• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child

jamesrage said:
I believe marriage is a union between a man and woman and it should stay that way. I do not buy into the argument made by closet gay marriage supporters that calling marriage by a different name somehow makes it different.
Click to expand...

But you've already said the child of such couples should be allowed visitation rights. So what part of marriage privileges do you not want homosexual couples to get? Do you not think they should be considered "family" by hospitals with visitation rules? Do you not think they should be in line for some inheritance if a will is not written? These are the kinds of things a civil union allows. You don't need one to live together, have sex, or have a monogamous commitment to one another.
 
EpicDude86 said:
A civil union isn't a marriage, it's a civil union. :D Heteros can get em too. :D
Click to expand...
and a marriage outside a church is just a civil union, gay or straight. i wish people would understand that.
 
liblady said:
and a marriage outside a church is just a civil union, gay or straight. i wish people would understand that.
Click to expand...

Whoa now, asking people to understand? Especially something they don't agree with??? That's a tall order...
 
Caine said:
Well, technically in my scenario the "father" you speak of isn't the father of the child.

Which is what we have in this situation.
Click to expand...

In Florida, if the man and woman were married when the child was conceived, he'd legally be the father. I believe that there are other states with similar laws.

If Vermont's law is the same on this matter, it stands to reason that Jenkins would legally be recognized as one of the child's parents.
 
MsRetro said:
In Florida, if the man and woman were married when the child was conceived, he'd legally be the father. I believe that there are other states with similar laws.

If Vermont's law is the same on this matter, it stands to reason that Jenkins would legally be recognized as one of the child's parents.
Click to expand...

In Vermont. But the child lives in Virginia, and Virginia refuses to recognize their civil union.
 
Tsunami said:
In Vermont. But the child lives in Virginia, and Virginia refuses to recognize their civil union.
Click to expand...


... which is why this is (probably) going to the Supreme Court.

I was specifically addressing Caine's assertion that there would be no legal parental rights here if Jenkins was male.
 
Last edited:
Kernel Sanders said:
Can anybody tell me how either of those things are relevent to the welfare of the child?
Click to expand...

Thanks.

This was the first thing I thought when I read the OP.

But I guess it has to be an issue before it becomes a non-issue, unfortunately.
 
MsRetro said:
... which is why this is (probably) going to the Supreme Court.

I was specifically addressing Caine's assertion that there would be no legal parental rights here if Jenkins was male.
Click to expand...


Actually, I never specifically state that this was the point of my comparison.

It was the biological parent aspect I was trying to get at.
 
Has anyone figured out on what grounds Jenkins got custody of the kid? The problem I have here, is that Jenkins isn't a biological parent and it appears that the decision was made on PC grounds.
 
liblady said:
and a marriage outside a church is just a civil union, gay or straight. i wish people would understand that.
Click to expand...

So what? It's as legal as a church wedding. Both requires civil licenses. Some of us gays and lesbians would rather have the legal status of civil unions than the nod of approval of a church.:2wave:
 
windovervocalcords said:
So what? It's as legal as a church wedding. Both requires civil licenses. Some of us gays and lesbians would rather have the legal status of civil unions than the nod of approval of a church.:2wave:
Click to expand...
that was my point. when people argue against gay marriage but think a civil union is okay, i'm just pointing out that any marriage outside a church is ONLY a civil union. to me, it's a no-brainer.
 
liblady said:
that was my point. when people argue against gay marriage but think a civil union is okay, i'm just pointing out that any marriage outside a church is ONLY a civil union. to me, it's a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

That's logical, but we are dealing with the pure emotion of hatred and intolerance. We're talking right wing radical fundamentalist--the American Taliban.
 
windovervocalcords said:
That's logical, but we are dealing with the pure emotion of hatred and intolerance. We're talking right wing radical fundamentalist--the American Taliban.
Click to expand...

Gays are vicitcrats, now?
 
windovervocalcords said:
That's logical, but we are dealing with the pure emotion of hatred and intolerance. We're talking right wing radical fundamentalist--the American Taliban.
Click to expand...
some of the time, yes. but not always. i do know very good people who just feel that gay marriage is wrong, mostly for religious reasons, but they don't hate anyone. it's these people that need to understand that no one is going to force a church to marry gays.
 
liblady said:
some of the time, yes. but not always. i do know very good people who just feel that gay marriage is wrong, mostly for religious reasons, but they don't hate anyone. it's these people that need to understand that no one is going to force a church to marry gays.
Click to expand...

Feeling that gay marriage is wrong, and mounting an out of state campaign with a ton of money is another thing.

Folks seem to forget the separation of Church and state. Civil marriage licenses are civil not spiritual documents.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Has anyone figured out on what grounds Jenkins got custody of the kid? The problem I have here, is that Jenkins isn't a biological parent and it appears that the decision was made on PC grounds.
Click to expand...

Once again, Jenkins did not get custody. She got visitation rights. The headline in the OP is totally bogus. The discussion of why a former lesbian partner got custody is bogus, as no such custody was ever awarded. The headlines are inflammatory and totally false.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Once again, Jenkins did not get custody. She got visitation rights. The headline in the OP is totally bogus. The discussion of why a former lesbian partner got custody is bogus, as no such custody was ever awarded. The headlines are inflammatory and totally false.
Click to expand...

Exactly what we could expect from WorldNetDaily.
 
Caine said:
Actually, I never specifically state that this was the point of my comparison.

It was the biological parent aspect I was trying to get at.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I was unclear.

Someone quoted me above referencing state's rights (Virginia vs Vermont) and I was clarifying that my issue was not which state it was in.

Not sure if you missed it, but the point I addressed when I replied to you was: in many states, even if you are not the biological parent, you are the legal parent if you are married to the mother when she gives birth.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Once again, Jenkins did not get custody. She got visitation rights. The headline in the OP is totally bogus. The discussion of why a former lesbian partner got custody is bogus, as no such custody was ever awarded. The headlines are inflammatory and totally false.
Click to expand...

Gotta link showing such? The article says she got custody.
 
As best I can find out, it looks like Jenkins got custody.

VT Judge Awards Custody to Non-Biological Mom :: EDGE Boston

ulminated in a Vermont judge ordering the former partner of a child’s biological mother to assume custody of the child. The anti-gay Christian press says that the seven-year-old child, Isabella, is a "stranger" to her new custodial parent, Janet Jenkins, and that Isabella had "violent reactions" whenever she was in Jenkins’ care due to her "lesbian lifestyle." But according to lawyer and family court expert Kurt Hughes of Burlington, Vermont, the outcome is typical of certain custodial cases in which one parent repeatedly refuses to abide by a court-ordered custody arrangement.

"Even though it’s hit the headlines because this happens to be a same-sex couple, this is a very basic family law that we’re talking about," Hughes told local news station WCAX, which reported on the case in a Nov. 23 article.

"There’s something called parental alienation syndrome, in which one parent is constantly bad mouthing the other parent," Hughes explained. "And so the courts over the years have decided that the potential long term psychological impact to a child from that type of behavior is much greater than the temporary disruption that would result from a child changing households from one parent to the other." The biological mother, Lisa Miller, has been ordered to relinquish custody of daughter Isabella to Jenkins by the start of the new year. Miller will retain visitation rights. If she does not comply, she may end up in prison.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom