Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child

Redress · Dec 17, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
ok, now when you put it as Sexual Orientation vs Sexual Behavior I can see that...but doesn't Sexual Orientation have an effect on Sexual Behavior, and wouldn't Sexual Behavior sort of define Sexual Orientation?

Effect yes. Control absolutely, no. Prison sex is a perfect example. Having sex with men since they are what is available, but still being strait orientation.

EpicDude86 · Dec 17, 2009

Redress said:
Effect yes. Control absolutely, no. Prison sex is a perfect example. Having sex with men since they are what is available, but still being strait orientation.

eeehhhhh. alright. I'll buy that.

misterman · Dec 17, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
Im getting enough blown socks and tossed salads from women atm. If that stops I'll try homosex and get back to you.

EDIT: I do think it possible. I'd go gay for Jallman

Nice dodging.

EpicDude86 · Dec 17, 2009

misterman said:
Nice dodging.

Look, if you want me to go **** a dude to prove my point, I will.

There I said it. And hey maybe I'll like it. If that's the case...then I'm coming for you.

...then Jallman.

misterman · Dec 17, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
Look, if you want me to go **** a dude to prove my point, I will.

Yes, I do.

In fact, I think all people who claim homosexuality is a choice should be required to prove it by trying it at least once.

EpicDude86 · Dec 17, 2009

misterman said:
Yes, I do.

In fact, I think all people who claim homosexuality is a choice should be required to prove it by trying it at least once.

Well since it's your idea, I suggest you be the one of the test subjects. >:D

Bend over Mister, here comes my choice... :lol:

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

Dittohead not! said:
Yes. I posted it way back on page 3.

ok, whether, or not Jenkins got full custody is irrelevant. Either way, ful custody, or just visitation, I haven't seen anything that would cause me to believe that Jenkins has any rights as far as this kid is concerned.

That being the case, I'm convinced that the Ver,ont decision is motivated trictly by politics rather than the law, or common sense.

Redress · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
ok, whether, or not Jenkins got full custody is irrelevant. Either way, ful custody, or just visitation, I haven't seen anything that would cause me to believe that Jenkins has any rights as far as this kid is concerned.

That being the case, I'm convinced that the Ver,ont decision is motivated trictly by politics rather than the law, or common sense.

So because you disagree with the decision of multiple judges over two states(yes, it's true, read the source material), it must be politics? Brilliant!

MsRetro · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
ok, whether, or not Jenkins got full custody is irrelevant. Either way, ful custody, or just visitation, I haven't seen anything that would cause me to believe that Jenkins has any rights as far as this kid is concerned.

That being the case, I'm convinced that the Ver,ont decision is motivated trictly by politics rather than the law, or common sense.

In many states, if you are married to the mother, you are the child's legal parent. And hey, here it is in Vermont's law:

There is a presumption that a child born to a married woman is the child of the husband.

In civil unions in Vermont, Jenkin gets all the same rights as a father would in this case:

# Laws regarding child custody and support. The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child who either has become a natural parent to during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child who either spouse has become the natural parent to during the marriage.

So, there's your legal basis.

Source

This is just another run-of-the-mill custody battle, and should be treated as such. Nothing to see here.

EpicDude86 · Dec 17, 2009

MsRetro said:
In many states, if you are married to the mother, you are the child's legal parent. And hey, here it is in Vermont's law:

In civil unions in Vermont, Jenkin gets all the same rights as a father would in this case:

So, there's your legal basis.

Source

This is just another run-of-the-mill custody battle, and should be treated as such. Nothing to see here.

There is nothing to see here which is exactly why opinions and beliefs create phantoms to fill the void. They want...no they NEED...some sort of controversial substance here.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

Redress said:
So because you disagree with the decision of multiple judges over two states(yes, it's true, read the source material), it must be politics? Brilliant!

No, I said that I see no grounds to justify giving Jenkins custody of the kid.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

MsRetro said:
In many states, if you are married to the mother, you are the child's legal parent. And hey, here it is in Vermont's law:

But, when you consider that Jenkins isn't a biological parent and I haven't seen where she's paid any child support, I disagree that that is grounds enough to give her full custody.

In civil unions in Vermont, Jenkin gets all the same rights as a father would in this case

The odds of a hetero male getting the same court decision, under the same circumstances would be slim and none.

MsRetro · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
But, when you consider that Jenkins isn't a biological parent and I haven't seen where she's paid any child support, I disagree that that is grounds enough to give her full custody.

And I don't see where she didn't. Support is not referenced once in the article. Do you have another source on this, maybe?

The odds of a hetero male getting the same court decision, under the same circumstances would be slim and none.

You're probably right. But, all that demonstrates is that women have, historically, benefited from bias in custody battles. I don't see the relevance here.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

MsRetro said:
And I don't see where she didn't. Support is not referenced once in the article. Do you have another source on this, maybe?

I don't kow if she did, or not. So far, I've yet to see anything confirming that, either way.

You're probably right. But, all that demonstrates is that women have, historically, benefited from bias in custody battles. I don't see the relevance here.

The biological mother often benefits. IMO, what we have here is a very Liberal judge--which isn't hard to believe in Vermont--has allowed his politics influence his legal decision.

I would love to see what percentage of the gay vote he got in the last election.

Redress · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
The biological mother often benefits. IMO, what we have here is a very Liberal judge--which isn't hard to believe in Vermont--has allowed his politics influence his legal decision.

I would love to see what percentage of the gay vote he got in the last election.

What a stupid comment. You have had repeatedly pointed out to you that it was not "A" judge, but more than one, and in more than one state. You have presented no evidence of any impropriety by the judge, or any legal question to the ruling, and yet you assume it's political, which no evidence. The problem is not with the judgment, the problem is with you, yourself trying to make it political.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

Redress said:
What a stupid comment. You have had repeatedly pointed out to you that it was not "A" judge, but more than one, and in more than one state. You have presented no evidence of any impropriety by the judge, or any legal question to the ruling, and yet you assume it's political, which no evidence. The problem is not with the judgment, the problem is with you, yourself trying to make it political.

I've also stated that it's my opinion.

Redress · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
I've also stated that it's my opinion.

With absolutely and completely no facts at all, and denying what facts there are. It could be your opinion that the world is flat, and you would be wrong, even though it's just your opinion. Posting negative comments about some one with no evidence and trying to excuse it as just your opinion is kinda low.

MsRetro · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
I don't kow if she did, or not. So far, I've yet to see anything confirming that, either way.

Then why do you repeatedly reference it? Why not stick with factual arguments?

The biological mother often benefits. IMO, what we have here is a very Liberal judge--which isn't hard to believe in Vermont--has allowed his politics influence his legal decision.

I would love to see what percentage of the gay vote he got in the last election.

Did you read either of the links above regarding legal parenthood in Vermont? The judge there was respecting the law.

Now, I am going to admit that I was hasty when I stated that there's nothing to see here.

There are many red herrings being thrown around. This issue is not gay versus straight versus atheist versus Christian. Those are all big side shows, and it sounds like each parent has been deeply disrespectful of the other in those matters.

However, there's a states' rights issue, because it has not been established whether Virginia must respect Vermont's position.

If it makes you feel any better, I think Jenkins will lose when this gets to SCOTUS. This court has already upheld DOMA, and I don't see them turning around there.

btw, anyone looking for a more in-depth piece about this case, there is one here. I haven't had time to do more than skim it; it's about 6 pages long.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

Redress said:
With absolutely and completely no facts at all, and denying what facts there are. It could be your opinion that the world is flat, and you would be wrong, even though it's just your opinion. Posting negative comments about some one with no evidence and trying to excuse it as just your opinion is kinda low.

I wasn't aware that opinions needed to be backed up by facts...:rofl

Do you have anything to prove my opinion wrong? Other than insults, I mean.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

MsRetro said:
Then why do you repeatedly reference it? Why not stick with factual arguments?

The fact is that there's no evidence that Jenkins ever paid child support.

Did you read either of the links above regarding legal parenthood in Vermont? The judge there was respecting the law.

Sure, I read it. What are Vermont's laws regarding deadbeat dads who don't pay child support?

MsRetro · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
The fact is that there's no evidence that Jenkins ever paid child support.

There is no evidence that there is not an invisible monkey sitting just behind your left shoulder. There is no evidence that Zu'ul, minion of Gozier, has not decreed that Jenkins should have the child.

Child support has never been referenced. It's a totally irrelevant argument until something *factual* about it is.

Sure, I read it. What are Vermont's laws regarding deadbeat dads who don't pay child support?

I can tell you from first hand experience that, legally, child support and visitation are two separate matters.

Miller violated a visitation order. She lost custody. Period.

But, again, child support has never been referenced. So, this argument is irrelevant. Your feelings won't be hurt if I consider the child support segment of the convo closed, at least for me, until you can come back with actual facts, will you?

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

MsRetro said:
There is no evidence that there is not an invisible monkey sitting just behind your left shoulder. There is no evidence that Zu'ul, minion of Gozier, has not decreed that Jenkins should have the child.

Child support has never been referenced. It's a totally irrelevant argument until something *factual* about it is.

I can tell you from first hand experience that, legally, child support and visitation are two separate matters.

Miller violated a visitation order. She lost custody. Period.

But, again, child support has never been referenced. So, this argument is irrelevant. Your feelings won't be hurt if I consider the child support segment of the convo closed, at least for me, until you can come back with actual facts, will you?

I'm just forming an opinion based on the evidence at hand. All I see here is a denial of visitation by the biological mother and I've enver heard of that being grounds for remitting custody. Seen it happen a buncha times.

You seem level headed enough to grant a person his opinion, unlike some Libbos on this board. Hopefully I haven't overestimated you.

MsRetro · Dec 17, 2009

And hey, I found the answer on the child support:

The women worked out an informal understanding that Isabella, then 17 months old, would live with Lisa, but Janet would pay several hundred dollars monthly in child support and visit Isabella regularly.

<snip>

She and Janet were initially cordial. Janet sent money, came down some weekends to stay with her parents and visited Isabella.

It starts on the fifth page of the WAPO story.

I'd like to thank you for the compliment, and extend my hope that you are similarly level-headed and will concede a point when evidence is provided.

Dittohead not! · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
No, I said that I see no grounds to justify giving Jenkins custody of the kid.

Once again, Jenkins did not get custody of the kid. The headline in the opening post was inaccurate, inflammatory, and bogus.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

MsRetro said:
And hey, I found the answer on the child support:

It starts on the fifth page of the WAPO story.

I'd like to thank you for the compliment, and extend my hope that you are similarly level-headed and will concede a point when evidence is provided.

I found evidence that child support was ordered, as well.

Woman ordered to pay support: Rutland Herald Online

Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

EpicDude86

misterman

EpicDude86

misterman

EpicDude86

apdst

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

MsRetro

Active member

EpicDude86

apdst

apdst

MsRetro

Active member

apdst

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

apdst

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

MsRetro

Active member

apdst

apdst

MsRetro

Active member

apdst

MsRetro

Active member

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

apdst