Natural law is already stretched in this case, given that the father of the child is a turkey baster.
It is best when a child is with biological parents. In this case, the child has no chance of being with her father, who was anonymous.
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 mother is single, so the child has no father-figure no matter which woman she is with.
Civil Disobedience as practiced by King and Gandhi involved breaking laws that were unjust openly and accepting the punishment for breaking those laws.
If the woman was sitting in her home, defying the order and saying that if they wanted the other woman to see her child, they would have to send police to take the child, that would be “Civil Disobedience”.
WRONG!. Lisa MIller was her mother and the pervert was merely an unrelated adult living in the same domicile.
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.
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.