Posted on 08/04/2006 11:06:02 AM PDT by dukeman
Montpelier, VT - Today the Vermont Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case that pits the same-sex civil union laws of Vermont against the laws of Virginia, which preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Vermont's highest court upheld a lower court order requiring a biological mother to take her child from Virginia to Vermont on a regular basis to allow visitation by the mother's former lesbian partner who is unrelated to the child. The court order directly conflicts with a Virginia court which declared Lisa Miller to be the sole parent and ruled that the Virginia Marriage Affirmation Act barred recognition of civil unions. Liberty Counsel represents Lisa and her child. Rena Lindevaldsen argued the case on appeal.
The cases involve Lisa Miller, her biological child, and Janet Jenkins. Lisa and Janet traveled to Vermont to obtain a civil union while living in Virginia. Lisa gave birth to a child through artificial insemination. Janet never adopted the child. The relationship ended when Lisa became a Christian and Janet became abusive. Lisa is no longer a lesbian. She resides with her daughter in Virginia.
The cases involve the application of the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), which requires courts to recognize out-of-state custody and visitation orders, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which allows states to reject out-of-state, same-sex unions. The Miller v. Jenkins case is unique because it represents the first time that the courts of two states have issued conflicting decisions over a same same-sex union case. It is also the first case to involve dueling federal laws. This case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court because there is a conflict between the Vermont and Virginia rulings.
The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the conflicting Virginia court ruling. The Vermont court also ruled that, unlike the marriage law, a person from another state can obtain a civil union knowing that the home state does not recognize the union. It also ruled that a nonbiological same-sex partner can be a legal parent. The court also found Lisa Miller in contempt for not obeying the Vermont order.
Commenting on the case, Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mathew D. Staver stated: "Today's ruling tramples on parental rights and state sovereignty. Virginia law refuses to recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. Under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Vermont does not have the right to impose its same-sex union policy on Virginia. The Vermont ruling illustrates that same-sex marriage or civil unions will inevitably clash with other states. This case will have to be resolved at the United States Supreme Court."
The Miller v. Jenkins case is also pending at the Virginia Court of Appeals. If the court upholds the lower Virginia court rulings, that case will also make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It remains amazing how rabid the libs are for power and control, that they stoop to this level of perversion to get a few votes...
Let's see Vermont enforce the order.
warning - the proverbial can of worms now wide open.
This is the same state where ole traitor Jim Jeffords hails from.
It's quite simple, no conspiracy involved. Vermont has one set of laws, Virginia another. A Vermont or Virginia court would of course rule in favor of the laws of that respective state. Normally, federal law would reconcile how the differing state laws would work together, but there are two applicable federal laws, one supporting Vermont's position, the other Virginia's.
Congress screwed up in writing the Defense of Marriage Act, not considering that it directly conflicted with another law they passed. It'll simply have to be worked out in SCOTUS unless Congress modifies one or both laws first. Isn't our Constitution great? It planned for stuff like this over 200 years ago.
For some reason, I find this sentence to be quite amusing.
I wonder if Janet had to undergo some type of devotional ritual or take any particular vows before she could officially become abusive.
Vermont courts could issue an bench arrest warrant for her arrest. These go into the national fugitive database. She may be protected in the state of Virginia, but she could be in real trouble if she goes to another state and she comes in contact with the police. She would probably be arrested and extradited.
At one time Nevada was the only state that issued sodomy licenses. Now Vermont calls them "civil unions" and tries to enforce them in other states.
Contracts to give custody of children in exchange for sodomy are an interesting devolution.
Just in time to help the GOP win the elections, I see.
Here in Colorado the Court ordered a former lesbian to recognize her former lover as if that woman were a parent.
The Court gave the lesbian ,with no biological connection
co-parenting rights.Ordered Dr.Clark to make sure the minor
child never say any homophobic material including Christian literture-- that part of the order was later rescinded.Problem is Colorado claims it does NOT recognize same sex marriage-and will not place minor children in custody of unmarried homosexuals -but seems to be like
Vermont preferring to push the freakin' envelope.
I pray Virginia will counter and refuse to recognize the
unjust and unlawful orders of the Vermonties.
The Vermpont Supreme Court has nop moral authority either, the Civil Union Law is not supported by the majority of Vermonters.
Lisa Miller is no longer a lesbian,m having gotton the real dose on her biological nature after having given birth.
Lisa is seeking a male companion.
We need a Constitutional Amendment to reign in these judges.
Or rather rein in....
Hello, Vermont. I guess it isn't just a local issue any more and your "state constitution" argument just fell flat.
The press release by Liberty Counsel does leave out a few details that are inconvenient for their case. Apparently the two women lived in Vermont for several years following the civil union, and when they split up the biological mother left the state to avoid having to comply with the Vermont court's ruling. There's more on the issue here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1678497/posts
I think precedent suggests that the state where a custody case is initiated (in this case, Vermont) is the state that has jurisdiction. However, it will be interesting if it goes to the SCOTUS. We will see what they think of the DOMA.
The legalities create a position diametrically opposed to nature, a fact celebrated as a desirable goal by Queers everywhere, a beginning of the fall of our own civilization
The idea of natural law goes out the window on these issues when in fact it is the central factor involved in the whole connundrum.
Bull Dyke Law has no standing in the light of Natural Law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.