a link to the review of the studies.

  16. waltzinexile said,

    January 15, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    Ruby,

    Yes,I see that but the Rekers review is the only one. And it’s not published in a peer-reviewed journal, so I was asking if he had more cites to provide.

  17. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    I could totally be wrong about this, but I think that is because his review was for a court case.

  18. beetlebabee said,

    January 16, 2009 at 4:49 am

    GoldnSilver, you said “Today, Spain is one of the six countries around the world that allows same-sex marriage and has the most progressive laws, since they also permit adoption by same-sex couples. “

    however, the judge had asked for clarification from the Spanish Supreme Court equivalent for guidance on the issue, AND had provided a way for the homosexual partners to overcome his concerns through testing. That the tests were never completed because the state was reluctant to conduct them is a red flag to me concerning the acceptability of homosexual adoption in that nation.

    The most interesting part of this particular case to me is not that this man stood up and made a statement against homosexual adoption, because I don’t think that’s necessarily what he did. Rather, it is interesting to me that despite other failures in the system, this man’s religion was the preferred and acceptable scapegoat, allowing every other failing to be swept under the broad “homophobia” rug.

    The idea that personal religious beliefs automatically make you a target in increasingly secular societies is alarming to me—especially as I consider myself a deeply religious person in an increasingly secular society here in the states.

    I have to say that the irony of it strikes me. Had Spain not been so open minded in “tolerating” same sex unions, this man would not have faced such intolerance for his personal beliefs, and yet, here in our country, we face the same guilt trip. Be tolerant! Accept us!

    True tolerance flows both ways.

  19. January 19, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    waltzinexile, rubyeliot is pointing out exactly what I would have said myself: namely that the link I provided, which you apparently did not read, is to a REVIEW OF MULTIPLE STUDIES. The titles and authors of the studies are contained within the review itself.

  20. January 20, 2009 at 6:23 am

    Mass. Department of Public Health “groundbreaking” report says homosexuality linked with health problems, destructive behavior.

    From the article:

    On November 21 the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) released what it calls a “Groundbreaking Report on Health Disparities Based on Sexual Orientation”.

    As the DPH press release describes:

    “The report revealed significant disparities among people who identified as homosexual or bisexual in the areas of access to care, self-reported health status, anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, smoking, binge drinking, illicit drug use, sexual assault victimization, intimate partner violence, disability, obesity, asthma and heart disease . . . Lesbians were 2.2 times more likely than heterosexual women to be obese.

    Interestingly, the Massachusetts DPH is probably the most pro-homosexual public health department in America. It’s run by DPH Commissioner John Auerbach, who is “married” to another man.”

    The full report can be accessed from the article above.

  21. waltzinexile said,

    January 28, 2009 at 12:20 am

    DRK,

    Okay, finally had some time to take a look at the Rekers review and the background of the court case, etc. I disagree that the review determines ANYthing conclusively, however. It’s not very persuasive to have one’s “expert testimony” thrown out by the judge. The Arkansas court specifically said that:

    “Dr. Rekers’ willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court” and “Dr. Rekers’ personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues.”

    If you have studies or reviews by other people to lend support to your stance, could you please provide them?

  22. January 28, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    In the second paragraph it says:

    In contrast, the State of Florida used this kind of scientific research provided by Dr. Rekers in defending the law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children, which defense succeeded all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in January, 2005.

    So, it sounds like the State of Florida and the Supreme Court both found this research to be conclusive enough to at least partially base their rulings on it. It is also not the point of reviews to come to conclusions so much as it is up to those actually conducting the research. And, as I said before, the review is well-documented, and the studies are listed extensively in the footnotes (I just checked to make sure).

    It’s interesting, though, that the testimony of a professional who is against homosexual adoption, etc, was rejected due to his bias (at least that’s what the above comments seem to imply), since every shred of existing SUPPORT for such things is based ENTIRELY ON BIAS and not facts or research.

    NARTH Quoted On WorldNetDaily Over Gay Adoption Controversy

  23. WaltzInExile said,

    January 29, 2009 at 12:04 am

    DRK,

    I assume you’re referring to the 2nd paragraph of the intro to the review? Odd, that. It doesn’t seem to have been accepted by the entire Florida judiciary. Didn’t Judge Lederman refuse to accept Rekers’ expert testimony just this past November and rule that the FL same-sex adoption ban is unconstitutional?
    Additionally, Rekers’ testimony may or many not have been any part of the SCOTUS decision. Just because the case succeeded all the way to the US Supreme Court does not mean they accepted any of Rekers’ arguments or findings; the SCOTUS ruling could have been as narrow as “The state of Florida is within its rights to set its own restrictions on adoption.” I’ll be sure to look up the ruling to see what it says.
    You said “every shred of exisiting SUPPORT for such things is based ENTIRELY ON BIAS and not facts or research.” Can you please give me a specific instance of a judicial ruling that threw out one side’s expert testimony without using facts or evidence provided by the other side to support its position?

  24. January 30, 2009 at 2:34 am

    Can you please give me a specific instance of a judicial ruling that threw out one side’s expert testimony without using facts or evidence provided by the other side to support its position?

    Yes, the ones in this article who were pushing gay adoption without allowing the disbarred judge to consult existing evidence. That’s what this post was all about, wasn’t it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: