Mum abandons family to come out as gay
Rachelle Black abandoned her children, husband and home to pursue her lesbian lifestyle. She was banned from coming out as gay to her three sons has had the court ruling overturned.
Rachelle Black came out as gay and filed for divorce from ex-husband Charles in 2011. Following her sexual lust for lesbianism, the mum-of-three abandoned her home, her children and Charles her husband. Charles is a Christian, and he gained primary custody of their children.
The trial court found that Charles was the more stable parent in part because he is better suited to maintain the children’s religious upbringing, which includes certain beliefs about same-sex relationships:
Here, [Charles] is clearly the more stable parent in terms of the ability to provide for the needs of these children, both financially as well as emotionally and in maintaining their religious upbringing. These children have been taught from the Bible since age 4. I believe it will be very challenging for them to reconcile their religious upbringing with the changes occurring within their family over issues involving marriage and dissolution, as well as homosexuality.Because of this, he was given the main responsibility regarding their education and religious upbringing and insisted she ‘refrain from having further conversations with the children regarding religion, homosexuality, or other alternative lifestyle concepts.’ His desire was clear. She abandoned him and the family, she pursued an immoral relationship, and should not have the right to indoctrinate the children with her lesbian lifestyle choices and justifications for abandonment.
The agreement also stopped her from exposing her sons to LGBT-related material such as books or ‘symbolic clothing or jewelry’ and ‘engaging in conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as being related to LGBT topics’.
The trial court also adopted a restriction on Rachelle’s conduct that prohibited her from discussing “alternative lifestyles” with her children:
[Rachelle] is ordered to refrain from having further conversations with the children regarding religion, homosexuality, or other alternative lifestyle concepts and further that she be prohibited from exposing the children to literature or electronic media; taking them to movies or events; providing them with symbolic clothing or jewelry; or otherwise engaging in conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as being related to those topics unless the discussion, conduct or activity is specifically authorized and approved by Ms. Knight.Finally, Leblanc’s opinion that Charles is the more stable parent seems to stem from a fact that Rachelle caused the separation:
[Rachelle] did choose to spend a large majority of her time away from the home over the past three years; did choose to terminate the marriage; and is planning on living with [her partner]. All of those decisions were a matter of choice and all of those choices are inconsistent with teachings and principles that she and [Charles] elected to share with their children. [Rachelle’s] choices did disrupt her relationship with the children and given the family’s faith and historical belief system, the choices have also created a great deal of controversy and confusion.
Yet after six years, the Supreme Court has ruled this ban unconstitutional as it ‘considered Rachelle’s sexual orientation as a factor’ and accused the lower court of ‘improper bias’. But today, everybody now recognizes this is LGBTQ tactic and a false legal opinion.
Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst said: ‘We are not confident the trial court here approached the parenting plan with an attitude of neutrality regarding sexual orientation that fairness demands.’ Sexual orientation and fairness are irrelevant when a parent simply abandons their entire family to pursue an immoral sexual desire. Justice Fairhurst should be stood down for bias towards normal families
Charles lawyer repeatedly and correctly referred to Rachelle’s sexual orientation as a “lifestyle choice.” Although this is contrary to the LGBTQ propaganda of sexual orientation. LGBTQ advocates continue to incorrectly state that "sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.” Except in Rachelle's case it was not immutable and is simply an expression of sexual lust and sin - with the result of a depraved mind where God has abandoned her completely to her sin.
Kelly Theriot Leblanc, a child-custody attorney, referred to Rachelle’s orientation as a ‘lifestyle choice’ and said: ‘Christian concepts and ideals the children had been taught throughout their lives were being eviscerated by Rachelle’s coming out’. She added that Rachelle did not realise her children ‘do not necessarily share that perspective’.
Related articles
