Kentucky Judge Recuses Himself From Hearing Same-Sex Adoption Cases

Photo Credit: George Hodan

GLASGOW, Ky. — A family court judge in Kentucky has recused himself from hearing same-sex adoption cases, citing that ethics codes require recusal if there is a “personal bias or prejudice” on a subject matter.

According to reports, Judge W. Mitchell Nance wrote in a court order on Thursday that as a “a matter of conscience” he believes he needs to recuse himself because “under no circumstance” does he believe that a child’s best interests would be served in family without both a mother and a father.

Nance told reporters that he has had two same-sex adoption cases come before his court: For the first, he recused himself, and for the second, he ruled in favor of the parents. After the second situation, he decided to permanently recuse himself from such matters.

“It made the matter come to my awareness more directly, I would say,” Nance told the Glasgow Daily Times. “I felt it would be more prudent to go ahead and address it.”

A judge in the court’s second division will consequently hear any same-sex adoption cases that might have otherwise been assigned to Nance.

Word of Nance’s recusal has drawn both applause and criticism, with some questioning whether Nance should be allowed to serve as a judge at all because of his views on homosexuality.

“What we have is a judge who has made a record of his inability to be a fair and impartial judge for a whole class of citizens who are entitled to have a fair and impartial judge,” Sam Marcosson, law professor at the University of Louisville, told the New York Times. “It raises serious problems about his fitness for office going forward.”

  • Connect with Christian News

However, the Family Foundation of Kentucky noted that judges on the left often have biases when ruling on cases, and that it is only right to recuse oneself so as to be fair. It said that just as all men, judges shouldn’t be forced to violate their conscience.

“If we are going to let liberal judges write their personal biases and prejudices into law, as we have done on issues of marriage and sexuality, then, in the interest of fairness, we are going to have to allow judges with different views to at least recuse themselves from such cases,” spokesman Martin Cothran said in a statement.

“When adoption agencies abandon the idea that it is in the best interest of a child to grow up with both a mother and father, people can’t expect judges who do believe that to be forced to bow the knee,” he stated. “Judges have a right of conscience like everyone else.”

Cothran said that there is no law in Kentucky requiring judges to place children in same-sex homes anyway.

In Deuteronomy 16:18, God commanded his people to appoint judges who would rule justly according to His law.

“Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment,” it reads.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to recuse themselves.

    • Colin Rafferty

      He is doing the honorable thing, because he knows that his personal views conflict with this area of the law, and knows he would not be able to apply the law fairly.

      What evil do you think is going to happen because of his recusal?

      • yabruf

        Nothing admirable about being a coward. If anyone should judge wether or not pedophiles can adopt a innocent child, its a judge!

        • Colin Rafferty

          You appear to have misread the article. He is recusing himself from same sex couple adoption cases, not pedophile ones.

          • yabruf

            Lol same sex=sodomite=pedophile

            There isn’t a difference.

          • Colin Rafferty

            lol, no.

            pedophile (n): a person who is sexually attracted to children.
            gay (n): a person who is sexually attracted to member of the same gender.

            While you may be mistaken about the distinction, the judge apparently isn’t.

            Also, BTW:

            sodomy (n): sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.

            Lots of straight people do each!

          • yabruf

            Lol, yes.

            Usually it’s funny when two people from differing worldviews, comment on the same topic. Except in this case where innocent children are involved, it is just sad.
            All sodomites are pedophiles. Sodomites are not created they are recruited through child abuse. They feel what was done to them at a young age is a form of love so they pass on that same abuse to an innocent child hence damaging another generation.
            Sodomy is sexual activity between the same sex. It’s not a description of a particular act. Your textbook definition doesn’t align with the Bible which is where the word sodomy originated.

            So in summary your view is influenced by a combination of emotion and of what popular culture tells you to believe. Which by the way is always changing aka moral relativism.

            My view is based on Biblical morality and real life experiences. Biblical morality is composed of absolute truths and frankly common sense.
            One clear advantage my view has is that political correctness isn’t a factor. And my morality doesn’t come from a dictionary…

          • Michael C

            Your textbook definition doesn’t align with the Bible which is where the word sodomy originated.

            The word “sodomy” (root word Sodom) doesn’t exist in the bible.

          • yabruf

            Lol ok where exactly does the word “sodomy” originate from if not the Bible? Please enlighten me.

          • Michael C

            Lol ok where exactly does the word “sodomy” originate from if not the Bible?


            Over a thousand years after the Old Testament was written and hundreds of years after the New Testament.

            Man twisted the words of the bible to come up with the word “sodomy.”

            It doesn’t exist anywhere in the original texts of the bible.

          • The town was originally named s’dom in the Hebrew texts.

            From the Online Etymology Dictionary entry for ‘sodomy’:
            “c. 1300, “unnatural sexual relations,” such as those imputed to the inhabitants of Biblical Sodom, especially between persons of the same sex but also with beasts, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin peccatum Sodomiticum “anal sex,” literally “the sin of Sodom,” from Latin Sodoma. In Middle English also synne Sodomyke (early 14c.).”

            Interestingly, this was 150 years *after* the Church first tried to prohibit gay priests. The original attempt was around 1100 CE & was thwarted by (Saint) Anselm of Canterbury, who was gay. He was protesting the Church’s new prohibition against gay priests, which was not based on “morality” but rather on a difference of opinion with England over the taxation of married priests. The church backed down, but reinstated the ban 50 years later when he had passed away.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Fine, I only use the dictionary so that we can have a common language. If you want to use sodomite as a synonym for gay, I’ll try to remember.

            As for your contention that sodomites are pedophiles, and that they only exist because of previous abuse as a child, you are wrong.

            I mean, it’s an interesting assertion, but it’s just wrong. And you making the assertion that it’s true doesn’t actually make it so.

            But this does explain your crazy views! Now I understand why you have such a visceral hate of gay people. If they were all pedophiles, I’d hate them, too.

            But they’re not, so I don’t. And maybe you should try to dig a little deeper and try to understand why you think that all gays are pedophiles. It seems someone must have misinformed you.

          • yabruf

            I could say the same to you. Making the assertion that they are not sodomites because of abuse is very bold statement. My argument is backed by the Bible and real life experiences. Yours however is on emotion and because it rubs you the wrong way?

            See I can conclude that you are either lying or just ignorant of the details, consequences and effects of abuse in children at a young age. Because I personally have known sodomites and those with homosexual tendencies that directly attribute their behavior to the abuse. Most were old enough to remember what it was like being a normal kid not even interested in sex. Then after the abuse they wanted to explore and even abuse others kids just as they were abused.

            So I don’t hate the sodomites I feel bad for them. What I hate is the harming of innocent children and the placing of those children in a situation with known sexual deviants.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You are the one making the positive assertion, that all gay people were abused as children. You are the one responsible for even pretending to have proof.

            And saying that you know a gay person (or even a few) that were abused as children doesn’t mean that all of them are.

            As for your claim that you don’t hate gay people, you have a funny definition of hate. I guess you only call them “filthy animals” out of love and compassion.

          • Parodyx

            You are gravely mistaken. Homosexuals are not pedophiles.

  • james blue

    Kudos judge.

  • SFBruce

    I wonder if the judge should recuse himself from any case involving a gay person, or if he shouldn’t just resign. After his statement today, why would any gay person think they’re getting a fair shake from this judge? All Litigants should feel the judge before them will give them a fair shake.

  • Parodyx

    Kim Davis, you reading this? It’s how you should have conducted yourself.

    • Denny

      Sure, she reads everything posted by homosexuals.

      • Parodyx

        Yes, she does seem rather obsessed about the private lives of people she doesn’t know.

  • William of Glynn

    At least this judge recognizes and admits his own biases. Recusing himself is entirely
    appropriate. Being an admitted fundamentalist Christian and yet retaining a sense of fairness is very admirable.

  • yabruf

    Recused seriously? He is the only thing that stands in between a pair of sodomites getting their hands on a child!

    How can he let an innocent child be handed over to these filthy animals? The abuse that these children will inevitably suffer is on him.

    • Parodyx

      Homosexuals have no interest in children. You are misinformed.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Amen to Deuteronomy 16. Same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children. Giving children the knowledge of homosexual depravity is a child-abuse. All children have rights to morality and normality and innocence. Western nations should stop pushing Sodomy and sexual confusions upon the children; it’s downright sinful and also suicidal.
    May God’s justice be bestowed upon all the Sodomic nations.

  • TheLastHonestLawyer

    He made the right decision. Any judge who feels he cannot rule based on on the law and a the facts of the case in front of him or her is required to recuse themselves from the case.

    I don’t agree with his opinions, but applaud his integrity.

    • yabruf

      Not when the law is flawed. He has no integrity because as a Christian he knows that sodomites are abusers and will hurt a child.

      He needs to grow a spine a stand for what he believes instead of throwing innocent children to the wolves and hiding behind man’s corrupt law.

      • TheLastHonestLawyer

        “Sodomites are abusers”.

        Wow, you just let your bigotry fly, don’t you.

        There have been multiple studies going back several decades that show that same-sex parents are just as good as natural parents when it comes to raising a child.

        Plus, that pesky 14th Amendment makes it clear that judges have to consider the merits of the individual case before them. That means that in the case of an adoption, the judge can only consider facts about the petitioners.

        This judge did the right thing when he realized that he could not perform his duties as required by law.

        • yabruf

          Bigotry is the discrimination based on race, religion, nationality. It has nothing to do with sexual deviants.
          Those studies are headed by the sodomites themselves besides even if they were legitimate and unbiased it would not matter. The moral law trumps man’s relative reasoning every time.

          Only petitioner fact the judge needs to know is that they are mentally unstable sexual deviants.

          And lastly the judge did the wrong thing in holding man’s ever changing flawed law higher then God’s moral law and plain common sense.

          The sodomites had the mentally insane label removed from the text books years ago through political pressure. Everyone new back then that they were mentally unstable.

          The fact that every sodomite I have met and most on TV readily admit they were abused and they know that’s why they are deviants themselves.

          No bias here, just facts, common sense and plain Biblical morality.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            OK, I feel I need to explain this again.

            The United States is a not a Christian nation. We are a nation of secular law.

            You can hate the LGBT population all you like, that’s your right. You can scream that they are subhuman sinners, call them names, and rage when they are treated as citizens, but you cannot use your religion to deny them equal rights.

            Because in this country, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. And this judge did the right thing. Any officer of the court who cannot handle any matter before the court impartially and with complete dedication to the law is required to recuse themselves.

            The judge probably also realized that if he did hear cases where a same-sex couple was adopting a child, and ruled against them, he’d be facing an instant review of that decision and possible legal sanctions. So better to do the right thing and step away.

            You can rail about conspiracies all you like. The fact is that human sexuality is a spectrum, and everyone has equal rights under the law. As for the fitness of same sex parents, my sister-in-law and her partner are raising a special needs child that no one else wanted. The kid is thriving with loving parents, a devoted extended family, and an abuela who soils the kid rotten.

            I’ll take a loving family of any type over some of the horror shows I saw come through the criminal court system.

          • Chris

            Bigotry is a synonym for prejudice which is defined as “Prejudice is an affective feeling toward a person or group member based solely on their group membership.”

            Why do you hate the dictionary yabruf? Is it because everyone would realise you are prejudiced?

  • cadcoke5

    Following the judges logic, any judge who thinks it is OK for homosexuals to adopt should also recuse himself.

    • Tangent002

      Why is that? Same-sex adoption is legal.

  • tomnchrist

    There is One Judge who will not recluse himself, and his judgment is final and forever and everyone will stand before him, .

  • Vince

    What a coward.

    • Chris

      Why? Shouldn’t someone who feels they are unable to judge impartially recuse him or herself? Or would you prefer a judge who is biased against you to hear your case?