Posted on 01/01/2010 3:59:14 PM PST by Steelfish
one small problem with that, Virginia has an Amendment to it’s Constitution invaliding all civil unions from other states in Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court was wrong and there was another case making its way thru the system. There was supposed to be another hearing in January in Virginia at the Court of Appeals.
Would make a great protest sign for outside his house though
"William Cohen is a child molester"
She entered into the relationship. A child was born into the relationship.
She changed her mind and now has decided to deny the other ‘mother’ any visitation.
There was no relationship between the pervert and the child.
The child was born to Lisa Miller, who at the time lived with another unrelated person. The pervert has no possible claim to the child.
The "nightmare" occurred because the people who approved public recognition of sexually perverted "unions" were not lynched like they should been.
Any exposure of children to homosexual behvaior is child abuse. The judge giving custody of a child to a homosexual is a child molester.
A judge has the power to invalidate an inllegal law. Especially in this case where Virginia does not even recognize the Vermon "civil union".
According to Virginia law Lisa and the pervert were NEVER in a legal relationship.
WRONG!. Lisa MIller was her mother and the pervert was merely an unrelated adult living in the same domicile.
Secondly, all Western law is based on God and nature. You've taken love of "the law" (which is almost always a good thing) put it above God and nature, turning the very concept of law on its head. Hence, when your respective states create a law that compels you each must mate with giraffes, I expect you both to comply.
Law means nothing if it simply eminates from the "bright ideas" of men, detached from truth and TRUE justice. Chaos and devolution then become inevitable.
The natural mother doesn't want the child she loves, her own flesh and blood, taking baths with a non-related lesbian the child barely knows. Yet we're being told the only choice the judge had was to tear the child from the mother and give her to the lesbian.
This is collective insanity.
The mother has a biological attachment to this child, the lesbian lover of the mother has exactly zilch.
- - - - - -
An ex-partner who didn’t want Lisa to have the baby in the first place, who NEVER went to any prenatal appts, who was not present at the birth (iirc), and who ONLY sought visitation AFTER Lisa refused to stop the “dissolution of the civil union”.
This is an angry dyke who is seeking revenge, not a child.
I do not have any use for a natural mother who is queer
- - - - - -
She no longer considers herself homosexual. Lisa became a born again Christian in 2003 which is specifically why she broke up with Jenkins.
One of the issues in this case is Jenkins did not want the little girl to be raised as a “hateful” Christian.
If she allowed some visitation in the first place this nightmare would not have occurred.
- - - - -
The reasons the visitations were halted is because the mother had reasonable suspicions that the “partner” had been touching the little girl inappropriately and had filed charges.
excellent summary of the situation.
It appears that there are no lawyers/attorneys left in our culture who have ...OK.....a pair...a set...something in their pants....
- - - - -
Not ALL lawyers are like that (DH comes to mind) but even he agrees that there are a lot of wimpy liberal lawyers.
That’s what I’ve read, too. The mother claimed molestation but there was no evidence. Of course, I don’t know all the facts. And as you said, these type of charges come up in custody cases.
Is it true that they were mothers for several years before the relationship ended? Everything I’ve read so far says that the relationship ended about a year after the child was born, the birth mother moved to Virginia and the other parent had visitation.
It certainly wasn’t best for the child to be brought into the world in a gay relationship, but that’s what the mother did to the daughter, and two women were mothers to the child for several years before the relationship ended.
- - - - -
The child was born in 2002 and they broke up in 2003. So they were not mothers together with the child for years.
Also, there have been reports that the “partner” did not want the child and Lisa got pregnant on her own. Jenkins did not attend Dr. Appts, or anything else and was not happy about the pregnancy.
It has also been reported that Jenkins wanted a reconciliation and when Lisa refused.
Now, it is possible I am wrong, but given the huge number of gays and lesbians I know (grew up in high gay population and dad was gay) and familiarity with their immaturity and viciousness, it would not surprise me in the least that this whole thing is about revenge and not the child.
The VA courts ruled in Jenkins' (the ex- in VT)favor.
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore
Put his hands in the noose as well.
She had a child with another person and she has no right to deprive the other person of access to their child.
Where are the DNA test results showing parentage???
She made her bed and she has to lie in it.
And to hell with the rights of the kid?
The law is meaningless anymore... and lawyers, with their insular, unconstitutional bar associations are to blame for this...
Yes, that scenario would certainly constitute civil disobedience. But I'd say one isn't obliged to sit passively and let oneself be arrested (or let a child be taken) in order to be civilly disobedient:
IMNNHO it's equally civil and equally disobedient to flee the unjust laws of an unjust jurisdiction — in order to avoid arrest and in order to keep one’s daughter away from a lesbian whose interests well may involve something other than the welfare of the child.
Of course, King and Gandhi sat passively and allowed themselves to be arrested. I believe the chief goal of this tactic was to attract attention to laws they thought deeply unjust. Nothing wrong with that. But should the morality of these men's actions be contingent upon their being arrested and jailed? I guess you say “yes” whereas I say “not at all.” So let's agree to disagree and leave matters stand.
Absolutely. And speaking of natural law, I just came across an excellent brief discussion elsewere on FR. The analysis is perhaps more relevant to this thread than to its original target, which was Øbumblercare. See:
The woman awarded custody shares absolutely zero DNA with the child. The woman who is her natural mother, and who wants the child, and who is willing to risk jail to keep her child, is the one who will not get the child.
The only answer is emigration to another nation where she can hide. I don’t know where that would be.
Perhaps she could disappear into one of our own remote states: Alaska, Montana.
Disappearing sounds like the only answer to such an unreasonable decision. When can children choose where they live: 14 years old?
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.