PDA

View Full Version : A gay dad is sent to jail


Faithless
02-20-2004, 02:53 AM
A Tennessee judge threw Joe Hogue in jail for telling his son that being gay didn’t mean he’d be damned to hell. (http://www.washblade.com/2004/2-20/view/columns/gaydad.cfm)
Friday, February 20, 2004


TENNESSEE RESIDENT JOE Hogue thought he was being a good father by answering his 9-year-old son’s questions about homosexuality, something his father knows about firsthand.

But Hogue’s honesty with his son got him put in jail, then got him rebuked by an appeals court that essentially ordered him to act straight and not “subject” his son to the “gay lifestyle.”

Hogue, a producer in the Christian music industry, and his wife, Cher, divorced in February 2002, and Hogue went on to lead his life as a gay man. Though Mr. Hogue got partial custody rights to his son, part of the divorce decree prohibited Mr. Hogue from “taking the child around or otherwise exposing the child to his gay lover(s) and/or his gay lifestyle.”

According to a complaint filed by his ex-wife, Hogue allowed his son to be with his lover in their home, and (ironically) at church.

But what really got the ex-wife all riled was when Hogue apparently told his son outright that he is gay.

“When someone is gay, they are born like that,” he told his little boy, as part of his explanation of being gay. The outraged mother complained about her ex-husband’s honesty, claiming that he was violating the court order to “shield” the little boy from the “homosexual lifestyle.”

God forbid the little kid learn honesty and integrity and tolerance from his gay dad. Much better to follow the lead of the vindictive mother, and learn bigotry, denial, vengeance and homophobia.

AT LEAST ONE court in Tennessee agreed. It found Hogue guilty of violating the divorce agreement, and sent him to jail for two days.

Luckily, an appeals court disagreed at least with the part of the argument that landed Hogue in prison.

“We do not read the restraining order to prohibit a statement by the father that he is gay,” an appeals court judge wrote. “Thus, [Mr. Hogue] did not have notice that he was prohibited from telling his son he was gay and therefore cannot be held in contempt for doing so.”

Sadly, however, the appeals court found nothing wrong with the lower court order requiring that the little boy not be “exposed” to Mr. Hogue’s “gay lifestyle.”

I always wonder what these kind of people mean when they say things like that. What — they don’t want the son to have good taste in clothes or be able to pick out nice antiques or to arrange flowers? Or maybe they don’t want the son to learn about self-respect, or love, or civil rights? Hard to know which bothers them more.

Hogue told his son he is gay because his son was asking questions — as kids that age are apt to do. Hogue became concerned when his son confided in him that others were gossiping. Worse, the child was being told that his father’s soul was going to be damned to hell for being gay.

The rightfully alarmed gay dad wanted to clear it up with his son, to let his son know that he was a good Christian, and that he did not believe he was going to hell for being gay.

I often hear critics — even gay and lesbian parents — say that kids shouldn’t be told about homosexuality when they are “too young.”

BUT UNLIKE HOMOSEXUALITY, homophobia and prejudice and bigotry are not inherent traits and characteristics with which people are born. Those ugly attributes are totally man-made and learned.

People who say we shouldn’t talk to kids about homosexuality until they are “old enough to know about it,” are really saying we should just wait until kids are already brainwashed by society to hate gay people, and then, when damage is already well set in, we should try to do a meager job of reversing it.

To most kids, being gay or lesbian is initially a neutral point. It becomes an issue when they pick up on societal clues around them that this is somehow bad or wrong or dirty.

Anyone who thinks that pre-teen kids are “too young” to know about gay people has never been to a local playground or in a contemporary school, where the words “fag” and “gay” are used incessantly. And not in a good way.

The question isn’t whether or not kids should learn about what it means to be gay. They’re going to get information about it one way or the other.

The question is what they hear, how they hear it, and who they hear it from.

missmeow
02-20-2004, 05:58 PM
Thank goodness I grew up in ultra-liberal Portland, OR.

hooligan
02-20-2004, 07:00 PM
w.t.f. that's messed up. i'm not sure what to say, can the court do that? what if the child watches will and grace. is hogue still held responsible?

Faithless
02-21-2004, 12:33 AM
You think that's messed up, you ought to read the actual court document:

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tca/PDF/041/hoguec.pdf
Chancellor found father of minor child, who told child he is gay, in contempt for violating restraining order which prohibited father “from taking the child around or otherwise exposing the child to his gay lover(s) and/or his gay lifestyle.” Father appeals, asserting the restraining order was overbroad
and/or vague, not issued pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 65.03, and had expired prior to the alleged offense. While we find the restraining order was issued properly and not overly broad, we find the father’s act of telling child he is gay did not violate the restraining order as written.
...
This appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding in the Williamson County Chancery Court. On February 6, 2002, Cher Lynn Hogue, mother of the couple’s minor child, filed a complaint for divorce alleging irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. In the complaint she alleged that her husband Joseph Randolph Hogue, Jr., Appellant and father of the minor child, left the marital home, his wife and child to “pursue his gay lifestyle.” She further alleged that her husband would expose their son to his new lifestyle, that such exposure was against the advice of the child’s counselor and requested a restraining order to prevent such.
...


Don't know if the other article mentioned it, but there will be an appeal.

Nashville dad gets new hearing (http://www.washblade.com/2004/2-20/news/national/gaydads.cfm)
...
But the appeals court agreed Feb. 9 to rehear the case, which is a “good sign,” said Ken Choe, the attorney handling the case for the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It’s not a common thing for courts to rehear a case,” Choe said.

A date for the hearing had not been set at press time.

If the appeals court reverses its decision, “it would set a precedent for all gay and lesbian parents in Tennessee,” Choe said. “The court addressed an issue that it should not address.”
...

moJo
02-21-2004, 12:54 AM
i can't believe i'm reading this. sheesh. was this in boonyville, tn? i can't imagine it happening in the major cities in tn (as much as some of us like to rip on the south).

and please, what kind of "gay lifestyle" did he allegedly expose his kid to??? :rolleyes:

kimpossible
02-21-2004, 08:40 AM
Thank goodness I grew up in ultra-liberal Portland, OR.

No offense, but Portland isn't that liberal. Not until my sister can walk down the street openly with her girlfriend without fear of physical danger or verbal threats.

missmeow
02-21-2004, 08:58 PM
Ok, it isn't superliberal ala SF and there still is a lot of predjudice, but at least it's not Nashville and my dad never went to jail.

Of course, he moved in LA when we were still young...

Arex
02-22-2004, 04:34 AM
Hmmm... No offense conservatives/ultra-conservatives, but some of them fools deserve a major beat down... :mad:

rX

PropellerheadCP
02-22-2004, 09:01 AM
i can't believe i'm reading this. sheesh. was this in boonyville, tn? i can't imagine it happening in the major cities in tn (as much as some of us like to rip on the south).

and please, what kind of "gay lifestyle" did he allegedly expose his kid to??? :rolleyes:

The kid's mom was probably afraid that her ex-husband will give her kid "gays". :rolleyes:

Actually, she seems like she may had felt betrayed by her ex-husband coming out of the closet, after they got married and had a child. That would probably amplify any form of homophobia that she already had, before the divorce. That and she was probably looking for an opportunity to take away the man's visiting rights, anyway. Add them together and you get, "I don't want him to expose to my son to his gay lifestyle!"

Yes... I know. Stating the obvious again.

SunWuKong
02-23-2004, 11:24 PM
who the hell allowed this vague statement to be written into a legal document anyway: "taking the child around or otherwise exposing the child to his gay lover(s) and/or his gay lifestyle".

taking the child around...?

Faithless
02-23-2004, 11:31 PM
who the hell allowed this vague statement to be written into a legal document anyway: "taking the child around or otherwise exposing the child to his gay lover(s) and/or his gay lifestyle".

taking the child around...?
Imagine The Wiz. And Michael Jackson and Dianna Ross skipping around.

The mom and the courts must have had mental images like that I guess. :rolleyes: