What part of "she entered into a civil union - a legally binding contract - of her own free will" don't you understand. She entered into an agreement with this woman.
It's not the court's prerogative or place to determine if it was a good thing, or a moral decision to enter into such a contract. But, it is the court's obligation to determine the enforceability of such an agreement. The precedent is clear for both the VT judge who initially granted visitation rights to the lesbian partner, and for the VA who followed the appropriate US Federal Law on interstate custody agreements.
Once again, you wish to have the court IGNORE the law to reach a conclusion that you believe to be fair and just. You may not think you're a liberal, but THAT is a liberal argument for their kind of legal system.
The child didn’t enter into any agreements and the courts have no right to give that child away to a non-relative.
Children are not property to be handed out to former sex-partners as if they’re no more than furniture.
In case you missed it in history class your very country was founded by people who stood up against unjust laws. -Although unjust in a way that was entirely trivial compared to what is happening today. Would you say those men should have been hanged for their treason? Is that your definition of conservatism?
Morality trumps law and we are all responsible for the moral and immoral choices we make. Pointing to laws as a replacement for morals is just plain pathetic.