A few years ago one of my injury clients, Jane, called and told me that she had recently ended a homosexual relationship and was being harassed by her former partner, Jenifer.* During the time they were together, Jane and Jennifer lived in Jennifer’s house and split the household expenses. They also shared a small dog that Jennifer had given to Jane as a gift.
When Jane moved out of Jennifer’s house, she took the toys they had purchased for the dog, but was unable to take the dog with her because, at that time, Jennifer was away from home and had the dog with her. Later when Jane asked for the dog, Jennifer refused to give it to her and demanded the return of the toys. Jennifer then hired a lawyer who threatened Jane with a lawsuit for the return of the dog’s toys and for non-payment of rent and household expenses totaling more than $6,000.00.
That’s when Jane called me. She told me that she didn’t owe any money and although she had initially wanted the dog back, she was willing to return the toys and call it even.
In most normal male/female relationships, one of the individuals is more dominant than the other. The same holds true for most homosexual relationships. In Jane and Jennifer’s relationship, Jennifer was the dominant individual.
I contacted Jennifer’s attorney and told him that Jane didn’t owe any money. I also told him that Jennifer would be willing to turn over the toys and allow Jane to keep the dog if Jane signed a written agreement that released Jane from liability for all past due debts. The attorney immediately responded that a release of debts was “absolutely out of the question.” He then told me that if Jane didn’t return the toys and pay Jennifer what she claimed was owed, he was going to file a lawsuit against Jane.
I responded by saying, “If you file a lawsuit, I’m going to represent Jane for free and I’m going to demand a jury trial. I’m not going to let you and your client get away with harassing and bullying my client anymore. You know as well as I do that a jury isn’t going to like your client very much.” He knew I wasn’t bluffing because on other cases when we were on opposite sides, I always did what I said I was going to do. He said that he would talk to his client and get back to me.
A week later the attorney called and said that in exchange for the toys, Jennifer was willing to sign a mutual release. (A mutual release is an agreement that each party signs agreeing to release the other party from past due debts.) I told him that I was willing to draft the agreement but because of my busy schedule, I wouldn’t be able to get it done for a few weeks. He said that he would draft the agreement because his client was anxious to get the matter resolved.
The following week I received the mutual release agreement in the mail from the attorney. The agreement consisted of three sentences (one paragraph). My first thought was that my 13-year-old daughter could have done a better job of drafting the agreement. I set it aside and added the task of preparing a mutual release agreement to my to-do list.
About two weeks after I received the three sentence mutual release agreement, the attorney’s secretary called and asked when I was going to return the signed agreement. I told her that the agreement did not adequately protect my client and that I was going to draft a different agreement.
I didn’t get around to drafting the agreement and after another couple of weeks the attorney called and left a message on my voicemail. The recorded message consisted of the attorney yelling at me and accusing me of intentionally delaying the signing of the agreement. He attacked my “Christian religion” and claimed that I was prejudiced against homosexuals. It was obvious from the message that he had become completely unglued and out-of-control.
Although he and I had previously opposed each other on other cases, we never discussed religion. I don’t know how he knew I was a Christian. It was well known in the legal community that he was homosexual, but he and I had never discussed homosexuality. His sexual preference never had any impact on the way I treated him. The message he left on my voicemail was a complete surprise to me. My delay in drafting the agreement had nothing to do with his client’s homosexuality. I simply had not gotten around to working on it.
Although I was angry about the attorney’s behavior, the next day I called and left a message that I would have the agreement to him within a week. The agreement that I ended up drafting was three pages in length and built an iron cage of protection around my client. After I sent the mutual release agreement to the attorney, the toys were delivered to his office in exchange for the signed agreement. That ended the dispute between Jane and Jennifer.
I thought about the incident with the attorney last week when I read a lengthy rambling comment that was posted on my website at Adoration.com. The comment was in response to my article, How To Deal With A Gay Family Member. I don’t have the space here to provide the entire comment, but the following parts of the comment adequately summarize his point:
I think you and the catholic church views are messed up. You all claim to be so Godly but yet your kind is the most judgmental type of people. I thought the “amazing catholic” religion says you shouldn’t judge others, but if someone is different that is all you do…. Maybe before you start pointing fingers at others you should take a good look within yourself and see how you can become a better person…. So in ending I hope one day you realize what kind of sick and twisted man you are. If you were a real man you would actually leave this post and not delete it so other people who feel the same as I do will express their opinions.
The person who posted the comment accused me and my Church of being judgmental and then turned around and judged me as being a “sick and twisted man.” If he had read my article with an open mind he would have realized that I wasn’t judging homosexuals. I was, however, judging the behavior of the homosexuals who want to force their beliefs and views on the members of my family and the members of my Church.
As I’ve said before, every week, in every courthouse throughout the United States a trial judge or jury judges the behavior of others. Parents judge the behavior of their children. Employers judge the behavior of their employees and vice versa. Husbands judge the behavior of their wives and vice versa. I don’t judge the person; I judge the behavior of the person. I don’t hate the person; I hate the sinful behavior. I agree that I have no right to judge a person’s soul, but I do have the right (and sometimes the obligation) to judge the behavior of others according to certain traditional, historical, legal, and faith-based standards and beliefs.
What outraged the person who posted the comment was my statement that if I were the parent of a son who was involved in a homosexual relationship, my son would continue to be welcome in my home, but his partner would not be allowed to come with him to my home or to family functions. There are a lot of Christians who would say that my position is too extreme. My response to them would be, “Where would you draw the line? Would you allow your other children to stay overnight at their home or go with them on a camping trip? Would you allow the partner to come into your home if he repeatedly showed physical affection toward your son in front of your younger children? I could think of a lot of scenarios where you would finally have to draw the line, at which point your son and his partner would be offended. In my opinion, the proper place to draw the line is at the very beginning of the slippery slope. You don’t want to find yourself sliding down the slope trying to figure out ways in which you can stop sliding.”
Although the sin of homosexuality has been around since Adam and Eve, there has never been a society that has allowed a homosexual relationship to be defined as a “marriage.” Marriage has always been universally understood as a union between a man and a woman. Marriage is the very foundation upon which all stable and lasting families and societies have been built. Do we really want to blow up the foundation upon which our families and society were built? That’s the question that we as a nation have to answer.
* The names have been changed to protect the identity of the individuals.