This recent story at WorldNetDaily illustrates another reason recognizing homosexual unions as "marriage" is a bad idea. It further undermines the stability innocent children so desperately need.
In the case of Isabella Miller, the 6-year old daughter of Lisa Miller, her mother entered into a civil union in Vermont with Janet Jenkins.
Lisa later became a Christian, ended her lesbian relationship and moved to Virginia with her daughter.
Her lesbian partner Janet is now suing for custody of Lisa's biological child Isabella, and the state of Vermont is claiming jurisdiction.
Never mind that Isabella has no biological connection to Janet. Never mind that Janet never "adopted" Isabella. Never mind that Lisa and her daughter live in Virginia, and Virginia doesn't recognize homosexual unions, and Virginia's constitution specifically defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Vermont's court then ruled that though Jenkins had never adopted the child, she still had parental visitation rights based on her former civil union with Miller.
The case led to a clash over whether Vermont could reach over state lines to impose its civil union laws on Virginia's soil.
So this child is under threat of being taken from her biological mother with whom she has lived her whole life and placed in the custody of someone with whom she has no biological or adoptive relationship.
All in the name of politically correct "tolerance."
Children should never become pawns of social engineering agendas and political correctness. Children need and deserve stability and security, and the actions of Janet Jenkins and the state of Vermont directly threaten that.
But given the compromises our society has already made, this sort of manipulation of children is to be expected. When law, nature, common sense and morality are already taking a back seat to an overriding "tolerance" for homosexuality, the additional step of bringing children into the mess is not a difficult one.
The Washington Times points out that Isabella was conceived by in vitro fertilization. This whole mess reinforces the judgment of Christian doctors being sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian in California. Such procedures add to the chaos and leave innocent children, caught in the middle, even further out in the lurch.
This case illustrates that the debate over legitimization of homosexual behavior isn't just a moral one (as important as that is), but has practical considerations that affect innocent people in the "real world."
Will it be enough to bring us to our senses, when simply doing the right thing "because it's right" wasn't?
9 comments:
I'll be honest, I find the whole idea abhorrent. That being said, if the ...... uh....woman, was part of the child's life for a good chunk, then I can see visitation while adjusting. However, custody? I don't bloody well think so!
Kate, this is from WorldNetDaily's article, "Lesbian demands custody of Christian mom's 6-year-old"...
"Isabella, who is now 6 years old, hadn't seen this woman since she was 17 months old. This case could have national ramifications and will help decide whether states like Vermont and Massachusetts get to export their radical new definitions of marriage and family around the country," Barber said.
Ok, well, then, that's a horse of a whole different color. Absolutely NOT! She was too young to even remember the woman. What sane judge would rule in her favor???? Criminy!
Courts are always claiming that they rule in the best interest of the child. I guess that is, unless there is an agenda involved.
I agree with you, Kate, on the absolutely not. I think Virginia should have the say over custody, since the little girl was born in that state and not in Vermont. I think it should also be considered that Miller would have been forced to get the dissolution in Vermont. However, had she been able to get it in Virginia, then the custody case would have been in that state as well. With that as part of the consideration, I don't think Vermont should have had jurisdiction over the custody portion.
It seems to me that Vermont is seriously over stepping it's authority. Why would Virginia even recognize a 'dissolution' or the civil whatever they call it. That's not the same VA I spend 15 years of my life in.
Kate, Vermont is insisting THEY have the jurisdiction, because the dissolution was done there and they included custody matters in their ruling. Virginia had ruled that Jenkins had no rights regarding the child. It's Vermont saying otherwise.
Excuse me for being totally baffled, but this is two females we're talking about here. Two females can't make a child, no matter what the Vermont court says....or any other court, for that matter.
I'm at a loss for words.... And believe me, that's a very rare occurrence!
I just read this from OneNewsNow...
"The Virginia Supreme Court has decided to honor a Vermont court ruling that allows the lesbian former partner of a Virginia woman to have visitation with the Virginia woman's daughter."
However, Ms. Miller's attorneys have only just begun to fight the rulings.
Somehow, it just doesn't seem right for this woman to have to pay for all the legal bills this whole thing has generated.
Post a Comment