The judge was "interpreting law" by completely disregarding the interests of the child and giving full legal custody to a dike ex-partner who the child didn't even know? It was a completely subjective, illogical and arbitrary decision that had nothing to do with any strict interpretation of law.
No. We can't have it both ways and shouldn't. The people of Vermont enacted a law and the judge is bound by that law. He/she only gets to judge in the interest of the child when it's not contrary to the law. Law: it's just that. They enact a LAW and nothing but the state's constitution can run contrary to it in his/her ruling. That's why we are such a stable nation; we are a nation of law and order. That's why Roe vs. Wade was so bad; the court decided in favor of what they perceived as moral against what the law was - thus legislating from the bench. Besides, this judge didn't give full legal custody to the dyke; he merely gave visitation rights in accordance with their LAW. With that said, I am in favor of their civil disobedience to that law and would aid the lady if I knew her. But, the judge is not at fault here; the legislature and both of these ladies are.
Legal custody was being taken from Miller because she refused to follow court orders for visitation when she had sole custody of the child. The other woman promised to maintain visitation for Miller.
The child did know the other woman — they lived together for the 1st years of her life, and after their divorce visitation was maintained until the girl was 6.
The judge was ruling in the interest of the child, as it is unfortunately interepreted in modern culture. No judge is going to be able to legally rule that a homosexual parent is unfit simply because they are homosexual — no matter how much we wish that were the case.
There is way too much misinformation to have a rational conversation about this.