Submitted by Michael Glass, Nov 6, 2007 06:33

Oregon Supreme Court should be wary of James Boldt's allegation that he wants his son circumcised for religious reasons. When he was married to the boy's mother, a court document shows that the marriage was a "dominant-submissive relationship" with the boy's mother as a "slave girl" and James Boldt as her "god" or "sovereign," When the woman broke free, obtained custody of her son and obtained a restraining order against Mr Boldt, he objected to the restraining order and had it overturned on the grounds that the master slave relationship "was consensual" that he had stopped beating his wife and there was no "immediate and present danger of the conduct recurring". The court, in its wisdom, agreed with the "god' and vacated the restraining order. Boldt now claims the right to circumcise the boy on religious grounds but is currently with a woman which the Anti-Defamation League (see its Amicus Curiae brief) describes as his "domestic partner". He has another son by yet another relationship! The boy is twelve and a half years old. There's no way that we can be sure if the boy wants to be circumcised, and even if he does, he's really not old enough or independent enough to make a free choice. Why not wait until he is a grown man. Then he can make the decision that suits him. Nor is this much different from what Mr Boldt did with his older son. Boldt converted to Judaism in 2004; his older son converted and was circumcised a year later, when he was 17. If the younger boy waits until he is 18 he will be at liberty to decide the question for himself. After all, it's his body.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.