Posted on 12/30/2009 7:39:32 AM PST by walford
...Miller and Jenkins were joined in a Vermont civil union in 2000. Isabella was born to Miller through artificial insemination in 2002. The couple broke up in 2003, and Miller moved to Virginia, renounced homosexuality and became an evangelical Christian.
Cohen awarded custody of the girl to Jenkins on Nov. 20 after finding Miller in contempt of court for denying Jenkins access to the girl.
The judge said the only way to ensure equal access to the child was to switch custody. He also said the benefits to the child of having access to both parents would be worth the difficulties of the change...
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I have therefore been wavering on the homosexual marriage issue, but this case tilts me against it. The birth mother is also the genetic mother and the father is turkey-baster.
The mother decided to renounce homosexuality and to try to raise her child outside of that milieu. The child has only known her current [non-homosexual] way of life since she was an infant.
The problem is, there was a government-sanctioned "marriage" involved that obligated visitation. Opting the child out of exposure to normalized homosexuality was thus legally denied the mother.
I am increasingly distressed how children [in hetero and homo marriages] are regarded by the Courts as property to whom parents are entitled. What is good for the child seems to be of only passing interest as indulging the parents' whims seems to be paramount.
Homosexual marriage also opens the door to the government sanctioning of just about any other mix-and-match combination. There are polyamorous groupings [those with 3 or more "partners"] out there who would have every reason to justify having their relationships sanctioned by the government also. These would then be protected by the Courts and eligible for taxpayer support as well.
Again, I am not happy about the government having to take a stand on this issue one way or the other, preferring instead to let people associate privately as they see fit. But when it comes to childrens' interests and having the rest of us being forced to accept -- and even subsidize a lifestyle to which we may object -- I must draw the line.
They can hide at my place.
People need to drag the judge into the streets and do real justice.
Did she adopt the baby? If she did she is a parent... and the courts cannot adjure her rights.
Amen! This sick Judge Cohen wants to turn over this precious child to a pervert who had absolutely nothing to do with its birth.
It also really seems wrong that custody is being pulled from the parent as punishment—in this case, contempt of court. What ever happened to a fine or a weekend in jail?
Many Judges see themselves as agents of social change, just ask any wise latina.
Sodom, the perverts are gaining control of the US. We will all be underground if this keeps up.
“Did she adopt the baby? If she did she is a parent... and the courts cannot adjure her rights.”
If you are referring to the “other” [non-birth] mother who is still a lesbian, the article doesn’t say. Likely that is the case.
Homosexual marriage permits such adoptions and they must be respected in all 50 states — hence my objection. It is not in the interests of children and forces everyone else to support it.
whoa
I wonder if that judge wears body armor. If not he should probably start.
I doubt the court would take the child away from the birth mom if the spouse was a male.
This is the world that the libtard fisters want and that the a**holes gave him who voted for the Kenyan. It is an upside down world and those of us who cherish freedom and honor God better figure out how to take it back. My prediction is that to do so involves having the pendulum swing really hard right which will be bad news for the libtards and their ilk. Be prepared for the inner cities to explode when we cut off the government spigot to the freeloaders, which will help in a way as the rabble will attack anyone who has what they want meaning the gun-adverse libtards will be first to go. Kiss their a**es goodbye
“It also really seems wrong that custody is being pulled from the parent as punishment—in this case, contempt of court. What ever happened to a fine or a weekend in jail?”
I don’t think this sort of enforcement would be as zealous if the parent denied visitation was a man. I certainly cannot envision a judge taking custody from the mother and transferring the child to the father on those grounds, can you?
A friend of mine was denied visitation with his daughter and the mother never suffered any penalty for it. He attempted to pressure her by withholding child support and was promptly arrested.
He hasn’t seen his daughter since she was a toddler who is now an adult.
She did not, and Virginia State Law specifically directs the courts to ignore any civil-union/marriage in making adjudications.
The insane are running the country.
Read my tagline....’nuf said.
Read my tagline....’nuf said.
In this case, the biological mother chose to have a child and begin raising the child in a home where the child was taught to regard the partner as a parent. Then the biological mother changed her mind, decided her child's other parent was evil and kicked her out of the child's life. The courts would have reached the same decision if the biological mother had remained a lesbian and the partner became an evengelical Christian. Primary custody would have been awarded to the biological mother, with visitation rights awarded to her ex-partner. And if the still-lesbian biological mother had then refused to allow the girl to visit the now-evangelical Christian ex-partner in defiance of the court order, primary custody would have been switched.
Note that BOTH the Vermont and Virginia supreme courts decided in favor of this change of primary custody switch, even though the Virginia constitution has a provision that bans enforcement of rights arising from same-sex civil unions or marriages. The Virginia decision was based on recognition of the Vermont court's visitation order, and would have been the same for any unmarried/ununioned heterosexual couple in the same situation. This is proper recognition for the laws of other states. If one state's laws explicitly state that grandparents are not entitled to visitation rights by virtue of being grandparents, that state should (and would) still enforce a visitation order from another state whose laws specify that grandparents are entitled to visitation rights.
Homosexual marriage also opens the door to the government sanctioning of just about any other mix-and-match combination. There are polyamorous groupings [those with 3 or more "partners"] out there who would have every reason to justify having their relationships sanctioned by the government also. These would then be protected by the Courts and eligible for taxpayer support as well.
Freedom means not having government dictating that people have different legal rights based on the choices they make in arranging their personal lives. Government shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, unions, etc, beyond having courts enforce private contracts that free citizens have voluntarily entered into with each other, just as is done for business-type contracts.
They need to drag out the politicians who allowed this crap and hang THEM.
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.