Julie and Hillary Goodridge
Posted on 02/05/2009 10:46:32 AM PST by NYer
.- The lesbian couple whose legal case led the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to impose same-sex “marriage” on the state has filed for divorce.
Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven homosexual couples whose lawsuit Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health led Massachusetts to become the first U.S. state to recognize same-sex “marriage.”
The two were “married” on May 17, 2004 after a court ruling in their favor.
In 2006, the couple announced that they were separating, Fox News reports.
State recognition of same-sex couples has prompted many legal battles and many more are expected if more such laws are passed.
In November, the Becket Fund released a study titled “Same-Sex Marriage and State Anti-Discrimination Laws” which claimed the legal recognition of same-sex marriage could affect over 350 separate state anti-discrimination laws and could render objectors to same-sex marriage vulnerable to lawsuits.
Last week, in a case that has seen several reversals, a Vermont judge denied primary custody of a girl to the former partner of an ex-lesbian woman. Virginian Lisa Miller, the girl’s biological mother, has been in a custody fight with ex-partner Janet Jenkins of Vermont.
Though Judge William Cohen did not give Jenkins primary custody, he allowed to her extended visits including five weeks in the summer, CBN News reports.
Miller has accused Jenkins of abusing her during their relationship and claims that her daughter, Isabella, is traumatized by her visits with Jenkins.
She claims Isabella has spoken of killing herself after the visits and was required to bathe naked with Jenkins. Miller’s attorneys claim they have witnesses supporting such allegations, but the court has not scheduled a hearing on the issue, LifeSiteNews.com reports.
Miller is being represented by the group Liberty Counsel. Mat Staver, founder of the organization, lamented the extended visit periods.
"[Five weeks is] a long time to have a child separated from any parent, let alone have a child put in an activist lesbian household that has an agenda to ultimately brainwash this child," he said, according to CNB News. "Right now we're working on moving forward in the courts of Virginia."
Staver said Jenkins has tried in the past to promote the homosexual lifestyle by reading Isabella books about having "two mommies."
Here’s hoping their divorce goes through lickety-split.
NASTY. I threw up in my mouth a little.
Have fun:
Leviticus 18:16
You shall not have intercourse with your brother’s wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother.
Deuteronomy 25:5-6
When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel.
>>>Leviticus 18:16
You shall not have intercourse with your brother’s wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother.
>>>Deuteronomy 25:5-6
When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel
Well don’t stop at half measures.
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
Woe to they sell who shrimp to children. Let’s make those counter girls at Long John Silvers walk the plank. Stone the managers at Red Lobster with their own crabs. Torpedo the trawlers. Show the taliban they are amateurs.
Leviticus and Deuteronomy say so.
And when that’s done we can start enforcing these other admonitions:
Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Do you look good with hair to your waist ?
It would appear that Leviticus 18:16 is referring to an adulterous relationship, since it does not mention the brother being dead. The Deuteronomy quote is the one I was referring to. So I don’t see how this supports the claim that the Bible prohibits marrying your brother’s widow...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.