Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, SEPTEMBER 28, 1984
PAGE 11
orientation or homosexuality. "Homosexuals deserve protection
under the law just like any other person," said Stephen Heuston,
a legislative assistant with Moral Majority in Washington. "Ho
mosexuality is not a special class. Homosexuality, unlike race
and unlike gender, is a choice."•••
Many homosexual activists, however, with the support of many�
choloqists, dispute these opponents' assertion: Homosexuality is
not a matter of choice, they say, but part of an individual's
basic makeup that is determined at an early age.
Activists hope, Miss Apuzzo said, that work on the local level
will build� "groundswell" toward getting Congress to add sexual
orientation to the protected classes of�, religion and� in
the 1964 Civil Rights Act. An attempt to so amend the act has
languished since 1975
Tn
the House of Representatives, with 79
legislators currently signed ..Q!!� co-sponsors. In the Senate,""a
similar version has nine co-sponsors•.•• [Note Isaiah 1:10--"you
rulers of Sodom."]
The rights advocates' first statewide victory came in 1982, when
Wisconsin approved a comprehensive law forbidding discrimination
against homosexuals in employment, public accommodations, hous
ing, education, real estate practices, credit and union prac
tices.
"Only in San Francisco," one is tempted to exclaim upon reading the
following article entitled "Lesbians Argument Over Child Custody Presents
New Issues," from the September 9 NEW YORK ·rIMES.
It concerns a unique
child custody case which presents "novel legal issues in family law."
A judge in Oakland has ruled that a lesbian may seek visiting
rights to the child born to her former companion while the two
women were living together. Judge Demetrius Agretelis of Alameda
County Superior Court ruled this week that Linda Jean Loftin
could petition the court for visiting rights to the 6-year-old
child, who was conceived through artificial insemination, under a
state law that grants certain custody rights to nonbiological
fathers ••••
Miss Loftin and Mary Elizabeth Flournoy exchanged vows in a
church ceremony in 1977, but such unions are not legally recog
nized. When the couple decided to have a child, sperm was ob
tained from Miss Loftin' s brother, and Miss Flournoy was in
seminated with Miss Loftin's assistance. A daughter was born the
next year and was given the family name of Loftin. Miss Loftin is
listed� the father ..Q!! the child's birth certifica't'e:'"
�
The couple separated in 1980, and although Miss Loftin made vol
untary child support payments, Miss Flournoy refused to let her
visit the child. In March 1983, Miss Loftin, a 35-year-old pos
tal worker, filed suit seeking visiting rights.
"Innumerable numbers of lesbians in the area are having children
like this," lFlournoyT's lawyer] saTd-;--"'and th'el'udge took notice
of that."