Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Lisa Miller and daughter “disappear”
For several years, WORLD has been following the saga of Lisa Miller, a former lesbian who turned to Christianity and has been trying to gain sole custody of her 7-year-old biological daughter Isabella. Miller’s former civil union partner, Janet Jenkins, won full custody in November and was to receive the child on Friday. Vermont Judge William Cohen said the court’s decision resulted after Miller failed to deliver Isabella to Jenkins for court-ordered visits. Now comes word in an AP report that Miller and her daughter, who live in Virginia, are missing:
[I]n the Dec. 22 order denying Miller’s request to delay the transfer of Isabella, Cohen wrote: “It appears that Ms. Miller has ceased contact with her attorneys and disappeared with the minor child.” . . .
Mathew Staver, Miller’s attorney, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on the case. . . .
Jenkins’ attorney, Sarah Star, said she hopes Miller is simply not communicating with her attorneys but plans to comply with the order.
“It is Ms. Jenkins’ intent when she has custody of Isabella to allow as liberal contact as is possible with her other mother,” Star said Tuesday. . . .
If Miller does not turn over Isabella, the most likely scenerio[sic] is that she would be held in contempt of court and a warrant would be issued for her arrest, said Cheryl Hanna, a professor of constitutional law at Vermont Law School.
“I think the underlying thing is the fact that they are a lesbian couple doesn’t mean that the court’s going to treat this any differently than if they were a heterosexual couple,” she said.
back to top180 Comments to “Lisa Miller and daughter “disappear””
The real mother should have full legal rights and responsibilities in regard to her child. The other woman was, at best, a step-parent, and she wasn’t in the child’s life very long.
Report comment to moderator
As Christians, I don’t even know why any of this should even matter to us. We have enough of our own problems without worrying about this.
Report comment to moderator
“I think the underlying thing is the fact that they are a lesbian couple doesn’t mean that the court’s going to treat this any differently than if they were a heterosexual couple,” she said
That one caught my attention. So, if the couple WERE heteosexual, and the male “spouse” was a “step-father”, would he be awarded custody, all things being equal? Some how, I highly doubt it. But then again, I readily admit that I don’t know all the details. And I can perceive of many reasons why the step-father should be awarded custody: abuse, neglect, drugs.
This wouldn’t even be news except for the lesbianism. Sad. Has anybody asked what the 7 year old daughter wants?
Report comment to moderator
Bianca, I’m not sure about that one. We can at least pray. Actually, that is always what we should do, isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
I think it is very sad that this has happened. I would have preferred that there was an order staying this handover until the Supremes hear the case. She is open to contempt of court citation, assuming they find her. There are groups that do this sort of underground stuff. You may recall a famous case where a woman sent her child overseas and she did go to jail refusing to say where the child was to keep her from her father. I’d have to google to find more. The woman married a federal judge by the way.
I don’t think anyone — including the court — has taken the feelings of this 7 year old into consideration. How taking a child from her mother to hand her over to a virtual stranger can be “in the best interests of the child” is beyond me. And quite frankly, I think the woman from Vermont — well, I can’t tell you what I think of the woman from Vermont. Using a child as a pawn for political purposes brings the Schiavo case to mind. Like Teri, this kid is toast.
Report comment to moderator
BIANCE, if we were NOT Christians, I could conceivable understand that some would not care about this but as Christians, we have solid reason to care. Being a Christian means that our own problems do NOT stop us from caring about others, caring about decency and about justice and the flourishing of unrepentance in our culture.
Report comment to moderator
I mean; “…conceivably…”
Report comment to moderator
Bianca, here’s why:
We are American citizens.
We care about the welfare of children.
It’s a sad circumstance all around.
It shows us where we are as a country.
Report comment to moderator
I would probably go to jail before willfully delivering up my child in a case like this. But going to jail means giving up my child anyhow. Thus, some form of civil disobediance is as appropriate here as it was for Martin Luther King, Jr, in the 60s–facing social injustice, and going into hiding seems to be her most decent and loving parental option.
Christians are increasingly being forced into lose-lose scenarios in the moral coma that we call American culture today.
And yes, I do hold this court in contempt.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus cared about his culture, and ESPEDIALLY when it came to those in his “wicked and adulterous generation” who would cause little children to sin and/or stumble.
See Matthew 18:6 for Jesus’ attitude.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Joel Mark, for your always wise and insightful thoughts. My heart aches for this mother trying to protect her daughter and I will be praying for her safety. God help a nation that stands idly by while others, even courts, willfully hurt children. This is an outrage.
Report comment to moderator
I think the underlying thing is the fact that they are a lesbian couple doesn’t mean that the court’s going to treat this any differently than if they were a heterosexual couple.
Note that this was uttered by a professor of constitutional law, not a professor of domestic relations law. It would be more informative to see whether an ex-step-father could ever get joint custody with the biological mother. There is no family relationship, by blood or adoption, in such a case, so like Brotherdan, I doubt the ex-step-father would have any rights whatsoever. The only thing left is the best interests of the child, which clearly favor staying with the only real mother she has ever known. Thus, it seems that the court is treating this differently due to the homosexual nature of the prior relationship.
Report comment to moderator
And I agree with you Diana that this is an outrage. It’s a sad day in America when something this outrageous happens, and to a little girl no less.
Report comment to moderator
“Thus, it seems that the court is treating this differently due to the homosexual nature of the prior relationship.”
That is exactly right, and this is all at the expense of a child and her childhood.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, the wishes of the child were clearly made known. She did not want to be torn from her mother and taken to her mother’s former girlfriend. The former girlfriend was forcing the girl to take baths with her without clothing. The girl threw up from fear before each visit. If it were a former boyfriend doing this to the girl, a judge may have stepped in to protect the girl from unsupervised visits. Obviously, the rights of lesbians override those of innocent children. It is a travesty that there is little legal protection for children in this country.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder what I would do in this situation. What a terrible choice she had to make.
Report comment to moderator
The real parent should get to decide how much involvement the other party has in the child’s life. In my mind it’s that simple. Had this been a case of a girl actually rasied by the other woman, and the child truly regarded her as one of her parents, I would see it differently. In that case it might be in the child’s best interests to continue a relationship with that person.
Report comment to moderator
Where is King Solomon when needed most?
Report comment to moderator
#18
As long as King Solomon remembers to bring along his sword.
Report comment to moderator
Probably the “ex-lesbian” is in Peru.
In any case, are you saying that childnapping is OK if you are a Christian?
This is kind of a sad thread, but just about what I would expect from worldmagblog.
Report comment to moderator
It’s fascinating to me that evangelical christians are so interested in all things homosexual. There are interesting connections to explore here.
Report comment to moderator
Here you are again CT –
Christians know by reading the Word of GOD that homosexuality is a sin, hence they speak up – no surprise, even to you CT.
Report comment to moderator
This phrase sounds VERY familiar excecept changing homosecual TO abortion.
What are your interests regarding homosexualit CT? – please let us in on your latest obersvations regarding “Evangelical Christians” – both of which are upper case…… did you know that?
Report comment to moderator
POST 23 should read:
This phrase sounds VERY familiar except changing abortion TO homosexual.
What are your interests regarding homosexuality CT?
Report comment to moderator
Random, how would you feel about a case where a mother was forced to hand her child over to an abusive ex boyfriend? Ex stepfather? There is evidence of abuse that the courts ignored in their rush to be politically correct. No parent could possibly surrender their child in this situation. Civil disobedience is a legitimate option in this instance. Not only that, it’s highly American–this country was founded because the colonists firmly believed that an unjust law was NO law at all. I hope she manages to evade the dragnet, and Janet Jenkins never gets her hands on this child. This is just sick. How can the courts POSSIBLY justify stripping Lisa Miller of her child in favor of a non relative without clear and compelling evidence of abuse?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about missing the shift key, victoria. I appreciate your orthographical care.
My own interests regard not homosexuality per se, but rather the exciting connections between homosexuality and the Evangelical church.
Report comment to moderator
What might those “exciting connections” be CT? – I’m sure most will be waiting with baited breath, to read your next installment.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #27: we might begin with the pervasive expressions of male homosexuality in contemporary Evangelical worship services. (And there’s reason to believe that it’s not just a recent trend.)
Report comment to moderator
We could begin with any anti-Christian idea one wished to discuss, but it wouldn’t make any difference to a Born Again Believer. Homosexulaity,…. either female or male is sin according to the Word of GOD, the Bible hasn’t changed BUT mans idea of sin changes according to his lust.
Sin isn’t just a “recent trend” it started from the beginning.
Are you a friend of Musing?
Report comment to moderator
I’ve never met Musing, but I also claim no originality to my observations. I expect that the male homosexuality prevalent in Evangelical worship services is actively appreciated by many people–including many of its participants.
Report comment to moderator
My beloved State of Vermont has become a cesspool of PC activity.
Henceforth when you read of my Vermont connection ( I am 4th generation) please keep in mind that I speak about a state that was once sane.
CT: Any church that embraces a person who flaunts a sinfull lifestyle and remains unrepentant is not a true church of Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
#3 BrotherDan,
It’s hard to imagine a case where the father would be given sole custody over the mother—unless she were out of the child’s life, or a proven danger to the child. I think the courts are biased in favor of the mother. And this case was easy for the perverted VT court, since one of the ‘mothers’ is gay, they get to push that agenda too. A win/win for them. But it’s sad for the child and her real mother who now must be in hiding. I hope the mother and child are able to find safe haven somewhere.
Report comment to moderator
When they were a couple, Miller and Jenkins decided to raise Isabella together.
When they split, Miller agreed to let Jenkins have visitation rights. Jenkins was even paying child support.
Miller refused to allow Jenkins to have unsupervised time with Isabella claiming that Jenkins was harming Isabella. The Virginia Child Protective Services investigated and found the charges to be false.
Victoria to CT: What might those “exciting connections” be CT? – I’m sure most will be waiting with baited breath, to read your next installment.
What are your interests regarding homosexuality CT?
CT, you will soon learn that no one – Evangelical or not, homosexual or not – no one is more interested in tittilating tidbits concerning homosexuality than Victoria The Bold. She will speculate breathlessly about every salacious detail of your sex life. She’ll imagine torrid scenarios between you and Fabio (if you’re male) or Rachel Maddow (if you’re female). There will be endless speculation whirling through the tread about whether or not you are gay, culminating in the assumption that you MUST be, because gay people have no heterosexual friends, family or allies.
Of course, your underlying point is sound. Male homosexuality makes for excellent fodder here at WMB for a certain type of Evangelical… the kind whose imaginations literally run wild with it.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A wrote; “In that case it might be in the child’s best interests to continue a relationship with that person.”
Please explain how you can say this as a Christian in light of the points at #15 and in light of the fact that such a relationship will intentionally expose a child to ongoing unrepentant perversion and glorification of that perversion and sin in a host of ways in the home.
Report comment to moderator
#31 Roger Patno: re the last 2 lines of your post above:
Sadly brother I and many others reached the same conclusion when an openly gay (and not a “recovering”)man was ordained deacon at the University Baptist Church. UBCaustin dot org for more info on this.
Report comment to moderator
CT wrote at #21, “It’s fascinating to me that evangelical christians are so interested in all things homosexual. There are interesting connections to explore here.”
I think this is a profoundly ignorant comment. CT has no idea of what or how evangelicals think, or why. CT’s fascination is build on a populist media-automated illusion. The “all things homosexual” attitude belongs to the homosexualists and it is morally courageous and crucial for decent people to stand up to their obsession with all things homosexual. We saw this with the homosexualists’ vicious attacks on the Boy Scouts and too many Americans were heartless, clueless and uncaring. At least a few evengelical Christians have a measure of moral courage and care about protecting children.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, your presumptive and irresponsible personal reflections about Victoria (wrong as they are) do not address the issue… as usual.
Report comment to moderator
“In any case, are you saying that childnapping is OK if you are a Christian?”
Or it’s your child.
Report comment to moderator
It sounds like CT is accusing the whole Evangelical movement of being secretly gay. Usually when a lib starts accusing you of being secretly gay it means they are out of logical argument and you have won the debate. WOO HOO!
Report comment to moderator
Joel at 37:
Thomas, your presumptive and irresponsible personal reflections about Victoria (wrong as they are) do not address the issue… as usual.
*record scratch*
Victoria asked CT at 24: What are your interests regarding homosexuality CT?
Her emphasis is noted.
Why do you suppose she wants to know, personally, what CT’s interests regarding homosexuality are? Why is it germane to the discussion at hand?
It’s not germane at all, Joel. But it does seem to be a road Victoria loves to boldly travel. In addition to providing salacious speculation and tittilating tidbits over which to titter, it’s a form of attacking CT’s argument without addressing it. She gets to attack him instead.
Case closed. Joel, you’d be better off finding a higher grade of comment to defend than 24.
Report comment to moderator
Surely there are similar precedents to draw upon involving hetro couples. Namely, situations where the mother’s male partner/husband is not the biological father, and has not adopted the child, but at some point had a supportive relationship to the child as a stepfather.
I can think of anecdotal cases involving people I’ve known (in which case the former stepfather has no rights), but I’m not a legal scholar so I’d appreciate any info on the matter. Anyone?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas asked; “Why do you suppose she wants to know, personally, what CT’s interests regarding homosexuality are?”
Do you really not know, Thomas, or are you just faking ignorance? CT first made a presumptive statement that evangelical Christians are “interested in all things homosexual.” I think Victoria was just wondering where such prejudicial presumptions come from.
You also referred to Victoria with some silly title phrase rather than just respectfully referring to her name. You presumed on her motives incorrectly, I think, when you referred to some presumed interest in “tittilating tidbits.”
I think you misunderstood Victoia’s points and her motives.
Thomas, what sort of “slacious speculation” (your phrase) are you talking about? (not that I expect you to answer respectfully, mind you).
Thomas, I think you were BOTH wrong and disrespectful.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, quit while you’re behind.
I think Victoria was just wondering where such prejudicial presumptions come from.
She could have asked that a LOT differently. It’s both incorrect and disrespectful to question a person on a public blog about their genitalia and what they like to do with it, even in the context of a “gay” thread. Victoria’s interest in the sex lives of others is pretty well documented. It’s downright Victorian!
But if you disagree that speculating about the sex lives of bloggers is wrong and inappropriate, why don’t you and Victoria each tell us all about you and yours?
On second thought, please don’t. Just knock off defending the line of questioning, k?
I think you misunderstood Victoia’s points and her motives.
Not one bit.
Report comment to moderator
Brad1982,
The question would be whether there are precedents to draw on involving hetero couples where the state laws (where the two people were filing for custody) were as different regarding how they recognize parenthood. I don’t know hardly anything on that subject, but somehow I doubt that states differ as much on how they view parenthood in hetero couples as in how they do in same-sex cases.
From the legal standpoint, the case is clearly a mess. I don’t see any simple solution as long as the two women are unable to come to an agreement and continue using the courts to fight it out.
From a moral standpoint, it’s not much better. The two women made a choice, years ago, to join their lives together, and chose to make that commitment legally binding. They chose to raise a child together. One of them now believes those choices were wrong. But that doesn’t undo the consequences of those choices, which is to have entwined not just two but three lives.
Setting aside the details of this particular case, does having a religious conversion trump previous commitments? What if the woman who had become a born-again Christian were the non-biological mother instead? What if the biological mother had become a Muslim or a Wiccan? Would that change how the case should be viewed?
As to the particular case, it should come down to what is best for the child. I would hope people would agree on that, but people are hardly going to agree on what is best for the child. The fact that the girl hasn’t seen Jenkins in a long time can be seen as a good reason to keep her where she is rather than ripping her away.
But then that same reasoning could be used by any parent of a young child who wanted to get sole custody, by simply taking the child away for a long enough time. I have to admit I have wondered, in the recent Brazil kidnapping case, what it is like for the boy going back to a father he hadn’t seen for years.
The allegations of abuse are a big issue. If true, then Jenkins should certainly not get custody, nor even unsupervised visitation rights. From the articles I’ve read, there are an awful lot of accusations both women make against each other, and which each deny in turn. They each have a different version of the history of their relationship, of how things went when the girl was little and they were together, and of how the other has behaved since they split. How in the world do you sort out the truth?
Report comment to moderator
Why do I try to engage disrespectful people in conversation? Must try to do better in the New Year.
Report comment to moderator
#33 Thomas,
No one is ‘tittering’ here. Most Bible believing Christians believe homosexual activity is sinful and perverted. It’s not a personal attack on you. It’s a Biblical principle that many Christians, including myself, believe. No one wishes you harm.
No one is indulging in flights of fancy regarding your personal sexual activities. In fact, I don’t know anyone who enjoys discussing homosexual sexual activities. But homosexual activists have forced their way into our consciousness through our classrooms and courthouses, so now I guess you’ll just have to deal with people talking about the pros and cons of gay sexual practices on occasion. If you don’t want it talked about openly, don’t bring it out of the closet. If you bring it out of the closet and shove it in everyone’s face, expect it to be discussed to some extent. You can’t have it both ways.
Report comment to moderator
DJ, do us all a favor and go back to re-read.
Start at 24. Once you have who’s who figured out, then respond to my comment.
Victoria and others have a dirty habit of questioning the sexual proclivities of pro-homosexual bloggers. (In Victoria’s case, she has acknowledged doing the same with regard to random strangers who aren’t necessarily advertising it.)
The only reason for this is simple ad hom – you’re arguing in favor of gay rights; ergo, you must be gay, ergo, your argument is meritless. It’s a classic logical fallacy from the neener-neener school of debate. As practiced here, it takes on a particularly prurient and dirty tone. And it adds nothing to the discussion.
It is to this that I refer.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, it is nowhere near “complicated,” actually. One woman is the mother; the other is not. The second woman did not even adopt the child. Homosexual marriage is not even recognized in their state. The second woman has absolutely no legal rights to the child. Yes, the mother has a right to change her mind concerning someone having access to the child. Parents do that all the time, when they find out that a child’s friend is a bad influence. In this case, the mother decided she didn’t want her child influenced by someone involved in sexual perversion–she has that right.
I keep imagining the case this way: When I first got my puppy, I had a roommate. She lived with me for a year or so, until my dog was grown, and then she moved out so that I could use her room for foster kids. If she had claimed the legal right to take my dog with her, she would have been wrong. We both lived with the dog, but the dog is mine. And this is just a dog, and I didn’t give birth to her. This other woman is demanding rights to a child that no court would grant my roommate concerning a dog, with no more legal claims to the child than my former roommate has to my dog.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas I suggest you go back to post 21 where CT said,
“It’s fascinating to me that evangelical christians are so interested in all things homosexual. There are interesting connections to explore here.”
Victoria’s post 24 was in response to that.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, Victoria’s post was incredibly inappropriate in response to CT’s. CT made a general statement. Instead of challenging the statement, Victoria made a personal reference as an attack.
You do see the difference, right? No?
Report comment to moderator
“Vermont Judge William Cohen said the court’s decision resulted after Miller failed to deliver Isabella to Jenkins for court-ordered visits.”
Another out of touch Judge.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
A roommate comes in to your home with no expectation of a lasting relationship, only the use of the home and to get along with you while she lives there. If you had made a legal commitment to share your life with her (Vermont does have civil unions and these two women made a point of going there for that reason), and you had agreed to raise a dog together and went out and chose it together and shared in the costs and work of raising it, would you feel that she had no rights whatsoever to it?
The two women disagree in their stories as to whether they discussed adoption. They also had different assumptions about what Vermont’s civil union law would mean as to the second woman’s status as parent – a matter that apparently had not at the time been put to a serious test in the courts because the law was still pretty new.
Given the two women’s past history, I do not think that the case of a pet owner who has taken in a roommate for a year, or a parent deciding what friends/acquaintances may have access to the child, is a reasonable comparison.
Whether the second woman has a legal claim depends on whether jurisdiction is in Vermont or Virginia. Currently Vermont is being given priority because the first legal action was taken in a Vermont court, prior to anything being filed in Virginia.
Whether the second woman has a reasonable claim on ethical grounds is a different matter. And that depends on a lot that we don’t know regarding the past history of these three people. Each account that I read gave different information, depending on whether the author was sympathetic to one side or the other.
Report comment to moderator
CT 12.30.09 AT 12:38 AM
It’s fascinating to me that evangelical Christians are so interested in all things homosexual. There are interesting connections to explore here.
—
CT the issue is the fact that GLBT Community has a desire to force their moral values onto the rest of Society. An even are trying to force their moral values onto the Christian Church.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 12.30.09 AT 1:18 AM
Here you are again CT –
Christians know by reading the Word of GOD that homosexuality is a sin, hence they speak up – no surprise, even to you CT.
Victoria 12.30.09 AT 1:26 AM
CT,
“It’s fascinating to me that evangelical christians are so interested in all things homosexual. There are interesting connections to explore here.”
This phrase sounds VERY familiar excecept changing homosecual TO abortion.
What are your interests regarding homosexualit CT? – please let us in on your latest obersvations regarding “Evangelical Christians” – both of which are upper case…… did you know that?
Victoria 12.30.09 AT 1:30 AM
POST 23 should read:
This phrase sounds VERY familiar except changing abortion TO homosexual.
What are your interests regarding homosexuality CT?
–
Thomas which one of these posting is an attack?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Thomas, I see the difference. CT attacked all of us and Victoria only attacked the attacker.
Report comment to moderator
“It is Ms. Jenkins’ intent when she has custody of Isabella to allow as liberal contact as is possible with her other mother,” Star said Tuesday. . .
—
this young child has one mother that is it.
Report comment to moderator
This judge again over stepping his boundard by take the child away from her mother and given it to an ex lover. Who has no relationship blood or other to the child/
But what should we expect from Vermont
Report comment to moderator
KBells, if you (or anyone) made an general statement about Episcopalians which I thought was incorrect or obnoxious, I would not respond by asking you if your nightstand was full of material which I consider to be heretical. Just ask Pastor Roy. He’s done it many times and I’ve simply graciously told him that I disagree, we’re at an impasse, and I’ll attend to my own soul, thanks.
See, your nightstand might be loaded up with Jack Chick tracts and white supremacist materials. So might Pastor Roy’s. I don’t care. It’s not relevant. It’s no one’s business. It would be rude to assume so, and so I don’t.
And it doesn’t further the discussion. These are the reasons why Victoria’s inappropriate response is, well, inappropriate.
Report comment to moderator
But what did Victoria do other than ask CT the same question s/he ask us?
Report comment to moderator
Actually I used to collect Jack Chick tracts for a Catholic friend who thought they were funny.
Report comment to moderator
My questions to CT were not inappropriate, they fit right in with the questions he/she askes to begin with. These sort of questions have been asked by CT in the past on threads regarding abortion. Below is an example:
There is no reason for anyone on this blog to avoid questioning CT’s reasoning -
Report comment to moderator
Abortion, conterfeit marriage – are hot topics, and legal fights at this time – those who ask questions, will be asked questions in return.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 1:58 PM
KBells, if you (or anyone) made an general statement about Episcopalians which I thought was incorrect or obnoxious, I would not respond by asking you if your nightstand was full of material which I consider to be heretical. Just ask Pastor Roy. He’s done it many times and I’ve simply graciously told him that I disagree, we’re at an impasse, and I’ll attend to my own soul, thanks.
See, your nightstand might be loaded up with Jack Chick tracts and white supremacist materials. So might Pastor Roy’s. I don’t care. It’s not relevant. It’s no one’s business. It would be rude to assume so, and so I don’t.
And it doesn’t further the discussion. These are the reasons why Victoria’s inappropriate response is, well, inappropriate.
–
some time you are graciously and some time your not
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m re-reading your comments and I don’t see that you have expressed an opinion on the actual topic (an observation at #33, but not really an opinion either way).
Yet you are under barrage from the resident Pharisees.
Which you seem to have handled quite well.
Carry on.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas,
In discussing homosexuality (as in anything else) it is not inappropriate to ask why the other person is interested in the topic. It demonstrates the perspective the person is coming from.
I noticed that CT never did answer the question in #24:
What are your interests regarding homosexuality CT?
It’s a fair question, and as yet unanswered.
The questioner expressed her interest in discussing the topic in #29: We could begin with any anti-Christian idea one wished to discuss, but it wouldn’t make any difference to a Born Again Believer. Homosexulaity,…. either female or male is sin according to the Word of GOD, the Bible hasn’t changed BUT mans idea of sin changes according to his lust….Sin isn’t just a “recent trend” it started from the beginning.
Now you may disagree with her opinion, but these are not personal attacks, and they’re not inappropriate. I’m hard pressed to see how they could be so mis-construed.
Report comment to moderator
Scott R. Define Pharisee.
Report comment to moderator
Yet you are under barrage from the resident Pharisees.
–
?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Scott.
Oh, Victoria:
There is no reason for anyone on this blog to avoid questioning CT’s reasoning -
But that’s not what you did. Either refute his ideas or not, but asking personal questions about someone’s sexuality vis-a-vis their position on this issue, which is parental rights for gay persons, is off the map.
Well, it’s off my map. But apparently not yours.
Abortion, conterfeit marriage – are hot topics, and legal fights at this time – those who ask questions, will be asked questions in return.
Victoria, if whether or not a poster is gay is a legitimate question here (and I don’t think it is), then I have a list of questions for you.
Report comment to moderator
kBells 12.30.09 AT 2:33 PM
Scott R. Define Pharisee.
–
Pharisee in the Bible was someone who knew God’s Word but changed the meaning of the Word to suit their needs. Instead of Hearing God and seeing Christ for who He was. They saw Him as a threat to power.
Report comment to moderator
“Victoria, if whether or not a poster is gay is a legitimate question here (and I don’t think it is), then I have a list of questions for you”
Thomas is could be a legitimate question in order to get an understanding of the poster background
Report comment to moderator
#28
we might begin with the pervasive expressions of male homosexuality in contemporary Evangelical worship services.
This comment makes absolutely no sense to me. What is he talking about??
Report comment to moderator
DJ, you are apparently unfamiliar with Victoria’s history on this topic, as well as unfamiliar with whether or not she thinks it’s ok to speculate on the sexuality of strangers.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: Thomas is could be a legitimate question in order to get an understanding of the poster background.
No. That information is not relevant even if volunteered. I don’t care to learn the sexual practices of you and Mrs. Pastor Roy under any circumstances, for any reason. It’s simply not relevant to any discussion.
Report comment to moderator
DJ 12.30.09 AT 2:42 PM
#28
we might begin with the pervasive expressions of male homosexuality in contemporary Evangelical worship services.
This comment makes absolutely no sense to me. What is he talking about??
–
I think he was talking about the minster who were contemporary Evangelical Minster and fell into the sin of homosexuality
Report comment to moderator
Perspective is important Thomas. And Victoria asked ‘what are your interests regarding homosexuality’. It’s a valid question to which there could be any number of answers. As yet there are none.
Do you know what CT is talking about when he says “…pervasive expressions of male homosexuality in contemporary Evangelical worship services” ? I don’t know anything about that.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 2:48 PM
Pastor Roy: Thomas is could be a legitimate question in order to get an understanding of the poster background.
No. That information is not relevant even if volunteered. I don’t care to learn the sexual practices of you and Mrs. Pastor Roy under any circumstances, for any reason. It’s simply not relevant to any discussion.
–
Why? By know if the person is gay, will help in understand the person background and why he / she is saying what they are saying.
Report comment to moderator
#73
You might not think it’s relevant Thomas, but I think it is; and it’s helpful to know where a person is coming from. Now it’s certainly not essential to know, but it is helpful to communication.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 like knowing you are from the Episcopalians Church. It help me to understand why you act the way you do toward Bible Believing Christian and God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
DJ @ 75 – that might be true but for the history here.
Pastor Roy, @ 76 you have opened up an entire line of discussion which I will not pursue. Except! You’re still wrong. If you think that describing the love and passion of the Roy marital bed is relevant to the discussion, by all means have at it, but I will be scrolling right past.
Report comment to moderator
CT asked the same question to the group in general. What is wrong with asking him to answer his own question?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 2:56 PM
DJ @ 75 – that might be true but for the history here.
Pastor Roy, @ 76 you have opened up an entire line of discussion which I will not pursue. Except! You’re still wrong. If you think that describing the love and passion of the Roy marital bed is relevant to the discussion, by all means have at it, but I will be scrolling right past.
–
Not the love and passion of anyone beds, but it can explain why one poster is pushing so hard for gay rights or why they attack Bible Believing Christian and God’s Word
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – you see it as a sexual issue, i see it as a moral issue. The best way to understand one’s moral background is to try and understand why they believe what they believe.
Report comment to moderator
Ok – DJ, Victoria, Pastor Roy… rhetorically*!
Do any of you engage in the same sexual practices that gay people do – specifically, non-procreative sex acts which were once outlawed under sodomy laws?
Is there anything sexual in your bathrooms or nightstands that you wouldn’t want your kids or mother-in-law to see?
Do you think it’s ok for you to do / use these things?
Why do you do / use them?
Can any of you explain why your answers, if given, are relevant to a discussion of legal rights in the context of a gay civil union?
If the biological mother in the instant case was Ms. Jenkins, instead of Ms. Miller, would you be advocating so strenuously for Isabella’s return to her based on biological motherhood?
*Rhetorical means I don’t want to know.
The last 2 questions are NOT rhetorical.
Report comment to moderator
KBells @ 80 – I see only statements from CT, no questions. Did I miss one?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 3:04 PM
Ok – DJ, Victoria, Pastor Roy… rhetorically*!
Do any of you engage in the same sexual practices that gay people do – specifically, non-procreative sex acts which were once outlawed under sodomy laws?
Is there anything sexual in your bathrooms or nightstands that you wouldn’t want your kids or mother-in-law to see?
Do you think it’s ok for you to do / use these things?
Why do you do / use them?
Can any of you explain why your answers, if given, are relevant to a discussion of legal rights in the context of a gay civil union?
If the biological mother in the instant case was Ms. Jenkins, instead of Ms. Miller, would you be advocating so strenuously for Isabella’s return to her based on biological motherhood?
*Rhetorical means I don’t want to know.
The last 2 questions are NOT rhetorical.
-
so you addmitt then the idea of being gay is an sexual idea?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 12.30.09 AT 3:08 PM
Thomas1 – 68
“Victoria, if whether or not a poster is gay is a legitimate question here (and I don’t think it is), then I have a list of questions for you.”
I have not asked even ONE individual if they were homosexual on this blog or anywhere else.
–
Victoria are you gay?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, explain what you meant @ 31, and why you bolded both “homosexuality” AND “CT”.
I have not asked even ONE individual if they were homosexual on this blog or anywhere else.
No? Never made an assumption? Never asked someone else if a third party was gay?
Are you sure, Victoria?
Report comment to moderator
84. You’re right Thomas, s/he went right for the accusation.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: so you addmitt then the idea of being gay is an sexual idea?
I think it has more to do with love than sex.
Report comment to moderator
So now Thomas you stick your foot in it – all this so you can ask personal questions, thinking that you somehow have DEVELOPED and EXCUSE to do so. Not clever but crystal clear as to your game.
Report comment to moderator
Look up “rhetorical” in the dictionary, and try to follow along, Victoria.
You might want to answer 89, too. Your comments reflect a lack of the courage of conviction.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 3:16 PM
Pastor Roy: so you addmitt then the idea of being gay is an sexual idea?
I think it has more to do with love than sex.
–
that is not what you said “Do any of you engage in the same sexual practices that gay people do – specifically, non-procreative sex acts which were once outlawed under sodomy laws?
Is there anything sexual in your bathrooms or nightstands that you wouldn’t want your kids or mother-in-law to see?”
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – you were the one who made it a sexual issue
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy corrected wrote; “The… GLBT Community has a desire to force their moral values onto the rest of Society.”
Beyond that, they have a “how dare they?” attitude to anyone who dissents. They try to create the false impression that those who stand up to them are obsessed with all things homosexuality. It’s a twisted game and I am glad that participants here see through CT and Thomas’ silly attempts to distort their opponents.
Report comment to moderator
My point is clearly made. Victoria, I respectfully suggest that you have some thinking to do.
The real question here is:
If the biological mother in the instant case was Ms. Jenkins, instead of Ms. Miller, would you be advocating so strenuously for Isabella’s return to Jenkins based on biological motherhood?
Report comment to moderator
OK everyone, we’ve read some of these posts and it doesn’t take long before it becomes obvious that this is nothing more than a ploy to derail the thread.
Lets get back to the TOPIC and let the persons who want to attack talk to themselves –
Report comment to moderator
LOL, Victoria!!!
;>
Report comment to moderator
97. Yes.
Report comment to moderator
Ok,
This judge again over stepping his boundard by take the child away from her mother and given it to an ex lover. Who has no relationship blood or other to the child/
But what should we expect from Vermont
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark 12.30.09 AT 3:22 PM
Pastor Roy corrected wrote; “The… GLBT Community has a desire to force their moral values onto the rest of Society.”
Beyond that, they have a “how dare they?” attitude to anyone who dissents. They try to create the false impression that those who stand up to them are obsessed with all things homosexuality. It’s a twisted game and I am glad that participants here see through CT and Thomas’ silly attempts to distort their opponents.
–
we must stay the course an not fall into their traps
Report comment to moderator
Kbells – @ 100. Very interesting, and I applaud your moral/logical consistency.
I doubt you’ll find much company, but many props from me to you.
Report comment to moderator
On topic: I’m in favor of returning Isabella to Miss Miller; however, Thomas1’s question in #83 is valid. Who would I prefer get custody if Miss Jenkins was the child’s natural mother?
I would have to go with Miss Jenkins, even though I don’t necessarily approve of her lifestyle. Children belong with their parents (but not always; e.g. Elian Gonzalez).
Off topic: The conversation is far more lively and interesting.
Report comment to moderator
You might find it more interesting, but it’s a complete waste of time, muttering and complaining about words that were never said – nothing but childs play.
This blog has some interesting topics, but when they take a hike off the road it serves no purpose.
Enough said!
Report comment to moderator
Scott (on topic), I agree with you, with one exception… The court ruled in favor of Miss Jenkins for full custody because Miss Miller violated the visitation provisions of the joint custody arrangement.
The reasons why Miss Miller should retain custody have more to do with Isabella’s best interests than maternity – she’s lived with her for all this time, switching schools would be traumatic, etc.
That being said, the kidnapping throws things off kilter. A felon shouldn’t necessarily be a custodial parent.
If the visitation schedule can’t be worked out, perhaps she’s better off with Miss Jenkins even now.
Off topic – it was indeed fun.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 3:53 PM
Scott (on topic), I agree with you, with one exception… The court ruled in favor of Miss Jenkins for full custody because Miss Miller violated the visitation provisions of the joint custody arrangement.
–
the judge was out of line for even given Miss Jenkins rights that she did not have.
Miss Miller violated the visitation provisions , her lawyer an her should have found a different way to deal with an out touch judge.
Report comment to moderator
#97 Thomas,
As for your hypothetical case:
I think blood relationships are primary, and should not be so easily put aside. So, while I would believe that it’s in the child’s best interest to remain with the mother who is a Christian though not related by blood or adoption, still I would hope that legally the child could be returned to her birth mother. That’s also assuming, in this hypothetical case, that the birth mother has always been in her life, and is fit enough to not be a serious danger to the child.
I don’t believe that custody cases should be decided on the basis of “the best interest of the child”. I think the ‘best interest’ standard has pretty much been turned into a tool for a political agenda that I don’t agree with.
Report comment to moderator
As for what Ms. Miller is doing right now by hiding with her child, I think that is more civil disobedience than anything else. I hope she is successful in retaining full custody and control of her child.
Report comment to moderator
As for what Ms. Miller is doing right now by hiding with her child, I think that is more civil disobedience than anything else.
Violation of a court order regarding custody is indeed a felony kidnapping, not civil disobedience. What kind of message does this send to the child? Also, if it was Jenkins as biological mother doing this, would you feel the same way?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 4:12 PM
As for what Ms. Miller is doing right now by hiding with her child, I think that is more civil disobedience than anything else.
Violation of a court order regarding custody is indeed a felony kidnapping, not civil disobedience. What kind of message does this send to the child? Also, if it was Jenkins as biological mother doing this, would you feel the same way?
–
the sad part is thomas is right, even if the judge is wrong.
I do not believe Miss Miller and her lawyer should look into the judges past rulings to see if he / she has a trend of awarding cases to the GLBT Community and use that as a reason to get this case thrown out.
Report comment to moderator
Civil disobedience is what it is. The child will learn that it’s more important to obey your Biblically informed conscience than man. And hopefully the child will learn that her mother loves her enough to make the truely difficult choice, because it was the right one.
I’m not sure how I would feel if Jenkins were the one doing this. But I could certainly sympathize with her. The urge of a mother to protect her child from what she perceives to be danger, is very, very strong. And the urge to prevent separation, especially when the child is young, is extremely strong as well. I tend to think these are somewhat innate urges that promote mothering behavior. It’s hard to get around biology.
Report comment to moderator
Civil disobedience is what it is. The child will learn that it’s more important to obey your Biblically informed conscience than man.
Interesting. Would this apply if the child thought obeying a police officer’s directive to stop stoning a classmate was less important? Or a teacher’s directive to stop praying aloud so that a class could proceed without disruption?
Report comment to moderator
EXCELLENT POINTS!
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 4:25 PM
Civil disobedience is what it is. The child will learn that it’s more important to obey your Biblically informed conscience than man.
Interesting. Would this apply if the child thought obeying a police officer’s directive to stop stoning a classmate was less important? Or a teacher’s directive to stop praying aloud so that a class could proceed without disruption?
–
Would this apply if the child thought obeying a police officer’s directive to stop stoning a classmate was less important? — this would be the GLBT Community an their supports stoning Christian Correct
Or a teacher’s directive to stop praying aloud so that a class could proceed without disruption? — This would be a Mulsim teacher that was praying aloud correct.
the reason is you being a good christian man would never try to say Christian would stony someone or would pray just to be disruption of a class, right Thomas
Report comment to moderator
Im sure that’s what he meant, Pastor Roy.
Report comment to moderator
DJ 12.30.09 AT 4:44 PM
Im sure that’s what he meant, Pastor Roy.
–
I agree Thomas is just that person, very kind to his brothers and sister in the Lord
Report comment to moderator
My point is that no one should use a holy book as an excuse to disobey the laws that make our society run.
Terrorists come in every religion, including Christianity.
Civil disobedience is not the same as committing felonies just because you want to.
Report comment to moderator
Like you, Pastor Roy, I’m as kind to people as I think they deserve for me to be.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 4:50 PM
My point is that no one should use a holy book as an excuse to disobey the laws that make our society run.
Terrorists come in every religion, including Christianity.
Civil disobedience is not the same as committing felonies just because you want to.
–
that is not true, Christianity has not terrorists, we have people who call themselves a christian but do not have a right relationship with Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 4:53 PM
Like you, Pastor Roy, I’m as kind to people as I think they deserve for me to be.
–
we are two of a kind on different sides of coin
Report comment to moderator
For those of you who seriously do not understand the implications of homosexuality on our land, I’d like to encourage everyone to check out God TV (online it is God.TV, and it is on DirecTV on channel 365 and on the Sky Angel Network) and look up the “One Thing” program with Mike Bickle (MikeBickle.org). It can also be watched at Ihop.org, and his church is in Kansas City, Missouri. It is showing throughout the day and week, but you can also see it live online. You will then understand, fully, why this issue is of such importance. See also Todd White (he looks like a former Korn member) and Xtreme Prophetic (God TV). And if you don’t know about Joseph Prince (Singapore) or Paul Scanlon (Abundant Life Church/God TV) you are missing out on a lot.
Report comment to moderator
Mike Bickle has been implicated as a cultist.
Bickle’s theology and methods have been criticized by other ministers and ministries as well as cult-watch groups.[5] Criticism of Bickle has spanned several decades, from contemporary critic Rev. Keith Gibson,[6] director of the Kansas City office of the Apologetics Resource Center to City Pastor, Rev. Ernie Gruen[7], who authored a report entitled “Documentation of the Aberrant Practices and Teaching of the Kansas City Fellowship (Grace Ministries)”[8] in 1990. It was around this time that Bickle and his church affiliated with John Wimber and the Association of Vineyard Churches (AVC)[9][10]
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: we have people who call themselves a christian but do not have a right relationship with Christ.
Amen.
And: we are two of a kind on different sides of coin
Amen, again, and thank God for it!
Report comment to moderator
Re #104. I disagree re Elian. He was returned to his father, and that’s where he should be. The man did not beat his child, he provided for him, etc. Just because he did that in Cuba doesn’t mean the US has the right to separate a man from his child or deny the child his natural father. That, too, would have been as political as this nonsensical decision is.
Which one of you would want to be denied the right to raise your child simply because you were poor or you lived in a country that opposes the US?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, if you were in this woman position and you had the choice of disobeying the law or putting your child in what you seriously considered a harmful place, what would you do?
And I’m not asking you if you consider Miss Jenkins harmful but remember Miss Miller truly believes she is.
Report comment to moderator
Ms. Miller, unfortunately, has been used as a pawn in this issue. But that doesn’t answer your question.
If I were Ms. Miller, I would sit down and ask myself why the judges (there were two), the VA Child Services Officers, and the rest of the people involved in this in two states didn’t believe it was harmful. I would question the motives of Liberty Counsel.
I would ask my daughter how she felt.
I would also ask myself why I defied a visitation order.
If, after all that, I thought my daughter was in danger, I would call the police with proof of why I thought so. I would call CPS for an immediate intervention. I would present my evidence to authorities who can take immediate action.
But I would not jeopardize my future life with my daughter by commiting a felony.
Report comment to moderator
The Law doesn’t tend to acknowledge the kind of harm she may be thinking of of, that of spiritual harm.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, it certainly shouldn’t. Praying over a child with appendicitis while failing to seek medical attention, as Christian Scientists do, will likely kill the child. Christian Scientists think that’s God’s will if it happens, and medical treatment does spiritual harm.
Amish people refusing treatment for juvenile diabetes that involves blood tests? Definitely a killer. Yet treatment is against their religion.
Jewish rabbis cricumcising infant boys… with their teeth? A religious requirement in one sect – and quite illegal.
The law recognizes that children grow up and may choose their own spiritual path.
But you have to let them grow up first. Our laws facilitate that.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes laws should be disobeyed, particularly when they require something that is against God’s law. Parents are responsible to God for how they raise their children. We should never forget that, even when doing the right thing is difficult.
Report comment to moderator
DJ – then one can live in a convent, monastery or cult compound – although even those places are not above the law in America.
There’s nothing whatsoever in any Bible anywhere prohibiting a gay person from raising a child. Therefore, there is no justification for what Ms. Miller has done, even on a Biblical literalist foundation.
There is a Biblical commandment against bearing false witness… and one wonders how much Lisa Miller broke it during these proceedings at the behest of Mat Staver and friends.
I have a feeling that when all the facts are known, evangelicals will regret their involvement in this case.
Report comment to moderator
One can live anywhere one pleases, Thomas. We are still responsible to God for how we raise our children. And sometimes bad laws—laws that require a parent to do something against God’s law—should be broken. Homosexuality is against God’s law; it’s wrong; it’s prohibited. We are not to teach our children that it’s okay. Therefore, breaking such a law by non-violent civil disobedience, as Ms Miller has, is morally justified.
Report comment to moderator
DJ, your comment is filled with baloney.
If everyone can run around and say that their sect’s laws justify breaking civil law, all we get is chaos.
Homosexuality is against *your* God’s law. Raising a child has nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation, as most people agree, including Karl Rove, who was raised by a gay man, and Mary Cheney and her family, who are raising kids in a lesbian-headed home.
It’s amazing how far some people will go to justify felony kidnapping on religious grounds. If this was a Muslim you’d call for her head.
Report comment to moderator
I think you have a fundamental problem with freedom of religion, Thomas. But you are correct about one thing: homosexuality is against my God’s law.
“If this was a Muslim you’d call for her head. ”
Now that’s just silly. If this was a muslim, the fathers would probably have killed both the women already; you’re comparing apples and oranges.
When a child is raised as a muslim, they are considered muslim for LIFE. They can be killed if they later chose to leave the faith. If a child is raised as a Christian, she can safely convert to Islam (or Atheism ) if she wants to after she grows up and is SURE she wants to make that LIFETIME commitment.
I really don’t wish harm to anyone regardless of sexuality or religion. I do want to be as faithful as I can to God and to His Word.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas,
I have simply lost any and all respect for you in this thread.
More power to Mrs. Miller. May God shield her and her daughter from an evil system.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, I bet you were all for civil disobedience for the right to sit at the lunch counter of your choice, but they’re taking your children away from you, suck it up and obey the law.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, post 52, I still think you’re making this far more complicated than it needs to be. You say, “Given the two women’s past history, I do not think that the case of a pet owner who has taken in a roommate for a year, or a parent deciding what friends/acquaintances may have access to the child, is a reasonable comparison.”
Why not? They lived in the same home less than a year after the child’s birth (not as long as my roommate lived with me and my dog), and there was no adoption and no legal marriage. It doesn’t seem all that different from a live-in relationship in which a parent makes all sorts of promises to another adult who isn’t the child’s parent about “I’ll love you forever” and then decides to move out, naturally with the child in question going with the parent and not with the other adult. The child is related to one adult and not the other, and a parent has a right to move out and end such a relationship.
Had there been a legal adoption, that would change things–but there wasn’t. Obviously I don’t think a legal adoption should be possible in such cases, but the relevant factor here is that there was only one parent–the law can’t pretend that it should have recognized a right to adoption, and then act as though there was such a right when there wasn’t. Only one of these women was a parent to the child, and she chose to end the relationship with the other woman–that should have been the end of the story. The mother should be free to marry a man and have him adopt her child with no interference whatsoever from a fake “other parent” claiming parental rights, or she should be free to stay single, move out of state or out of the country, or otherwise live her life completely separate from this other woman. And the other woman should, in the real best interests of the child, step out of the picture. This isn’t an heirloom piece of art; this is a human child, and only her mother has the legal or moral right to raise her, or decide who else can or cannot be in her life.
I really don’t see this case as legally or morally complicated, just relationally complicated.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
You’ve lost – DJ, TRS, Donna, Cheryl and Kbells ALL have you pegged.
Get something straight Thomas – it has nothing to do with how many agree, it is a matter of ones religious convictions.
It is our GOD’s law that is most important to us, and the reason WHY? – because GOD has made his laws clear within HIS Word which we believe in. It is our right in this country to raise our children as we believe GOD has ordained in HIS Word.
Cheney or any other family can do what they like but it has nothing to do with this discussion. It’s not YOUR VOTE, nor our neighbors, nor Cheney, as to how we raise our children according to our religious convictions, it is ours between us and the LORD.
I haven’t heard of one individual in this country asking for someone’s head. Your statement is dramatic, unsubstantiated.
Report comment to moderator
I think there’s a good argument for not giving custody to Jenkins, since she’s not been the child’s mother in any sense. At least not full custody.
But you Evangelicals can’t just leave it at that, can you? This thread is one long anti-gay hatefest, with Thomas1 striking me as the only decent person involved.
Makes me really glad to not be one of you.
Report comment to moderator
The only decent person is the mother who is protecting her child, along with those who ARE mothers standing in the gap.
I’m glad not to be an un-Believer. The LORD has been gracious to me and to many others on this blog…. they too believe in Christ as their Savior ….. the Bible as the true Word of GOD.
Report comment to moderator
“…I doubt that states differ as much on how they view parenthood in hetero couples as in how they do in same-sex cases.” -Pauline
Maybe not as much, but they do differ significantly. In some states, a man is the legal father of all children conceived by his wife during the marriage, no matter where the sperm came from.
Report comment to moderator
On the controversy surrounding CT and Victoria, Thomas1 is plain wrong. CT threw out a crude and inappropriate insinuation, and Victoria was throwing it back at him. She did not inquire about his orientation but about his interest in the topic, just as he reaised the issue of the issue of Christians’ interest in the topic.
On Thomas’s implication that the religion or sexual orientaion of the mother matters, I want to say that for me it doesn’t. I said in an earlier post that if Ms Jenkins had been an integral part of the child’s life and had really helped raise her, then I would support her claim to at least visitation–especially if the child still viewed her as a mother. It really should be about the child. after all. If it were a Muslim woman who was the actual mother of the child, then I would support her trying to keep her child. Of course!
Report comment to moderator
Conan, if you followed the conversation better, you would not make such an incorrect statement. Any discussion of homosexuality has been brought up by the non-Christians. The Christians have definitely tried to focus on parental rights only.
I wouldn’t care if the real motherr were a black Muslim lesbian from Cuba. If she is the child’s mother, then the child belongs with her.
Someone asked, “What if Jenkins were the biological mother?” I expect that the girl would be with her now and the other woman would have no claim, which, leaving out the moral and religious issues, is how it should be.
Report comment to moderator
Calling people “heterosexualists” isn’t respectul. If people are wrong they are wrong because of the defects in their advocacy, not character, unless one is disrespectful enough to set oneself up as the judge of others.
BTW, do we know whether Evangelicals have fewer homosexual family members than non-evangelicals do? I suspect this empirical question has a lot to do with Evangelical interest in the subject of homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
I’m surprised at how frequently the concept “real parent” is invoked by people who place so much importance on the institution and the theology of adoption.
Report comment to moderator
did Janet Jenkins legaly adopt the young girl? If not the Judge has over step his bounds.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.30.09 AT 10:01 PM
DJ, your comment is filled with baloney.
If everyone can run around and say that their sect’s laws justify breaking civil law, all we get is chaos.
Homosexuality is against *your* God’s law. Raising a child has nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation, as most people agree, including Karl Rove, who was raised by a gay man, and Mary Cheney and her family, who are raising kids in a lesbian-headed home.
It’s amazing how far some people will go to justify felony kidnapping on religious grounds. If this was a Muslim you’d call for her head.
—
Thomas it is not what our God or you God said . It is what God has said.
Report comment to moderator
Just for kicks, let me propose a hypothetical situation:
John and Jane are both strong Christians. They get married and want to have children. It becomes apparent that John is sterile. Since they still want to have their own child, John agrees that they should visit a sperm bank. Jane conceives and gives birth to a child that is biologically related to her, but not John. John is, however, the child’s legal parent.
While the child is still young, Jane abandons Christianity, decides she’s a lesbian, and devotes herself to Wicca. The couple divorces and begins to fight for custody of the child. During this protracted legal battle, the child lives with Jane and expresses a desire to continue living with Jane. John is a virtual stranger.
Should the child’s “real mother” be given continued custody?
If you say no, then biological parentage is not as much of a trump card as is suggested elsewhere in this thread.
Report comment to moderator
145. In the institution of adoption the real parent is the one who gets to decide if she will give the child up for adoption. I would never consider adopting a child who had been forced away from a loving, biological parent.
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass 12.31.09 AT 10:32 AM
Just for kicks, let me propose a hypothetical situation:
John and Jane are both strong Christians. They get married and want to have children. It becomes apparent that John is sterile. Since they still want to have their own child, John agrees that they should visit a sperm bank. Jane conceives and gives birth to a child that is biologically related to her, but not John. John is, however, the child’s legal parent.
While the child is still young, Jane abandons Christianity, decides she’s a lesbian, and devotes herself to Wicca. The couple divorces and begins to fight for custody of the child. During this protracted legal battle, the child lives with Jane and expresses a desire to continue living with Jane. John is a virtual stranger.
Should the child’s “real mother” be given continued custody?
If you say no, then biological parentage is not as much of a trump card as is suggested elsewhere in this thread.
–
well since some sperm donor are being told to pay child support or given rights to see the child. I do not know how such case as you descibed would turn out.
Report comment to moderator
#150: Assume the sperm donor is dead. He’s not an issue. I’m not sure how that case would turn out either, but that’s not what I was asking. I was asking how *you* think it *should* turn out. If you think John should get custody then you don’t hold biological parentage to of ultimate importance.
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass 12.31.09 AT 10:55 AM
#150: Assume the sperm donor is dead. He’s not an issue. I’m not sure how that case would turn out either, but that’s not what I was asking. I was asking how *you* think it *should* turn out. If you think John should get custody then you don’t hold biological parentage to of ultimate importance.
–
who’s name is on the birth cet.?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, you’ve lost, or rather, you are lost.
The kind of person who has giggly conversations in a mall about who might be gay and who might not, with the objective of depriving the gay people of honest work, has lost all moral credibility. She has lost all representation of God. She is a sinner of the most vile sort.
Such a person cannot speak of decency. She cannot speak of God’s laws. Yet, she might – but not with any credibility.
Victoria, I will pray for you. I want you to have peace – the peace that comes from admitting your own sin, and making it right. See restitution is a component of penance.
Don’t burn, Victoria. I want you to meet me in Heaven.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, adoptive and biological parents are both parents, equally so under the law, and the husband in such a case probably wouldn’t even need to adopt to be considered the legal parent, so your scenario actually changes nothing. The courts would probably decide in such a situation. But this is a situation where one is a legal and biological parent and one isn’t–not a hard case, legally.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, on what grounds do you think you’re headed for heaven? That isn’t an attack, but an honest question–I’ve seen you call yourself a Christian, but have yet to see any indication of a relationship with Christ or submission to God’s authority in any way. On what do you base your claims to be a Christian?
BTW, your attacks on Victoria are perilously close to being against the rules of this blog, and I think some have probably come over the line.
Report comment to moderator
BY TRS 12.30.09 AT 10:53 PM
Thomas,
I have simply lost any and all respect for you in this thread.
What made you think I wanted your respect? If I had it, I would be doing something wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.31.09 AT 11:50 AM
BY TRS 12.30.09 AT 10:53 PM
Thomas,
I have simply lost any and all respect for you in this thread.
What made you think I wanted your respect? If I had it, I would be doing something wrong.
–
Thomas why such bitterness today?
Report comment to moderator
cheryl wants to know Thomas, on what grounds do you think you’re headed for heaven? That isn’t an attack, but an honest question–I’ve seen you call yourself a Christian, but have yet to see any indication of a relationship with Christ or submission to God’s authority in any way. On what do you base your claims to be a Christian?
I’m the kind of Christian who thinks that biblical literalists are idiots, and that Christ came here for everyone. Lower middle class Southern Poverty Hate Crime Christians are not real Christians. The only god they submit to is a white fake god who validates either their wealth or their poverty. Most of them are perverts.
As for Victoria – she loves to talk about tittilating tidbits of sex. There is no line with her.
Report comment to moderator
#152: Assume John and Jane’s names were both listed on the certificate as parents.
#155: Miller and Jenkins entered into a civil union (12-19-2000) prior to their daughter being born (4-16-2002). Both events took place in Vermont. According to the state of Vermont, Jenkins had parental rights.
Report comment to moderator
“Lower middle class Southern Poverty Hate Crime Christians are not real Christians.”
What is that? Don’t think I’ve ever met one of those.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.31.09 AT 11:57 AM
cheryl wants to know Thomas, on what grounds do you think you’re headed for heaven? That isn’t an attack, but an honest question–I’ve seen you call yourself a Christian, but have yet to see any indication of a relationship with Christ or submission to God’s authority in any way. On what do you base your claims to be a Christian?
I’m the kind of Christian who thinks that biblical literalists are idiots, and that Christ came here for everyone. Lower middle class Southern Poverty Hate Crime Christians are not real Christians. The only god they submit to is a white fake god who validates either their wealth or their poverty. Most of them are perverts.
As for Victoria – she loves to talk about tittilating tidbits of sex. There is no line with her.
–
Thomas, comments like this is why many people here question your relationship with Christ. An why many believe you and the Church you do to are following false teaching.
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass 12.31.09 AT 12:02 PM
#152: Assume John and Jane’s names were both listed on the certificate as parents.
#155: Miller and Jenkins entered into a civil union (12-19-2000) prior to their daughter being born (4-16-2002). Both events took place in Vermont. According to the state of Vermont, Jenkins had parental rights.
–
#152: Assume John and Jane’s names were both listed on the certificate as parents. – the donor has no claim to the child.
#155: Miller and Jenkins entered into a civil union (12-19-2000) prior to their daughter being born (4-16-2002). Both events took place in Vermont. According to the state of Vermont, Jenkins had parental rights. – if she was not listed on the certificate as parents or had adopt her, then no she has no parental rights.
The judge again here over step his boundary
Report comment to moderator
Actually, in my opinion, Thomas1 is most probably the poster from yesteryear who went by the moniker ‘Lon Chainey’ – if he is not, he may as well be.
I recall that Lon Chainey was eventually removed from the blog due to his continuous and unrelenting personal (including disgusting sexual and scatological) attacks on selected Christian posters. His favorite medium was obscenity; it eventually caught up with him.
Lon Chainey, like Thomas1, claimed to be a ‘Christian’. However, he, too, was characterized entirely by vileness and hatred toward Christianity and Christians. He defined himself by a complete and unthinking embrace of whatever role (toad or attack dog) that the culture variously demanded of him, on any given issue.
He, like Thomas1, was wholly predictable and his posts made for dismal reading – the literary equivalent of turning over a road-kill and watching maggots squirm and thrash.
More generally and non-specifically, it is interesting how moronic and intolerant and shrill the various assorted shills for evil wax, these latter days.
One would think that Old Scratch would be able to dredge up something a bit better, a bit more cerebral, as it were, from whatever cultural cesspool that currently supplies him his goons.
One might almost feel sorry for Old Scratch, if it were possible – so utterly lacking in decent and competent underlings, these days.
I guess that even he has hiring problems.
Report comment to moderator
According to Ms. Miller she is the only parent on the birth certificate.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102707.html
Report comment to moderator
kBells 12.31.09 AT 1:49 PM
According to Ms. Miller she is the only parent on the birth certificate.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102707.html
–
if that is the case an the other lady did not adopt the child. then the other lady has no claim to the child and it is wrong for an out of touch judge to reward her the child.
Report comment to moderator
This confirms 164.
http://lc.org/attachments/petition_miller_sct041907%20.pdf
Report comment to moderator
#162 et. al.:
This is not true legal sense, as far as I know, though it may vary by state. Texas Family Code Sec. 101.024 defines “parent” as:
“Parent” means the mother, a man presumed to be the father, a man legally determined to be the father, a man who has been adjudicated to be the father by a court of competent jurisdiction, a man who has acknowledged his paternity under applicable law, or an adoptive mother or father.
You’ll notice there’s no mention of a birth certificate. Section 102.003 then enumerates the parties who have standing to file suit for child custody:
(1) a parent of the child;
(2) the child through a representative authorized by the court;
(3) a custodian or person having the right of visitation with or access to the child appointed by an order of a court of another state or country;
(4) a guardian of the person or of the estate of the child;
(5) a governmental entity;
(6) an authorized agency;
(7) a licensed child placing agency;
(8) a man alleging himself to be the father of a child filing in accordance with Chapter 160, subject to the limitations of that chapter, but not otherwise;
(9) a person, other than a foster parent, who has had actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition;
(10) a person designated as the managing conservator in a revoked or unrevoked affidavit of relinquishment under Chapter 161 or to whom consent to adoption has been given in writing under Chapter 162;
(11) a person with whom the child and the child’s guardian, managing conservator, or parent have resided for at least six months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition if the child’s guardian, managing conservator, or parent is deceased at the time of the filing of the petition;
(12) a person who is the foster parent of a child placed by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services in the person’s home for at least 12 months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition;
(13) a person who is a relative of the child within the third degree by consanguinity, as determined by Chapter 573, Government Code, if the child’s parents are deceased at the time of the filing of the petition; or
(14) a person who has been named as a prospective adoptive parent of a child by a pregnant woman or the parent of the child, in a verified written statement to confer standing executed under Section 102.0035, regardless of whether the child has been born.
The question is what the law is in Vermont. And it favors Jenkins. Title 15, Chaper 23, Section 1204 (f) of the Vermont Statues states:
The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child of whom either becomes the natural parent during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child of whom either spouse becomes the natural parent during the marriage.
This just says that if you’re in a civil union and your partner becomes the natural parent of a child during the term of your civil union, you have the same rights to that child as a married man would whose wife becomes the “natural parent” of a child during the term of their marriage. So then we have to look up what the rights of a married man would be to a child born to his wife during the term of their marriage, when his (the father’s) name was omitted from the child’s birth certificate.
So far I can’t find anything in the Vermont statutes to answer that question.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
Does the fact that the two women chose to enter into a civil union have no significance to you? No, they were not legally married, but they went out of their way (first travelling to Vermont for the civil union, then moving there for the benefit of whatever protections it would offer) to make a commitment as close to a marriage as was legally available to them.
Whatever you think of the rightness or wrongness of that availability and that decision, does not the fact that they made such a commitment mean that they took on some greater obligation to one another than two people who simply chose to live together for a time?
I don’t think that every commitment we make, no matter how wrong or misguided, binds us absolutely (think Jephtha), but I do not think it wise to view such commitments too lightly either.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, yet Jenkins did not make the commitment to adopt the child.
Report comment to moderator
Well maybe I was over-broad in #139, but still there have been a few of you quite willing to justify felony crime on the grounds that the woman is a lesbian.
Comments 111, 122 and 126 are quick examples.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells,
I read that Jenkins was under the impression that she did not need to because of the civil union, that she was automatically considered a parent under Vermont law. The two women’s testimony differs as to what if any discussions they had about adoption.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, I think we need to be very, very careful about binding ourselves contractually to anyone, and this story partly demonstrates the reason. But whatever contract existed was between the two women (and legally shouldn’t be considered unbreakable if marriage itself is not–the child’s mother should be able to leave the relationship, which was less binding than marriage or what was the point of having it not be marriage). The child has not been legally adopted by the second woman, and the child’s mother regrets the bonds she herself once had–no, I don’t see that bonds between two adults in such a case should be considered legally enforceable over a child. I don’t see the rights of the second woman as any greater in such a case than that of a live-in boyfriend or, at best, a stepparent who never adopted the child–which means none at all. If the mother died, without revoking any bonds between them, then the woman in a civil union might have greater claim to the child than a stranger would (but should not have greater claims than another blood relative), but without adoption, the mother has the legal and moral–and most definitely the spiritual–right to walk away.
If it were property being disputed, this would be a fair question. But a child who is related to one woman and not the other, no, the second woman shouldn’t get custody. (Remember that is what is at issue here–full custody being granted to a person who is not the child’s mother legally or biologically.)
Conan, a parent has the right to move to a different state with her child. Calling it “kidnapping” when it is in fact her own child (and when there is no other parent involved) is legally and morally absurd. Considering it a “felony” at which we should be aghast is downright silly. And I’m pretty sure none of us has said it’s justified “because she’s a lesbian.” We may have sympathy because we wouldn’t want our own child in such a situation, but the legal justification is that one woman is the child’s mother and one is not. This case would not have even been imagined 20 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
For the record, I also think that if one parent in a marriage is guilty of adultery or other sin against the marriage or family, the children should go with the other parent. I think that even if there had been legal adoption in this case, the judge could rightly rule that the woman who had repented of sexual sin would be the better parent . . . but it isn’t necessary in this particular case to go that far to get a good ruling. And obviously, such a ruling is unlikely today anyway.
But I fret just as much over a gal friend whose husband left her for another woman, but leaves her fighting for custody rather than getting it automatically, and a guy friend who isn’t the one who walked away from the marriage and thus should be the one who has custody of the child (who is, in that case, adopted).
This is, by the way, one of the unspoken evil consequences of homosexual “marriage”–that repenting of sexual sin and walking away may actually end up putting one, legally, in the same category as the person who violated his marriage vows, when in fact the exact opposite is the truth. In this situation, the one who walks away is the one who is in the right. What an upside-down world we live in.
Report comment to moderator
#173:
As far as I know, civil unions do not require marriage vows. So a partner in a civil union could dissolve that union without ever having violated the fidelity of the union (i.e. cheated on the other partner). Hopefully a judge presiding over such a case would not hold the decision to dissolve the union against that parent, just as he would not hold it against a member of a heterosexual marriage who sought divorce in the absence of any infidelity on his or her part.
Report comment to moderator
Because people marry, …. speaking of male and female ….. either one having been the biological parent does not mean that when that RELATIONSHIP ENDS the child is to be shared by the biological parent and the one they married. If people feel led, they can ADOPT the child after they marry IF it is agreeable to the biological parent. To go another step further – …. going to Vermont for a civil union did not include the ADOPTION of the child. I’m rather surprised that you can be so OPEN MINDED regarding an innocent child who was never adopted, but yet a judge rules that the other woman must have visitation rights without adoption or biological connection.
Jephthah doesn’t have anything to do with this situation. there are laws to protect biological parents who have custody of their children, they can live with others, but unless they ADOPT the child legally they should have no reason to have visitation rights.
The biological mother of this child did not go into an ADOPTION with the other woman – therefore there are no rights for the woman who has no connection to the child except that she had a relationship with the child’s mother, that give NO PERSON the right to visitation.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, I know–but some people are pushing for actual full marriage for homosexuals, and we might see such a travesty then, that the one who repents and leaves the union is treated as a vow-breaker, when in fact he is repentant and sees that the vow he made was a sinful one and must be repented and forsaken. But I had never thought of that particular evil until tonight, society giving its stamp of approval on a vow that is outright evil, and forcing the repentant sinner to break a vow to leave the sinful relationship.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
You’ve said it well above.
This has been in the works for a long time, people have ignored it.
Think of it this way. A man and woman marry, (they have two children) the man decides he’s a homosexual and wants a divorce. The judge grants he and his ex-wife equal custody. The homosexual man then makes an agreement with another man his so called ‘partner’ and then he leaves his partner —— his partner then wants visitation with the kids. As you can see it’s a three ring circus – 1. a man/biological father 2. ex-wife/biological mother 3. ex-partner —— should they all have the same amount of visitation rights?
Keeping in mind there are ONLY TWO BIOLOGICAL parents.
Report comment to moderator
Continued from 177
Keep in mind there NEVER WAS any sort of adoption by the homosexual male and his partner, nothing had been stated as to adoption -
Report comment to moderator
There must have been a good reason why they gave sole custody to the former partner and not the biological mother. She must not be fit. Lesbian or not, if she is an unfit mother, she needs to leave it alone.
I am sick and tired of using God for personal vengeance, just because you don’t understand, what love is. Because you have a narrow mind and act like a horse with eye protectors and can only see till the end of your nose.
Most Christians are pure fanatics, who use religion to benefit themselves, not people.
Report comment to moderator
Katie, since this story seems to be new to you: The judge ordered visitation for the former partner. The mother took the child to some visitations, and not to others. The judge then decided the mother wasn’t cooperative enough, and switched custody to a woman who is not the child’s mother in any recognizable way. If I recall, the women haven’t lived together since the child was a few months old, so this seven-year-old doesn’t see the other woman as “mom,” and she isn’t legally or biologically a mother. In other words, the judge decided that the mother disobeying his order to let another woman who wasn’t the child’s mother be treated as her “other mother” was sufficient cause to revoke custody from the child’s real mother and give it to someone with no legal rights to the child, who was virtually unknown to the child. A classic case of a judge way overstepping. Most of us are arguing that the mother of this child should have the legal right to decide who can or cannot spend time with her child–and this isn’t a case of the “rights of the child” since the child isn’t pushing to spend time with this other woman she doesn’t know!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!