First off, homosexuality is not a sin or is it something someone or society should deem as shameful or wrong. all people are equal, regardless of who they love. no one should be barred from basic civil rights and human rights- and that includes not being allowed to receive the same legal support and rights as heterosexual couples. miller is acting in a hypocritical manner if she thinks she is serving God by refusing not only the law of the land, but forbidding a loving mother to equally care for and love her child. I am not on for any religion, but I know enough to know that what Miller is doing is deplorable and only further makes me suspect how honest and true such religions are to God's actually message about love and respect.
GAY MARRIAGE
Mrs. Kramer Vs. Mrs. Kramer
It's an old story—parents split and fight for custody. But when both are women, and one says she is no longer gay, it gets complicated.
Published Dec 6, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Dec 15, 2008
-
Posted By: Rose000 @ 06/05/2009 12:47:38 PM
-
Posted By: organicpeas @ 06/11/2009 4:50:52 PM
So Janet Jenkins--who forced Isabella to bathe naked with her--is a loving mother? This "loving mother" caused Isabella to start wetting the bed, having nightmares, and talking about suicide.
-
-
Posted By: stsmith1511 @ 12/13/2008 6:44:37 PM
Enter Your Comment
-
Posted By: dreamagery2 @ 04/22/2009 12:21:42 PM
If you bore the child for 9 months and went through harsh labor the baby is yours. If you gave the sperm for that child to be born you're the dad. If same-sex unions are so natural then why can't they make babies?
Really weird. It makes sense why the Biological mom fell in love with Jesus. Because God's form of creation works because it's true. it isn't just true because it works.-
Posted By: majikl @ 06/08/2009 8:32:06 AM
alex_6734 - your argument that Janet Jenkins is not the mother of Isabelle is flawed because lesbians cannot conceive children together is flawed. Lesbian couples will be able to have children who are biologically both theirs via somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning. Refer to page 115 of Paul Lauritzen's Book "Cloning and the future of human embryo research". Also Sylvia Westphal's article "'Virgin birth' mammal rewrites rules of biology".
Paul Lauritzen, (2001), Cloning and the future of human embryo research. Oxford University Press, US
Sylvia Pagán Westphal, (2004), 'Virgin birth' mammal rewrites rules of biology. Reed Business Information Ltd.
-
-
-
Posted By: alex_6734 @ 04/22/2009 5:04:07 PM
I am hapy for her that she found Jesus and decided to walk the right path but you cannot just snatch a persons child away. Jenkins has loved this child even though her lifestyle may be wrong to cut her out of that childs life altoghter is also wrong. From Millers perspective I see that she sees this as only her child because she carried this child for 9 months, but she cant only think about herself.
-
Posted By: mallrat@acronet.net @ 04/22/2009 7:46:43 AM
From reading this article it is apparent that Miller has some mental helath issues. Being gay or straight is not something you can change daily like your socks.
-
Posted By: BIAWanker @ 12/10/2008 2:31:15 PM
How do you decide you`re not gay anymore? Is there a checkup test in the back of the bible? "If you get this many points, you're still gay and immorral, but if you got this many points, put down the strap on and get to a church ASAP"
This is just like any other divorce case between two married people who have kids. Of course there is a difference in the fact that it`s two women, but what does it matter? Some men get full custody of thier children because the mother is a total nut case. Why should it be different here?
And by the way Lucifer, Jenkins can be considered the "man" of the relationship, because like men, she loves vagina.
"Not a religious zealot", yeah right-
Posted By: Gods Child @ 01/20/2009 1:25:44 PM
There's more to the story than what people know
-
-
Posted By: ElijahforJesus @ 01/18/2009 6:39:30 PM
Janet Jenkins has no connection to Isabella more than she has a connection to Lisa Miller. No, it's not ridiculous. It's more ridiculous and confusing to have two people to call your "mommy." Who will she treat as the father, to whom she could lean on and rest for protection? Janet or Lisa? No one of them, because it's clear they're not men. Who will she treat as the mother. to whom she could be raised to be as the woman she is supposed to be? Janet or Lisa? The comment I've read on this story (aeig322) totally disregards who conceived and who bare the pain of giving birth to Isabella. Janet never felt that. Lisa did, because she is her biological mother. And the one who dictates the custody is the one who bare the child. And that's Lisa Miller. Period.
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/19/2009 8:56:50 PM
"It's more ridiculous and confusing to have two people to call your "mommy." Who will she treat as the father, to whom she could lean on and rest for protection? Janet or Lisa? No one of them, because it's clear they're not men. Who will she treat as the mother. to whom she could be raised to be as the woman she is supposed to be? Janet or Lisa?"
Ah the neanderthal view of family and gender. Only men can protect. Only women can do the actual raising.
And the one who bore the child does NOT get to decide on custody. At times that personis not competent (and it seems tht Lisa Miller may not be fully competent).
-
-
Posted By: aeig322 @ 01/14/2009 2:29:14 PM
I think it is ridiculous for people to assert that Lisa Miller deserves sole custody of Isabella simply because she carried her in her womb for nine months. Clearly, both Miller and Jenkins embarked on the journey to be parents together, and their union was legally recognized by the state of Vermont. Miller should not be able to take Isabella away from Jenkins simply because she had some weird shift in personality and spirituality that suddenly makes her view homosexuality as wrong. What about a heterosexual couple who conceives via a sperm donor? Does that mean that if the couple divorces, the father will have no rights to the child? Lisa Miller is no more than a bitter ex who is using homosexuality as an excuse to punish her former partner. This story breaks my heart - she is obviously brainwashing her poor child along the way. Not to mention that what she is doing is illegal - the state of Vermont ruled in Jenkins' favor and Miller didn't like the ruling, so she took the custody battle to a less progressive state. What Miller is doing is wrong, and I hope that her daughter grows up to see the truth.
-
Posted By: aeig322 @ 01/14/2009 2:18:43 PM
I think it is ridiculous for people to assert that Lisa Miller is the only parent who has rights to Isabella simply because she carried her in her womb for nine months. Clearly, both she and Janet embarked on the journey to be parents together, and their union was legally recognized in Vermont. Janet's rights to Isabella should not change simply because Lisa had some kind of weird shift in personality and spirituality that suddenly makes her see homosexuality as wrong. What about a heterosexual couple who conceives a child via donated sperm? If they divorce, does that mean the father has no rights to the child? Furthermore, Isabella is 6 years old and has no idea what she wants - she is most likely being brainwashed by her bitter mother. AND, what Lisa Miller is doing is illegal - she shouldn't be able to take her child custody battle to another state simply because she didn't get the ruling she wanted in Vermont. This story breaks my heart - I feel for Janet Jenkins, who is the victim of a bitter ex partner using homosexuality as an excuse to keep her child away from her other parent.
-
Posted By: follow_truth @ 01/09/2009 10:02:06 AM
What this article failed to emphasize is that Lisa is the real, biological mother. Janet Jenkins is not, and she had never adopted Isabella. It is ridiculous that she refers to Isabella as "my daughter". Parental visitation rights cannot apply.
Also, the fact that Lisa *is* the biological mother, should give her far more rights concerning custody and the upbringing of Isabella, than Jenkins. Lisa carried her for 9 months and actually gave birth to her. Janet did not, nor is any of Janet's DNA in Isabella. Janet does not deserve parental visitation rights under these circumstances, especially since neither Isabella or Lisa want this.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/09/2009 6:07:11 PM
"What this article failed to emphasize is that Lisa is the real, biological mother. Janet Jenkins is not, and she had never adopted Isabella. It is ridiculous that she refers to Isabella as "my daughter". Parental visitation rights cannot apply.
Also, the fact that Lisa *is* the biological mother, should give her far more rights concerning custody and the upbringing of Isabella, than Jenkins. Lisa carried her for 9 months and actually gave birth to her. Janet did not, nor is any of Janet's DNA in Isabella. Janet does not deserve parental visitation rights under these circumstances, especially since neither Isabella or Lisa want this. "
You cannot accurately say that Isabella want no contact. Also parentl rights most definatley can apply. Just becaue Virgina law is in the 16th century does not mean that others states are so backwards.
-
-
Posted By: rainbowlady13 @ 12/15/2008 4:13:59 PM
This is sad...why don't people think about the effects on the child BEFORE they have them, especially in a one-gender relationship. All this name-calling only shows the ignorance of all of you who've decided to post such ugly things. Just because you or someone else doesn't believe or agree with someone changing their mind or orientation or whatever, doesn't mean it's not legit. Instead of sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong....you do not know the actual people themselves, so you are just speculating, your comments are irrelevant. What matters is that there's been a relationship, and a child created and the relationship ended....the child is suffering. But it sounds like the child is happy where she is. If you are pro-gay rights, why must you put down those who don't believe it's right? You talk about tolerance, but have NO tolerance for anyone whose views are different than yours. Personally, I am concerned for the child. If adults would stop living so selfishly all the time, this would not happen. That includes ALL couples, regardless of sexual habits/orientation. Seems most of you one here except for one or two I've read, are all just trying to MAKE others agree with you or put them down! If you don't believe in Giod, that's your choice and one day you will have to answer for it. There are religious people who don't live right, too, but that doesn't make others who live for God "crazy" or mentally imbalanced!!! Talk about discrimination, judgementalism and lack of tolerance and compassion.
God have mercy on ALL of us!-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/15/2008 4:28:57 PM
rainbowlady,
I am not so sure that the child as happy as you seem to think (or more likely brainwashed, or just trying to behave well in front of stangers). As for putting down those who believe, I can't speak for others but I have no problem with people who have religious belief. I DO have a problem when they use it as a weapon or to deny equal rights.
" There are religious people who don't live right, too, but that doesn't make others who live for God "crazy" or mentally imbalanced!!! Talk about discrimination, judgementalism and lack of tolerance and compassion.
Lisa Miller, by the way she speaks and behaves is most likely mentally ill. She is also not lesbian but msot likley bisexual. If one is truly lesbian or gay one cannot change one's orientation. She is just under the sway of religious fanatics.
As for "If you don't believe in Giod, that's your choice and one day you will have to answer for it."
No we will not have to answer for it.-
Posted By: rainbowlady13 @ 12/15/2008 5:05:57 PM
NOT a bunch of religious poop! There's your intolerant prejudice showing! Yes you will answer for your belief in God or lack of belief...just as I will and everyone else will.....whether they want to admit it or not. You can believe what you want, but you don't have the right to force it on us or us to agree with you. Homosexuality can be changed by GOD, not by people. But you don't want to talk about God, so why don't you leave Him and His ways and choices alone. You can't hurt Him. But you will sooner or later have to face Him. I just hope by then, you will have realized you are just as much a sinner as everyone else is. I'm thankful.....myu sins have been forgiven and my life was changed years ago. I know lives can be changed by God. If she truly has found the Lord, then I'm very happy for her. Equality, is not all it's cracked up to be We are all designed and gifted differently for different lives/purposes. I'm glad to be a woman, alive in God, and well educated in a country that I'd been proud of as I was growing up. Sorry you are so mean.
-
Posted By: shiraaliza @ 12/16/2008 4:56:07 PM
"We are all designed and gifted differently for different lives/purposes."
Precisely. I was designed and gifted with a lesbian identity. Why would God make us all different if he wanted us to be the same? The point of equality is *not* that we ARE the same. It's that we have the same VALUE and deserve the same RIGHTS. If you went into a grocery store to buy food and water for your children, would you expect the clerk to say, "I'm sorry... the total cost is $10. Those two $5 bills won't cut it. You need a $10 bill." Of course not - and if the clerk continuously refused to take your two $5s, you'd call out the manager, right? The clerk would look kinda stupid, wouldn't he? Well, guess what? We may not look exactly like you, and we may not act exactly like you, and our unions may not look exactly like yours, but they are WORTH the same, and we expect them to be VALUED the same by the people who take our money and dole out public services. And if the government won't take our two $5's, we're damned well gonna call out the manager.-
Posted By: rainbowlady13 @ 12/17/2008 12:29:39 AM
About you being a Jew, I'm not against you and am ashamed of those who discriminate against you. You were born with Jewish DNA. That's a "birth/no choice" fact. Homosexuality is NOT a "DNA" factor, not a from birth thing. At birth you know if a child has black dna, jewish dna, chinese dna, etc. At birth you know if a child is girl or boy. No child is born with homosexual dna. That is a lifestyle choice, no matter how much you protest that it's an inborn thing. Many factors add in to develop a personality that is predisposed to attractions to the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex. It's not a permanent thing.....anyone can choose to become heterosexual and quit the homosexual lifestyle and there is help out there for people who want to do that. It's no worse sin than lying or hatred or murder, and I don't judge people. I'm a sinner, too. God provided payment for our sins and those who receive Christ's substitution for our sins can be forgiven and given a new life. I feel for you that people are prejudiced against Jews...the Bible clearly states that the nation who favors Israel will be favored. Whoever is misled in beliefs to hate them isn't allowing God to show them truth.
As far as homosexuals being "quiet" that's not true, and I've been in rough situations, just because I like rainbows and rainbowy colors and wear them. Now, the homosexual agenda and ACT UP group or whatever, makes it uneasy just being myself! Since homosexual lifestyle is choice, not birth determined/dna determined, there is no grounds for "equal opportunity" under the law.....no special rights which is actually what most are looking for. You want a homosexual based country, government, etc......go find Sodom and Gomorrah.......those towns were bastians for homosexuality. If you live in America, it's time you do what was intended by the founding fathers of this nation which was great for so long.....agree to the beliefs established back then. Honor the flag and support the military which protects this country, accept that marriage is one man with one woman, and government should not impede the practice of worship/religion. And, if you don't like it, get out. But as far as God goes, He loves all and wants to make their lives beautiful. He's still working on me, and all other true Christians.....and don't forget that Christians are still humans with mistakes and sins. And many call themselves Christians but have no relationship with Christ Jesus and so express their ugly opinions of lifestyles regardless of what God would want.
My heart goes out to you.-
Posted By: shiraaliza @ 12/17/2008 3:26:38 AM
"Since homosexual lifestyle is choice, not birth determined/dna determined, there is no grounds for "equal opportunity" under the law.....no special rights which is actually what most are looking for."
Wait - so you're saying you have Christian DNA? I'm pretty sure accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is a lifestyle choice. I'm not saying you shouldn't have equal protection - but if you can be protected for your lifestyle choices, how are you in a position to criticize me for what you believe are mine?
I really feel for you, because you look at gay people with such heavy blinkers. I hope for your children's sake that none of them are gay - not because it would reflect poorly on them, but because they will suffer at your hands. I can tell you from experience that being gay is something that is present in childhood, and there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. I may be a Jew by birth, but deciding to practice the religion was far more of a lifestyle choice than being gay ever was. It is true that people can "choose" to marry in a heterosexual relationship - people can choose to *ignore* their homosexuality or attempt to turn their back on it. I could walk backwards for the rest of my life if I REALLY wanted to. It would be pretty darned awkward though!
Let me ask you - would you want your daughter to marry a gay man? Just how happy do you think she would be in a relationship where she will never truly be loved as a spouse should be loved? Is that fair to her? A man and a woman can never have a fulfilling and healthy sexual relationship when one of them is homosexual. It's an injustice to both parties. I could never find emotional or sexual fulfillment with a man. Don't get me wrong - I have some very close friends who are men, and I love my male relatives. But in terms of romantic relationships? They just do nothing for me. Never have. If you think that's some sort of choice, then ask yourself if you could ever find sexual and emotional fulfillment with a woman. Could you try? Could you choose to change your sexual orientation, just to prove that it's a choice? Could you force yourself to be attracted to somebody? Could you go out and find a wife, and live a happy life with her, or would it be a sham?-
Posted By: rainbowlady13 @ 12/19/2008 9:50:29 PM
First I couldn't have children because of cancer and tumors. I have nieces and nephews though, and I would never turn my back on them even if they strayed from "normal" to homosexuality. I would love them and pray for them as always. No there is no Christian dna either....I wasn't born a Christian....no one is. You have to realize your sin and need of a Savior and accept that Jesus paid the price for your sin. Religious beliefs should affect your life....in a positive way. Unions for same sex couples are one thing, but marriage has always been one man with one woman. Rape was not why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, it was for the wickedness of homosexuality in those towns rebelling against God that they were destroyed. If you quote the Bible make sure you have read the whole thing and know the truth. And by the way, I HAVE been raped. This blog was supposed to be about the Miller case and the effects on the child. Why can't a Christian respond with concern and love and an opinion without being lambasted by every unbeliever out there? Sounds like something is making ya'll uncomfortable.
I'm gone. I'm tired of the intolerance and I have a REAL life to live and am in too much pain (from wreck) and too tired and stressed (Mom died) to get involved in something where no one really has compassion for anyone else.
Merry Christmas (oops....my bad....that's a Christian holiday)-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/20/2008 5:02:15 PM
"Rape was not why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, it was for the wickedness of homosexuality in those towns rebelling against God that they were destroyed. If you quote the Bible make sure you have read the whole thing and know the truth. "
Sorry dear but Jewish biblical scholars have said that homosexuality was NOT the main or even secondary reason that S'dom and G'marah (the proper transliteraion of the Hebrew, since the story is part of the Torah which is first and foremost a Jewish text not a Chrstiain one and therefore the Jewish perspective will ALWAYS take precedence). The Rabbinical reading of the S&G story has always been that the cities were destroyed for baseless hatrred. In fact if one actually reads the story (which I have since used to teach TaNaKh and Jewish studies when I was religiously Jewish) there is not real homsexuality, there is simple omnisexuality (which is also what is being dealt with in Leviticus if one asctually knows how to read the Torah.) Rape of men AND women by the populace as well as robbery, assualt, and murder. When one rapes both men and women the point is to debase them , NOT for sexual pleasure or attraction. Homosexuality is about attraction. That is ALWAYS the way the Jewish interpreation has been and is the only valid interpretation there can be since it is their book.
And believe it or not I have met several Christian scholars who agree with that interpretation.
-
-
-
Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/17/2008 7:56:05 AM
The last part of your statement that I will take issue with right now is the idea that homosexuals have infringed on your perceived right to 'like rainbows and rainbowy colors and wear then', and the lack of what you call 'equal opportunity' under the law...
The vast majority of gays, lesbians, and other self-identified queers do live quiet lives that in no way affect your aforementioned 'rainbow' rights. I am gay woman who actually doesn't own any rainbow related items, so please you have my blessing to pull out what ever rainbow embossed item that you want to. I will ask your forgiveness for those members of both my community and yours that will treat you will intolerance, hatred, and bigotry because of your preference for a certain lifestyle choice regarding your clothing. But I'm sure you understand, right?
Also, 'equal opportunity' under the law is not determined by genetics... your rights as a citizen are determined by the nation that grants them... there are a lot of civil rights that are provided and protected without regard to genetic predetermination. So if you are only going to provide equal rights to people based on genetics or DNA, who's DNA or genetics do we use to determine who gets rights and who doesn't? Wait this has already been tried and it didn't turn out so well... As I think my Jewish friend who also posted on here earlier can probably agree with...
And if you would like an example of a right that is offered equally to every citizen of the US, without regard to genetic predetermination, and is solely based on a lifestyle choice here's a big one for you... Next Sunday keep in mind that you are free to worship in the Christian church of your choosing, because your right to do so is protected under the Constitution of the United States... And they never did find that Christian DNA marker either... -
Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/17/2008 7:34:25 AM
Regardless of any evidence for or against some amount of genetic predetermination of sexual identity, I have to ask the question of you, can you please explain why someone would choose to be homosexual and what factors you think cause this decision to be made?
I can only speak for myself, not for the majority of gay women on the planet, but I don't remember saying to myself one day that I would like to take on the weight of homosexuality just because I feel like it today... And before you go there, I wasn't molested as a child, exposed to gay, lesbian, straight, or otherwise pornographic material, I wasn't exposed to the 'gay agenda' or the 'gay lifestyle', I made friends with both boys and girls, there aren't really any overly traumatic school gym, or hair pulling experience that stand out, I wasn't poor, or rich, my dad never beat my mom, neither of my parents drank or did drugs... Did I cover all of your arguments yet? I'm a college educated woman from the midwest US, with a post-grad degree, and an honorable discharge from the US military. All in all I am pretty well adjusted and normal...
Except for that strange decision to love women instead of men... Well, let me promise you I tried it, I was married, I don't have children, but I have had other romantic relationships with men... They just didn't work for me... Not just speaking in the sexual sense either, so put that accusation away.
I did not choose to be homosexual, nor did my subconscious decide that I had had it too easy in life and I needed to suffer a little... But I can't explain it any way that you can understand and accept my feelings about this matter... any more than you can explain why you choose to be straight.
As far as choosing to put the homosexual lifestyle away and becoming good heterosexuals, this is also based in faulty assumptions. Ex-gay or reparative therapy has repeatedly been criticized by the AMA and the APA. Gays can make a choice to adopt the heterosexual lifestyle and many do so with varying degrees of success... but to use that small percentage of gay people to make a blanket statement about very gay person is an error... By that same standard I can say that all straight people can choose to be gay, because some have decided to come play over here, then successfully returned there... Some have even stayed over here. -
Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/17/2008 6:56:45 AM
You state that there is no such as homosexual DNA, and that because of that homosexuality is purely a choice, not a predetermined response to stimuli. Well, then the argument can be made that there is no such thing as heterosexual DNA either, and therefore according to you your orientation must also be a choice, so can you please specify for me exactly when you make this choice...
You are correct that there is no concrete scientific evidence stating that homosexuality is determined by DNA, however there are increasing numbers of studies that show that homosexuality does have physical markers that can be identified... Such as brain structure and size which in self identified homosexual men are found to be closer in size and structure to the brains of straight women... Same with lesbians and straight men...
One of the theories about homosexual predisposition is that sexual orientation can be effected by conditions in the womb, for example, at conception the DNA is present for both sets of sexual organs, one of the things that determines gender in a fetus is the amounts of specific hormones. Although hormone levels vary from fetus to fetus it stands to reason that enough of the hormone can be present to determine gender, but not to complete the process of hard-wiring these gender characteristics into the brain... Brains develop much slower than the sex organs, therefore the hormone levels would have to remain consistent to insure gender specific programing...
So under that argument it would seem like it is th parent's fault that the child is born gay... -
Posted By: shiraaliza @ 12/17/2008 3:29:26 AM
I never meant to say that people are like dollar bills. My point was that just because two things are not identical, it doesn't mean that things cannot be equal. A better example might be to think about a person in a wheelchair. Think about the Social Security office that person needs to visit in order to apply for disability payments. Now imagine that office is upstairs. It's easy enough for you to say, "Well, you have the same access as I have to that office. We have EQUAL access to the office. Nobody is telling you that you can't go up the stairs. It's not my fault you choose to sit in that wheelchair when you could drag yourself up the stairs with your strong upper arms..." Stupid, right? Ridiculous, right? Well, that's what you say to me when you tell me I have the same right to marry a man as anybody else has. You're telling me that I have to uproot myself, be somebody I'm not, and cause myself physical and emotional harm, just to get the services that I am legally entitled to. I am *different* from you, but we deserve equal treatment, and if there are unreasonable barriers to our equal treatment, then I will fight to tear them down.
The mistake I typically see people make is in thinking that if we don't allow gay marriage, somehow all the gay people are going to go, "Well, it was worth a try!" and then go marry heterosexual partners. This simply is not going to happen. What's going to happen is that gay people will continue to raise children, and your children and the rest of this generation will grow up viewing marriage as a political tool of oppression rather than a sacred union. By the end of the next generation marriage will largely be extinct. That's if gay marriage is NOT allowed. If it is? Well. The sky won't fall, nobody will turn into pillars of salt, and things will go on as they do now, except that more people will have rights, and more children will have married parents.
Incidentally, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was RAPE and mistreatment of strangers. Namely by attempting to rape them. Rape is about power and dominion, not homosexuality and love. Most men who rape men are heterosexual and are being violent and abusive as a show of power.
Oh, also - you're right, government should not impede religious practice. My religion recognizes same-gender marriage as holy unions. I was married by a rabbi. I have a ketubah. My wife is my wife in the eyes of God. If the government thinks it's better than God... well, that is no excuse for denying my rights. If we really want to make everybody happy, the government should just get out of the business of marriage and allow any two adults to enter into a civil union. Would that satisfy you, or are you in favor of *no* recognition for same-gender couples? (and think carefully about that question, because when you strip rights from same-gender couples, you screw over their children as well. Children deserve for their parents to have legal rights and responsibilities to
-
-
Posted By: rainbowlady13 @ 12/17/2008 12:37:10 AM
God didn't design and gift you as a lesbian. His gifts are for teaching, administration, counselling, praying, witnessing, giving, etc. Has nothing to do with sexual choices. What he does do is create you in your mother's womb to be a boy or girl, and what talents you might have and blood type, etc. Homosexuality is not a birth/DNA thing....it's a choice that is made over time as different influences and choices are made in a person's life. NOT the same thing as race or gender, or eye color which is designed by God before birth and made evident after birth. And human beings are not the same as $10 or $5 bills. I'd NEVER equate humans on such a low level! Each person is unique designed by God for a specific purpose in their lives, but we can make choices for other things WE want because we are all basically selfish. You are still valuable, just wasting a part of your life with bad choices.......just as all of us have made bad choices in our lives. I hope you find your purpose and the Love of God and His direction for your life........you'll never be fully satisfied or happy running your own life with bad choices.
-
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/15/2008 8:20:23 PM
YAWWNNN!!!
Believe what you want. I'll believe what I know.
There is no god.-
Posted By: rainbowlady13 @ 12/17/2008 12:29:57 AM
And, as for ghostmasseur.......you keep posting same old tired declarations......so you don't believe there is a God, soooo? who cares? God does, but he gives you free choice.... as for the rest of us....why do you feel so compelled to say the same old things to every person who makes any reference to religion or Christianity or the Bible? Sounds to me you're so insecure you feel better if you write it. By the way....it's not what I "believe" it's what I KNOW........you believe what you want. I'll pray for you.
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/17/2008 7:42:09 AM
"And, as for ghostmasseur.......you keep posting same old tired declarations...."why do you feel so compelled to say the same old things to every person who makes any reference to religion or Christianity or the Bible?"
Actually it is you that are posting the same old tired statements about god and what he wnats. My posts are a response that same old same old garbage which has no relevance in US law. THAT is my. As long as you keep trying to interject your deity inot wht is a purely LEGAL issue, I will keep pointing out that your deity is neither real nor relevant.
"By the way....it's not what I "believe" it's what I KNOW."
It is only what you know you believe. You cannot know that which is not provable and the existance of any deity outside of the human imagination is NOT provable.-
Posted By: rainbowlady13 @ 12/19/2008 9:40:24 PM
YOu don't want to listen to or admit that someone else's opinion or belief is right and yours isn't. I'm not wasting my time on this with you anymore. I have a real life to live that doesn't need to post all over the web just to be "noticed".
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/20/2008 4:51:59 PM
"YOu don't want to listen to or admit that someone else's opinion or belief is right and yours isn't."
Actually is was listineing to tohers that made me realize that there was not god so that assertion is wrong. I am more thatn willing to listen to inteligently put forth ideas and do readily have an open mind to consider them If you ever put forth such an idea I will give it the attention it deserves.
"I have a real life to live that doesn't need to post all over the web just to be "noticed".""
I have not need to be noticed. I do have an obligation as an educator and Constitutional scholar to make sure that misguided views like yours are not left unanswered.
-
-
Posted By: rainbowlady13 @ 12/19/2008 9:41:35 PM
One more thing......this country was based on the Bible and Christian beliefs......IT started the laws against murder, etc. so yes, religion does have a right to impact government.
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/20/2008 4:49:00 PM
According to the authors of the US Constitution it did not. And also they specifically were against religion having influcne on the government or its laws.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/17/2008 8:32:17 AM
rainbowlady13 - You asked 'If you are pro-gay right, why must you put down those who don't believe it's right? You talk about tolerance, but have NO tolerance for anyone whose views are different than yours.'
I believe strongly, even as a gay woman, that you have every right to your beliefs and views of the world... I have defended your rights for that and I would do so again without hesitation, even knowing that I would still be denied the very rights I am putting my life at risk to defend.
As for why the gay community is no longer prepared to 'suffer in silence' and feels compelled to stand up and be counted. It is a direct reflection on the intolerance that we have experienced and continue to experience every day. You have never experienced the feeling of having to hide your life from friends, co-workers, family or the general public because of the possibility of not only the intolerance that you accuse us of, but of things far worse... You have never been verbally or physically attacked for who you spend your life with. You have never been denied the right to comfort a loved one in the hospital because your relationship is not normal. You have never been fired from your job because your boss doesn't like your religious views, and if you were you could sue and win. You have never been raped because all you need is the experience with a real man and you will be normal.
You have never had any of these experiences because you are not gay... Homosexuality is more than a lifestyle choice, it is a life. No more special or less special than the one that you are living because you are straight.
I am not intolerant of you or your beliefs, what I am intolerant of is the assumption that you make that because I have an orientation that is different from your idea of normal that you are entitled to tell me about what God says and offer to help me stop living in sin. If you want me to be tolerant of your beliefs then please extend me the same courtesy.
Tolerance works both ways. For you to be able to make public statements about your beliefs, I must be able to make public statements about mine. If I cannot talk about being gay, then you can't talk about being Christian... This isn't putting someone down or being intolerant, it is the only way we will all be able to show tolerance for others.-
Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/17/2008 9:21:54 AM
One other thing I would like to add before the flaming starts, not all the comments I made were directed as a personal attack at you rainbowlady13... You asked the question as a blanket statement about the gay community so I answered it with a blanket answer to the straight community, not a direct attack on you or your behavior.
As far as the not knowing anyone who as changed their orientation or their mind or whatever... I do know several people who attended ex-gay therapy and I only know one who claims to have successfully changed his orientation. The other people I know who attempted this 'therapy' were not successful changing their orientation. Several of them suffered from major depressive episodes before, during, and after attending this therapy... All of them asked why God had forsaken them and wouldn't make them straight. Some have chosen to remain alone, and some have found other avenues for their faith in God.
There is another side of the happy ex-gay movement that you don't hear talked about and those are the people like a good friend of mine who ended a 10 year relationship with her lesbian partner and entered therapy to change her orientation. She was depressed over the breakup with her lover, and as she continued therapy and still had same sex attractions her therapist told her that she was not determined to change and she just needed to pray harder and ask God to remove these sinful thoughts and feelings from her life. When this didn't work her therapist told her that she didn't have strong enough faith in God. She told us that she prayed, asked, and even begged God to help take this burden from her, but she would still have the thoughts and feelings no matter what she did. She asked us, her minister, and her therapist why God would continue to keep her in this sin and not release her from it, I don't know what answer her minister gave her, but I know what I told her and I said that God heard her prayers and that because she was seeking grace and salvation that he would hear her... And I know what her therapist told her, he said that she was still choosing to sin by her attraction to women and that God couldn't help her unless she truly and honestly repented... She dated and even slept with men to force this change on her life... Still no effect. So one night she finished her prayers and then took 2 months worth of sleeping pills, antidepressants, and Xanax. In the letter that she left she said that she knew that suicide was a sin, but it wasn't a big a sin as being gay and hopefully she would be forgiven for the suicide because she did it to control her homosexual urges, she hadn't had sexual thoughts about a woman in three days and she had to do it then so they wouldn't come back and cause her to sin again...
So this is the reason I have a major problem with ex-gay therapy... And another reason I am firmly set in the homosexuality is not a choice camp...
-
-
Posted By: shiraaliza @ 12/16/2008 4:43:34 PM
Rainbowlady, as a Jew, should I have tolerance for Nazis and other anti-Semites, even if their hateful beliefs are based on their religious ideology? So Mel Gibson doesn't believe being Jewish is right. So he hates us. Why on EARTH would you expect me to honor his opinions and think that they are just as valid as mine? Why should I have to bend over backwards to accommodate the beliefs of people who would just as soon prefer to see me executed for my identity? So why should I have tolerance for homophobes, as a lesbian? In any event, you have *no idea* just how much tolerance you get from us. Personally I think you deserve the same tolerance as racists and other bigots - and someday when that's the tolerance you get for your homophobia, you'll long for those times when we stayed silent and put up with this ridiculousness.
-
-
Posted By: lvbrown@liberty.edu @ 12/16/2008 11:23:37 PM
Mr. Jon Meacham. Editor, Newsweek
I am writing in response to your December 15, 2008 cover story, the follow-on article, and your Editor???s Corner. I write from an unusual perspective, as I am writing this while watching Isabella playing with my daughter after I took them to eat tonight so that Lisa could attend a meeting (I refer to her in this letter as Lisa, reflecting not only our friendship, but also to avoid confusion with your author). As you so prophetically indicated, the letters and emails will (and should) come from the ???religious conservatives,??? and yes, we do consider this part of an active agenda, not merely (or even remotely) objective journalism. And, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, you paraphrase Shakespeare: ???The Devil???can quote Scripture for his purpose??? ??? and then prove your own point 24 pages later.
Obviously I???m a Christian conservative ??? politically a little right of Sean Hannity ??? and my family and I are close friends with, and attend church with, Lisa and Isabella. As a minister and Theology student, I take issue with many of the points Ms. Miller makes in her cover story. Only a loose deconstructionist interpretation of Holy Scripture could arrive at such biased and baseless conclusions (e.g., Scripture gives no good reasons why people with Same Sex Attraction (SSA) should not be religiously married, religious objections to gay marriage are not rooted in the Bible at all, inferences regarding David and Jonathan). To Ms. Miller???s credit, she does provide us Rev. R.A. Hunter???s position from the AJC, that ???the Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman.??? However, from that point forward her position and arguments degenerate to pablum lacking firm Scriptural citation or credible theological interpretation. Further, I consider it less than forthright to equate Dr. King???s positions on racially based discrimination with discrimination against people with SSA involved in a homosexual lifestyle. Discrimination based on gender, nation of birth, or race is totally unacceptable, as it discriminates against an individual for factors completely beyond their control or choice. Conversely, people with SSA must individually and actively choose to engage/continue in a homosexual lifestyle ??? this distinction disqualifies practicing homosexuals from the protections rightfully afforded by law to people discriminated against because of non-choice factors.-
Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/17/2008 11:37:57 AM
If people with SSA make an active choice to engage/continue in a homosexual lifestyle, then if will assume that you could not argue that people with Opposite Sex Attractions (OSA) also choose to engage\continue in a heterosexual lifestyle. And wouldn't that mean that this same distinction also disqualifies people with OSA, who are practicing a heterosexual lifestyle, from these protections rightfully afforded to prevent discrimination based on this same line of reasoning?
If a person can make a choice to have SSA then when they realize the error of their ways are they required to have a sexual relationship to show how committed they are to the idea that they have thrown off the sins of the past, or can they choose to be celibate? I'm sure you can see why I'm asking for clarification on this question, because it heterosexuals can make a choice to refrain from\or end a heterosexual lifestyle, or even claim no sexual lifestyle at all by choosing to refrain from actually having sexual relations with anyone, then doesn't that also make the heterosexual lifestyle a choice, at least in regards to the practice of it?
So, I assume that means that you will be fine with the state repealing your protections because you are also disqualified on the basis of a non-choice factor. I guess that does away with the whole issue really, because under this line of reasoning there can be no civil protections for people with OSA or SSA, but we will have protected classes within each of those classes... So do you think the civil protections should only be offered to blacks, whites, oh wait, we can't discriminate on the non-choice factor of skin color, so I guess all races will have marriage protections, unless you are going to suggest discrimination based on skin color and SSA are grounds for legal discrimination...
Exactly where do you want this to stop.. Let me guess, right before people who have SSA.-
Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/17/2008 12:19:19 PM
Sorry, for some reason the end of the post didn't come through, so here it is... I'm sure you all were waiting with bated breath...
Now that we have established that when protection from discrimination is based solely on what you call non-choice, and I would call genetic, factors, then we have to look at the sticky question of exactly who's non-choice, or genetic, factors are protected and who's aren't? What's the accepted standard going to be for inclusion in these non-choice, or genetic, protected classes... Do we have to protect people who don't meet what ever genetic standard we decide to apply... What happens when the races become so close as to lose the specific genetic factors that make them different now?
By the way, it shouldn't be too hard to set this all up, there are blueprints for this kind of genetic legality already in existence, you'll just have to fly to Germany to find them, or I guess you can check with the US Holocaust Museum... They might let you borrow a copy of the Racial Purity Laws....
Now before you attack me I do not think that you are a Nazi, or that you believe like one... What I am doing is taking the idea of exclusion from the protections of the law based on the presence of specific genetic factors, or the lack of specific genetic factors to its logical, yet absurd extreme.
I can debunk your argument again without even going to this extreme, if your argument is that denying rights for people with SSA because they are in fact making a choice, then shouldn't these same people who are excluded from equal protection under the law, actually be entitled to that same protection under the law because they will have a race, gender, or nation of birth that does provide these same protections.... And then doesn't it stand to reason that even if marriage is prohibited on the grounds that people with SSA aren't afforded that protection under the law, then should they not be allowed that protection under the law based only on one of the three above named genetic grounds? And that since marriage, using your example, can not be defined to extend protections to people OSA, because as we established before everyone makes a choice to engage in sexual behavior, then aren't these protections extended by default to all people under the standards that you set?
Genetics or choice citizens of the US are afforded equal protection based one factor, and one factor alone... They are citizens of the United States. Unless you believe that I should get to be a second class citizen
-
-
-
Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/17/2008 6:28:52 AM
What is really disturbing about this case is that it does seem like the child is getting lost in the legal shuffle... Several mistakes were made on both sides, primarily the fact that the adoption was never filed, and that Ms. Miller continued to accept child support from Ms. Jenkins after filing for sole custody. However even if the adoption had been filed and the order issued it still would not have mattered in the long run. Because the law does not recognize the rights of non-biological parents in the event of a divorce, yes this does include heterosexual couples as well, the court would not be bound to grant visitation to an adoptive parent following a separation. This normally will not happen in cases involving a heterosexual divorce, but it happens all the time in cases involving the children of same sex couples...
The most compelling legal aspect of the dispute, as I see it, is the payment of child support... The fact that the non-biological parent continued to contribute to the care and welfare of the child implies a conscience intent to remain as a factor in the child's life. Acceptance of the child support also implies that the biological parent was in agreement that Ms. Jenkins had accepted responsibilities for financially supporting the child and continues to have an interest in the welfare of the child. I suppose the argument might be made that Ms. Miller thought the monies were a gift from Ms. Jenkins, but she should have returned them when she found out that wasn't the case to make the argument that there was no form of ongoing interest on Ms. Jenkins' part.
But then again I'm not really a family law expert, I spend more time dealing with Criminal Law and Mental Health Law than I do civil law specifically. But I am sure that the idea of intent is still the same.
-
Posted By: lvbrown@liberty.edu @ 12/16/2008 11:29:43 PM
Part 3 - and the text editor has a horrible compatability with Word...
Perhaps surprising you, I am not opposed to the option of a homosexual couple committing to each other in a private ???commitment??? or ???recognition??? ceremony. I recognize this as a civil right and American freedom, but I do, however, strongly object to the use of the term marriage ??? especially Church-sanctioned marriage ??? to such a ceremony/relationship. I have friends who are homosexual ??? and, yes, they are fully my friends who are homosexual, not a lower class of friends as implied by the term ???homosexual friends.??? I view SSA as I view any sin ??? all of us have flaws ??? whether such flaws are past shortcomings, gluttony, pride, etc., they are all sins which make us unworthy of fellowship with a Holy God. Our fellowship with God is only made possible by the act of a Living Savior, but not so our fellowship with each other. While I recognize that ???bad company corrupts good character??? (1 Cor 15:33), I also recognize that there was a time in my life when I was not only corrupted by association with people of bad character, I eventually became the ???bad character??? who corrupted others. However, by God???s grace ??? and thanks to my wife???s prayers and patience ??? ???He brought me out of the miry pit??? (Psalm 40:2) from which I was helpless to save myself.
Accordingly, I consider your authors correct in stating that Christ would assuredly associate with homosexuals. However, that???s a far cry from the Lord endorsing homosexuality, much less homosexual marriage. Consider the woman at the well whom he redeemed, and the woman taken in adultery, to whom his parting words were not ???if it feels good do it,??? but ???Go, and sin no more??? (John 8:11). Our role as Christians ??? and as a society ??? is to reach out to others ??? not with an ???I???m ok, you???re ok??? approach, but with the Truth that each of us sin, each of us need each other, and Christ offers salvation as the solution to our sins ??? a much more effective and permanent remedy than the band-aid conciliatory homosexual marriage ???solution??? espoused by your articles.
Lastly, let us remember that everyone???s primary focus in this case should be on what???s best for Isabella, not on divisive battles or on precedent-winning agendas. Based on my time and friendship with Lisa and Isabella, and noting my biases for both Isabella and the Biblical view, I consider Isabella should remain with her mother, Lisa, and at some later point be given the opportunity to decide whether she wishes to maintain a relationship with Ms. Jenkins ??? which she at this point does not.
-
Posted By: lvbrown@liberty.edu @ 12/16/2008 11:28:13 PM
Part 2 -- Brevity precludes my addressing other of Ms. Miller???s points, but I would like to offer a few thoughts on Mrs. Kramer vs. Mrs. Kramer before I conclude. Personal discretion and ministerial privilege prevent me from revealing many pertinent details which would provide much needed factual corrections to Ms. Ali???s article. However, as a minister and personal friend of Lisa???s, I consider your implicit questions of her mental stability and the veracity of her faith are baseless, subjective, and unworthy of a ???news magazine.??? Further, I realize press deadlines are a factor, but here in the 21st Century electronic age, you should have noted or at least footnoted that Mr. Price, Ms. Jenkins??? former counsel, is no longer on the case, following his indictment related to a homicide occurring in his house. As you noted, Lisa offered, or ???begged??? as you state, Ms. Jenkins to file for adoption. I cannot accept Ms. Jenkins??? contention that evidently neither she nor her counsel considered it prudent to file for adoption. Such adoptions are common in legal heterosexual marriages; it would follow that it would be beneficial under Ms. Jenkins??? circumstances if she truly had a desire to be a legal, permanent, recognized parent to Isabella.
-
Posted By: lvbrown@liberty.edu @ 12/16/2008 11:26:45 PM
(Pt2) Brevity precludes my addressing other of Ms. Miller???s points, but I would like to offer a few thoughts on Mrs. Kramer vs. Mrs. Kramer before I conclude. Personal discretion and ministerial privilege prevent me from revealing many pertinent details which would provide much needed factual corrections to Ms. Ali???s article. However, as a minister and personal friend of Lisa???s, I consider your implicit questions of her mental stability and the veracity of her faith are baseless, subjective, and unworthy of a ???news magazine.??? Further, I realize press deadlines are a factor, but here in the 21st Century electronic age, you should have noted or at least footnoted that Mr. Price, Ms. Jenkins??? former counsel, is no longer on the case, following his indictment related to a homicide occurring in his house. As you noted, Lisa offered, or ???begged??? as you state, Ms. Jenkins to file for adoption. I cannot accept Ms. Jenkins??? contention that evidently neither she nor her counsel considered it prudent to file for adoption. Such adoptions are common in legal heterosexual marriages; it would follow that it would be beneficial under Ms. Jenkins??? circumstances if she truly had a desire to be a legal, permanent, recognized parent to Isabella.
-
Posted By: lvbrown@liberty.edu @ 12/16/2008 11:23:38 PM
Mr. Jon Meacham. Editor, Newsweek
I am writing in response to your December 15, 2008 cover story, the follow-on article, and your Editor???s Corner. I write from an unusual perspective, as I am writing this while watching Isabella playing with my daughter after I took them to eat tonight so that Lisa could attend a meeting (I refer to her in this letter as Lisa, reflecting not only our friendship, but also to avoid confusion with your author). As you so prophetically indicated, the letters and emails will (and should) come from the ???religious conservatives,??? and yes, we do consider this part of an active agenda, not merely (or even remotely) objective journalism. And, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, you paraphrase Shakespeare: ???The Devil???can quote Scripture for his purpose??? ??? and then prove your own point 24 pages later.
Obviously I???m a Christian conservative ??? politically a little right of Sean Hannity ??? and my family and I are close friends with, and attend church with, Lisa and Isabella. As a minister and Theology student, I take issue with many of the points Ms. Miller makes in her cover story. Only a loose deconstructionist interpretation of Holy Scripture could arrive at such biased and baseless conclusions (e.g., Scripture gives no good reasons why people with Same Sex Attraction (SSA) should not be religiously married, religious objections to gay marriage are not rooted in the Bible at all, inferences regarding David and Jonathan). To Ms. Miller???s credit, she does provide us Rev. R.A. Hunter???s position from the AJC, that ???the Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman.??? However, from that point forward her position and arguments degenerate to pablum lacking firm Scriptural citation or credible theological interpretation. Further, I consider it less than forthright to equate Dr. King???s positions on racially based discrimination with discrimination against people with SSA involved in a homosexual lifestyle. Discrimination based on gender, nation of birth, or race is totally unacceptable, as it discriminates against an individual for factors completely beyond their control or choice. Conversely, people with SSA must individually and actively choose to engage/continue in a homosexual lifestyle ??? this distinction disqualifies practicing homosexuals from the protections rightfully afforded by law to people discriminated against because of non-choice factors.
-
Posted By: lizzie47 @ 12/16/2008 1:22:16 PM
Miller reminds me of a women I dated. Who was mentally unstable. She had PTSD and this led to extreme behavior in self Identity changes, religious changes including extreem religious dedication ( like Miller), and and several name changes. Miller may have some serious emotional problems tied to her past (she her self talked about her mothers death, sexual abuse and an unhealthy marriage to a man when she was in her early 20s). Kids are amazing in how they can handle living with their parents issues. I'm sure this little girl will grow up just fine, and I bet she knows more about what is going on than she is letting on.
-
Posted By: nonbiomom @ 12/14/2008 8:01:43 PM
any other NON BIO MOMS out there...
email for support group.. nonbiomom@yahoo.com
-
Posted By: stsmith1511 @ 12/13/2008 6:48:20 PM
The only way to overcome a sinful nature, including homosexuality, is by the power of Jesus Christ. Only Jesus can cleanse a heart of sin and then empower the believer to live strong in Him. If you are reading this and struggling with homosexuality or any other life-controlling sin, you need to know that Jesus loves you and desires for you to turn to Him. Simply admit your sinful state: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn. 1:9). Then accept the free gift of God's grace, offered to all who believe and call on His name: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (Jn. 1:12).
In the beginning, God created man and woman to be together and designed that the two should become one through marriage. Sexual relations are wrong outside of marriage whether you are gay or an engaged heterosexual couple. Homosexual relations are no harder to abstain from than heterosexual relations. The Bible says, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it" (1 Cor. 10:13).
The Bible very clearly defines what is allowed between a man and a woman and also what is disallowed between members of the same sex. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13). First Corinthians 6:9-11 says that people practicing homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they are cleansed through Christ. You can read further about this issue in Genesis 19; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; and Jude, verse 7.
Remember, it is the homosexual act, not the homosexual person that God detests. Even Jesus was tempted by the devil in the wilderness and He overcame that temptation. That is what God is calling every person struggling with homosexual desires to do. First Corinthians 10:13 says, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/14/2008 10:21:26 AM
YAWWNN!
Religious horsedung.
Ther is no god, Jesus was simply a human being incapable of any form of salvaton (which is unneeded anyway) , there is no since, no need for forgiveness, and the text you are quoting was written and concieved by human biengs and can easily be ignored. .
-
-
Posted By: mamavonne @ 12/08/2008 11:51:28 AM
One woman was inseminated by a man she was not involved with, carried and delivered fullterm a child. The second woman was willing to support and nurture the child even though it was not biologically hers, she accepted the responsibility being in a marriage. The issue I do not fully understand is this, if this was a man, would he have to adopt the child? If this was a 'new' and radical concept of parenthood, wouldn't one want to take an additional step in adopting the child to ensure parental identity?
This has raminifcations in all marriages and relationships. Two mommys and two daddys issue bothers me immensely, not because of the homosexuality, but because, it shows some of the negatives of marriage overall. Why is marriage such a big deal for many in our society when in a few year's time most turn against each other as adversaries? Instead of rushing to the altar and becoming parents, why not first find out if two people are truly compatible, find and learn methods to work out differences and realize some of the conflicts each party. Whether gay or straight, many do not have the mindset to handle the commitments of marriage and yes, parenthood.-
Posted By: shiraaliza @ 12/14/2008 4:16:05 AM
Mamavonne, actually, no - if a couple is married, and a child is born into that marriage, typically the law presumes that those two parents are the child's parents. Jenkins didn't adopt the little girl because she should not have needed to - under VT's civil union laws, she should automatically have been recognized as the girl's second parent. If all of these people were still living in Vermont, there would be no question - Jenkins would be recognized as the second parent. But Miller must have seen those old Lifetime movies where the father kidnaps his child and brings her to some foreign country where women have no rights - because that's essentially what she did by going to Virginia.
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
- I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have to say. Holder on terror trialsREUT
- The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist. Sarah Palin on the magazine coverCSM
Discuss