> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# You can’t judge a man by the bible
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/you-cant-judge-a-man-by-the-bible-2/
- Published: 2005-07-05T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-25T00:19:46.000Z
- Author: David Pisarra
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*WHAT’S THE POINT?*

I recently watched the documentary called “We are Dad” on HBO/Showtime. It is about a pair of gay white men who were pediatric aids nurses in the Godless state of Florida who take in five AIDS babies that no one else will. The Godless state of Florida, of course, is willing to pay for the children to be raised by these gay men so long as they are HIV+ and “unadoptable” by a “suitable and normal” family.

The twist here is that one of the kids turns out to not be HIV+ after living with these two men for years. They are the only family he has ever known. So, after having raised this child for his entire life, the men are informed by the state, that because he is now adoptable, the state will look for a “suitable” home. That of course means a happily married straight couple, willing to adopt a young black man that was raised by someone else for their first 15 years of his life. This was not a great comedy, nor a great drama. It did make me cry when you realize the depth of the hypocrisy and ignorance and pure evil that parades itself as devout Christianity in this Godless state of Florida, and this country.

I recommend it not as an escapist hour, but as a window into the black abyss called fundamentalist Christianity, and the culture war that is being fought by the quiet masses of unsung heroes who are just trying to live their lives.

This comes on the heels of the latest gay marriage breakthroughs in Canada and Spain. If a devoutly Catholic country like Spain can see its way through to a new age of equality and freedom (some might argue that marriage is most definitely not either, but that’s beside the point), it’s a stark reminder of just how parochial our country really is.

We know today that the first Supreme Court nomination of the current president is soon to happen. Opinions are many on how he should pick his nominee, Congress and the media are gearing up for a bruising battle over whomever the unlucky person is.

The new composition of the Supreme Court is likely to be a more conservative body, which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on which issue you want to look at, and at what angle.

That’s really the central problem with tackling difficult decisions. There’s always another side, and it likely has some good points.

Conservative judges are likely to avoid tinkering too much with those rights enumerated in the Constitution, but by the same token they are just as likely not to want to expand them greatly, which could mean that they put the majority of the limits on what the state can do.

> “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.” — — Ezekiel 25:17

Liberal judges are likely to expand and extend civil rights, but at the cost of one’s sense of security and financial stability. When a liberal judge lets a criminal go, because the state has made an error, that’s a good thing. It’s not a popular thing, or one that I particularly like, but at the end of the day, I’d rather be living in a society that puts limits on the state, rather than limits on its citizens.

It is at this point that the line between liberal and conservative becomes blurry. It is really all a matter of where you are standing that decides whether the decision being rendered is liberal or conservative. These terms have come to hold certain meanings in the minds of the electorate but the fact is that for most people it all boils down to, “I agree with the ruling,” or “I disagree with the ruling.”

Words are flexible. They depend upon context and interpretation to carry a message. The difficulty is that the speaker or writer doesn’t know how the recipient is going to understand a particular word.

For example, “righteous” to some means leading a strictly defined, morally focused existence. To others, it means to come to a reasoned and supportable conclusion.

Which brings me back to the movie “We Are Dad.” The state has said that gay parents are not suitable to be adoptive parents, but they are perfectly acceptable for the warehousing of the unwanted. The hypocrisy of their position is crystal clear to me, but obviously not to the gray-haired, religious right, Christian fundamentalists who are running that strip of mosquito infested swampland who seem to have missed that Biblical quote up top.

On the one hand a morally-righteous court may view the situation that gays are unacceptable, and that they should not be allowed near children at all. I would accept that. I’d disagree but at least it is logically consistent.

On the other hand, a reasoned and righteous court may look at the situation and determine that if they can warehouse the kids, they can adopt them.

What rankles most people is the convenience factor of the religious right. They are righteous when they lack moral superiority and claim moral superiority when they aren’t righteous.

When the new Supreme Court Justice nominee is announced I can’t say that I want a liberal or a conservative, a strict Constitutionalist or a “living document” devotee. What I can say is that I hope and pray that whoever it is, they are judge righteousness rightly. (David Pisarra is a business development lawyer in the Santa Monica firm of Pisarra & Grist. He welcomes your questions and comments. He or (310) 664- 9969.)

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 5, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/070505.pdf?ref=smdp.com)