TWO’s Mike Airhart has written about the drama involving the unscrupulous “ex-lesbian” Lisa Miller who broke up with partner Janet Jenkins after becoming born again.
In a fit of holier-than-thou zeal, Miller went on the lam and absconded from Vermont with the child the couple were raising together after having a Civil Union. (Nothing like teaching a child the family values of honesty, integrity, honoring commitments, law and order and respect for others)
As a result of Miller’s poor parenting and criminal behavior (she was cited for contempt of court), a Vermont court transferred custody to Jenkins (after a five year legal ordeal that will surely leave emotional scars for their child Isabella) and refused a motion to delay transfer, as requested by Miller’s law team.
People for the American Way’s Right Wing Watch reports today that the location of Miller and 7-year-old Isabella Miller are presently “unknown”. This is highly problematic because the court order takes effect on New Year’s Day.
Right Wing Watch reports:
The whereabouts of Miller couldn’t be determined on Monday. Jenkins’ attorney, Middlebury lawyer Sarah Star, said she didn’t know where Miller was, but hoped she was still at her home in Virginia and was simply not communicating with her attorneys.
Let us hope this is the case. If Miller continues to flout the law and make a mockery of the system and her parental responsibility, there should be a heavy price to pay. No one is above the law and even fundamentalist fugitives who obstruct and abuse the rules have to suffer the consequences.
If Miller can’t obey the law, than this case should be transferred into the hands of law enforcement officials. Perhaps, some time in the clink will clear Miller’s mind and let her reflect on the miserable morals she has taught her daughter, while she has been dodging her responsibility as a parent and decent human being.
Tags: criminal behavior, ex-lesbian, Janet Jenkins, Kidnapping, law and order, Lisa Miller, on the lam, prison, Vermont, Virginia124 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I continue to be astounded at how vile homosexuals can be – even willing to devastate innocent children to further their activist goals. The “facts” of this case are well known and need not be rehashed. One may argue about the sanity of Vermont Family Court Judge William Cohen (or perhaps his own activist interests), but the interests of this child are beyond question. Janet is a “parent” only in the most nonsensical and superficial of ways. She has no relationship with the child; has not attempted to have a relationship with the child; has no biological relationship with the child. In any and all ways, she is nothing more than a stranger.
Yet she wages war in court to gain access – and now control – over this unrelated child. Why? Because of her bigoted hatred of Christianity? Because of her simmering hatred of her former partner? Because of a sense of rejection caused by Lisa’s rejection of homosexuality? Because of her activist’s need to set (or avoid having set) a precedent favorable (or unfavorable) to homosexual activists?
How vile and “evil” (yes, that is the correct word) of Janet to continue down this path for her own gain regardless of the effect on a child. Until now, Frank Lombard was the poster child of evil homosexual “parents”. Janet Jenkins, however, is giving Lombard a run for his evil money!
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Doug, vile and evil describes you and Lisa Miller perfectly. You come here and lie about the case to further your attacks on innocent LGBT people. You say Jenkins has no relationship with the child and has not attempted to have a relationship with the child – what a hideous lie. Jenkins has sought a relationship with the child from day one and it is only the hatred of Miller that has prevented it. Clearly the legal actions to date wouldn’t have had occurred if Jenkins wasn’t attempting to have a relationship with the child.
Your suggestion that all that matters is one’s biological relationship to a child is an assault on all adoptive parents who are every bit as valuable as biological parents and in many cases, such as this, better parents by far.
Jenkins parentage was established by mutual agreement and force of law. Miller’s attempts to deny a child her relationship with her other parent is amongst the most despicable of actions one can undertake and your use of lies to defend this egregious attack is no less despicable.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 29, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Doug says: “She has no relationship with the child”
Reply: Perhaps, this is because she was kidnapped. That does to to affect the relationship.
Doug Says: She has not attempted to have a relationship with the child.
Reply: Really, then what was the court case about? It seems that Janet has tried very hard to have a relationship.
Doug says: but the interests of this child are beyond question
Reply: No, actually Miller is a lawbreaking scoundrel who is selfishly harming this child. You are correct in that the child’s best interests are beyond question – and that is why Janet was awarded custody.
Doug, you are the one who is vile and your obvious hatred of gay people has severely clouded your perspective and objectivity. Shame on you for your bigotry at the expense of a child.
Comment by Wayne Besen — December 29, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Reading Priya’s and Wayne’s hateful comments is reminiscent of what Jesse Connolly (NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign manager) spewed the evening of the approval of Question 1. I am sure you two recall – probably even support – his statement that, “I will not rest until I know the name and address of every one of those {Yes on 1} votes!” (paraphrased from memory).
Homosexual activists have shown everyone the past several years just what they are made of – and it is not pretty. The message is simple: either you do as we demand or we will destroy you!
The two of you see fit to be venomous and hateful toward anyone who simply and factually relates what has happened in the case. You spit out allegations of “Lies!” – with a total of ZERO support for your allegations. How many Christmas cards has Janet sent to this child in seven years? Hint: the correct answer starts with the letter “Z”. How many birthday cards has Janet sent this child in seven years? Hint: the correct answer starts with the letter “Z”. Other than her attempts in court – which smack of the bitterness of a rejected lover – what single act has Janet taken to show she actually cares about the human being whose name is Isabella?
There is no clearer education about activists than to listen to their words. Selfishness and indifference to the rights of others has a new face. Yours.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
~Christian activists have shown everyone the past several years just what they are made of — and it is not pretty. The message is simple: either you do as we demand or we will destroy you!~
WOW! Just a small change in DouginSanDiego’s sentence and you have true conservative fundamentalist/evangelical mentality towards the GLBT community. And that is no lie. Especially when they fight against the smallest of rights for the GLBT communities.
~There is no clearer education about activists than to listen to their words. Selfishness and indifference to the rights of others has a new face. Yours.~
WOW! Again, conservative fundamentalist/evangelical mentality. Do as we say. Bow to our will.
So arrogant. So self-righteous. So wrong.
Comment by Ken R — December 29, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Doug, you’re an idiot, evil and despicable, but an idiot. You say “The two of you see fit to be venomous and hateful toward anyone who simply and factually relates what has happened in the case.” but you most certainly did not factually relate what happened in the case. You idiotically claimed Jenkins had made no effort to have a relationship with her child. Tell us Doug, if that’s the truth how did all these legal actions come about?!
After that whopper of a lie no way is any rational person going to believe what you claim about Christimas cards, etc.
And of course you lied about how LGBTs feel about Jesse Connolly – I couldn’t care less about the names and addresses of anti-marriage bigots and in any event, no one, not even Jesse Connolly threatened to destroy anyone. You’re just making crap up to foment hatred against those who’ve harmed no one.
You idiotically claim that we are selfish and indifferent to the rights of others – another baldfaced lie. We have never tried to deprive you of the right to marry, or of access to your children, or of equal rights. Its entirely been you who’s attempted to deprive us of the same rights you have. You’re projecting, accusing us of the evil acts you are solely guilty of.
Keep your lies and bile to yourself, I’m tired of having to wipe your spittle off my monitor after your hatefilled rants.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 29, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
The Value of Values
http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/thevalueofvalues.html
An individual’ values are established in childhood and serve as filters when determining right from wrong throughout the person’ life. In today’ society, the process of establishing values within children is given little concern. People place greater emphasis on day to day activities and personal ambitions, than they do on the establishment of values within their children. By default, parents are teaching their children that values such as integrity, respect for life, courage of conviction, a purposeful life and generosity, are secondary to making a living.
In truth, there is nothing preventing us from being true to good and meaningful values, nor is anything preventing us from teaching our values to our children. It is a matter of priorities; a matter of choice.
In the “The Value of Values” you will learn why a transition to a more values-conscious society is important. You will learn exactly what is needed from each individual and the activities that will sustain the drive. “The Value of Values” is a must read for every parent that is concerned about our society and the challenges our children will be facing.
We have three possible choices:
1) Do nothing different than that which we have been doing. Complacently accept things as they are and will be.
2) Hope that someone else will make the needed changes within our society, despite the fact it has yet to be done, and no one displays the integrity needed to influence an entire society.
3) Accept our personal responsibility to our children. Accept that real change is not passed down from leaders, but rather, it is driven up from the people. Accept the fact that we each have within us the ability and incentive to make things different for our children and grand children.
The choice we make today will determine the society of tomorrow.
Comment by Ed Gagnon — December 29, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
“We will not quit until we know where everyone of these votes lives.”
http://www.manhuntcares.com/2009/11/maine-rejects-gay-marriage-law/
You COULD have done the research yourself, Priya. Too lazy? Too filled with hate to actually do anything productive?
Same thing happened here in California after proposition 8. Death threats. Businesses targeted. A 78-year old geezer punched in the face for having the TEMERITY to display a “yes on 8″ placard on his own front yard.
But you go ahead with your vicious life. Ken seemed to think I was a Christian, though I never said so — and seems to feel that Christians want to destroy you unless you submit (as do homosexual activists in real life), though I have never seen evidence that the traditional marriage people want to “destroy” anyone.
No matter. You wish to live a life steeped in acid, go right ahead. It’s America, and you have every right to be as miserable as you wish. Just KEEP YOUR DAMNED HANDS OFF THE KIDS!
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Doug, you’re an idiot yet again. I never denied that someone may have said they want to know where such voters lived so of course I’m not going to research it. What is false is your claim that gay “activists” have demanded “do as we say or we will destroy you” – you’re just making that crap up to foment hatred against gays.
Frankly I don’t believe a word that comes out of your mouth you proved you were a liar right of the bat in your very first post when you claimed Jenkins had never tried to have a relationship with Isabella so spare me your stories about “yes on 8″ people being attacked, which in any event if a few isolated incidents did take place they are not the responsibility of every LGBT that exists as you would dishonestly have people believe.
Once again, you’re projecting your attitudes upon us. It is you who is filled with hate, living a vicious life. No LGBT has ever attemped to deny you the right to marry, have access to your child, or the same rights everyone else has. Its been solely the acts of people like you to deny equality to the people you hate. LGBT people have children too and no way is a bigot like you going to deprive them of their right to their own children. Rot in hell you reptilian kitten eater from another planet.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 29, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Doug is clearly the threat to children in this discussion.
Joe.My.God convincingly suggests that the Liberty Counsel has encouraged Miller to kidnap Isabella and to go into hiding as a living example of the Christian Right’s “Manhattan Declaration”: A vow to violate any law that fundamentalists happen to disagree with.
Lisa Miller and Doug are like members of a cult: Willing to violate any law, in blind religious obedience to cult leaders who blasphemously equate themselves with God.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 29, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
Good Christ.
Shorter DouginSanDiego: I’M A VICTIM, EVEN THOUGH THIS ISN’T EVEN ABOUT ME! VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM! DON’T YOU SEE THAT I’M A VICTIM? DON’T YOU SEEEEEEE???????
Are we done now?
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 29, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
Michael, I was just thinking the same thing from your post above. If this is the case, brace for more defiance on their part due to their “Manhattan Declaration”.
And Doug, yes, I assumed you are a conservative Christian since your words mirror those of conservative fundamentalist Christianity.
Comment by Ken R — December 29, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Priya:
“Rot in hell you reptilian kitten eater from another planet.”
I am CERTAIN you have a close and loving relationship with your Mom, Dad, brothers and sisters.
You seem so sweet and caring. Why – I think YOU should adopt some kids! That would teach them, huh?!
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
No thanks Doug, personally I can’t stand children. Nevertheless I do support the rights of parents who love their children to have access to them. Unfortunately the world is full of evil people like you who would deprive parents of their children to serve a hateful and evil agenda.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 29, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
I can clearly see, Priya, that you “can’t stand children”. Otherwise, you would actually have some caring, compassion and feeling for their well-being ~~~~~~ which you are devoid of.
But you sure are an expert at slewing venom!
Congratulations on your career as venom spitter! As I said: Mom and Dad must be SO very proud!
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
What does “~~~~~~” mean?
Is that like a wingnut version of a semi-colon?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 29, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Oh Doug, I care about the well-being of children all right, I was one once myself. I also care about right and wrong, unlike you.
No one spits venom quite like you. Stop whining about getting back what you dish out. Your claiming you’re a victim when what goes around comes around won’t make you one.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 29, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Oh, Priya dearie
I have not ONCE claimed about some terrible thing down to me …….. that was YOUR tact. Your poor rights have been denied. Your poor LGBT people have been attacked (right). Etc etc etc. So, as the absolute QUEEN of victimhood, it’s is quite understandable why you would bring that up. This is the color of your little glasses. oh well.
The fact you were once a child – which I will not debate – does NOT in any way cause one to believe you care about the well-being of children. Your own words betrayed you one this one, dearie.
As for venom: I care not about your poison. In case you missed it, your little poison does not really affect me all that much. It is much more a testament to who/what you have become. Were you this way when you “were a child”? Did some tragedy befall you along the way to adulthood that somehow got you off the course of a normal, fulfilling and happy life? Is THIS why you are so bitter and hateful toward others (including, most especially, those such as children who are vulnerable)?
Try dealing with whatever caused this sad state of affairs. You have but one life and it races by ever so quickly. Live it well; strive for happiness; try to leave the place cleaner than you found it – not slathered with your spittle.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
“Dearie”?
Misogynist prick, much?
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 29, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Doug, I couldn’t care less what you believe about me, you’ve made it clear that your view of the world is obscured with the red haze of hate.
No one’s claimed to be more of a victim here than you. The hypocracy of someone like yourself is astounding. You come here and lie and whine about selfishness and indifference to the rights of others when in fact the only one trying to deny other people their rights are evil bigots like you.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 29, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
To: Evan
prick? Yeppers
misogynist? Nah – just believe in slapping back at haters like Priya. Besides ~~~ standing up to these demi-bullies is fun!
To Priya:
Try dealing with whatever caused this sad state of affairs. Weather molested as a child, abandoned by parent(s), ostracized in grade school, or other, this is all the distant past and should not be allowed to contaminate your future. You have but one life and it races by ever so quickly. Live it well; strive for happiness; try to leave the place cleaner than you found it — not slathered with your spittle.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Mercy this is sad! I hate that this situation has taken place and my heart goes out to little Isabella. However, let’s get rid of the hyperbole, Doug.
Here are the facts:
Miller and Jenkins agreed to raise Isabella together.
Jenkins said the reason why she did not file for adoption was because she was told she didn’t need to because they had the civil union (the two had married in a Vermont civil union before Isabella was born).
When the two broke up, Miller agreed to allow Jenkins to have visitation rights. Jenkins even paid child support. Miller allegedly began keeping Isabella away from Jenkins. She refused to allow her to have unsupervised time with Isabella even though she has been ordered to.
The entire controversy is solely because Miller will not allow Jenkins to have unsupervised time with Isabella. Jenkins mainly won her case due to the Federal Kidnapping Prevention Law.
Miller has claimed she witnessed Isabella engage in disturbing behavior after vists with Jenkins. The claims were investigated by Virginia’s Child Protective Services and were deemed “unfounded.”
And those facts come from a Newsweek article about the situation (pg. 4 of the article) – http://www.newsweek.com/id/172554/page/1
Comment by a. mcewen — December 29, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
Yes, heard that already Doug. Your flaccid attempts to insult me don’t concern me any more this time than they did the previous time you posted it.
The fact remains – you project your actions on LGBTs, accusing them of selfishness and indifference to the rights of others when the only people trying to deprive others of the right to marry, see their children and equality are despicable people like you.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 29, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
Yeeeeah, Doug, every comment I’ve made has been making fun of you/your poor grammar, so replying all cutesy to me is probably falling on deaf ears.
And you shouldn’t be surprised that some people respond to you less than kindly, since it’s your worldview/religion that caused this problem.
(And for the millionth time, this is a matter of civil law and justice, so your poorly-formed religious views on the subject are completely irrelevant.)
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 29, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
Priya, you prove the point.
To you this is an activist issue. “FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS!” You seem completely oblivious to the rights & needs to the little girl. How typical. The narcissistic, self obsessed actions of gay activists is exactly what has caused so many to think your little activist clan is evil. I think it was the Biblical King Salomon who, confronted with two women each claiming to be a child’s Mom, ordered the kids whacked in half with a sword. The fake mom, of course, said “Fine.”; the real Mom immediately surrendered the child rather than see her slaughtered. You are as the fake Mom, as is Janet.
Evan
Again – since you seem to have missed it – i have said nothing about religion or my own views thereof other than the story of Salomon repeated here, which is more a parable than a religious thing (in my view). yet you want so much to believe me to be a “religious extremist” – I suppose ’cause that would confirm your bigoted views – that you see whatever you wish to see, regardless of reality. You may see this as a legal matter – since your priority is simply achieving activist victories – but you miss the point. This is about a child. Janet has had about as much of a parental relationship with Isabella as has my Labrador Retriever. Taking Isabella from her REAL Mom and giving her to the stranger, just because the stranger is bitter, or angry, or activist-oriented, or whatever, is simply evil. THAT is what this is about.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
Doug, the child has a right to know both her parents and have a relationship with them. It is you who is oblivious to the rights and needs of the child. The child, is also not the only person involved here, we have to account for everyone’s rights. If we look the other way in this case and say “Oh, well, Isabella doesn’t know who Jenkins is anyway” then we reward Miller’s evil actions and encourage other parents to kidnap their children and deprive other parents and children of their rights to have a relationship with each other. If we do that we further say to the public at large “Disobey the law and you will be rewarded” – that’s bad for society as a whole and we dare not do it.
Anyone who’d deprive a child of the right to know one of their parents and fill them with lies about that parent is not a good person and not a good parent. Anyone who’d disobey the law and take their child into a hellish life of hiding to do so is not a fit parent and that child is best removed from that person.
You’re trying to send the message to divorcing couples everywhere: “Deny your former spouse a relationship with their child and then you can use that lack of a relationship to justify your flouting of the law.” Child custody decisions should never be made on the basis of which parent can abscond with the child first. This is about who is the more fit parent and Miller has proven that Jenkins is.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 29, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Let’s get away from the back-and-forth insults and back to the objections Doug raised.
You said that “[Janet] has no relationship with the child.” By virtue of the rights granted to the civil union she had with Lisa Miller, she does in fact have a parental relationship with the child. You said, “[She]has not attempted to have a relationship with the child.” This is also false, as a. mcewen pointed out above, Lisa originally allowed Janet to have visitation, which she wouldn’t have agreed to had she not viewed her as a co-parent. But regardless of what Lisa thought, those rights were granted as a result of their civil union. Hence, her move to Virginia. You also said, “[She] has no biological relationship with the child.” That may be true, but it is irrelevant to one’s parental rights. Are you saying that *all* adoptive parents *should* be legal strangers to their children? If not, then on what legal basis do you believe that Janet should be?
Also, since the first two of your three objections are false, and the third is irrelevant, on what basis do you consider Janet to be “evil”?
If this was a situation between heterosexuals, in which a mother denied custody to a stepfather, would you consider the stepfather to be “evil” because he exercised legal means to secure visitation rights to his adopted child?
I’d really like to know what your real objections are here.
Comment by Christopher‚Ñ¢ — December 29, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
1. As i said, you see this as an activist issue. To you, the main issue here is “The Cause”, with only lip service given to the needs of the child. Everyone else is simply a ‘casualty of war’. Evil.
2. Jenkins has never in the most recent 6 of the child’s 7 years shown any parental relationship. The total contact is a valentine. One. From Jenkins parents, not from Jenkins. Her total activity has been to create legal causes of action. I doubt Isabella would consider that much of a basis upon which to build parental feelings of safety and closeness. Jenkins is no parent at all, let alone the ‘more fit’ parent. but, of course, since she is the homosexual in the group – to you – that means she must prevail (and be best). Everything you do is evaluated against the background of what best serves homosexual activism. Sad.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
Chris
1. By ‘relationship’ I meant not a legal claim but a human relationship. Janet has none, and has not tried to have any. This is the most telling of all matters here.
2. Janet lived with Isabella for a little over a year, and saw her several times thereafter. not much – wouldn’t you agree?
3. You keep focusing on “parents rights” – the difference between us – while I am most concerned with the nest interests of Isabella, a 7-year old little girl. She has no notion of Janet either as a friend, a parent, or in any other way. I’d prefer Janet – if she so wishes – have some reasonable contact, providing she does not do some activist thing to Isabella as a part of the contact. But that seems not in the cards.
4. You asked how I would react if this were two straight adults. Fair enough. Let’s say the “Dad” – in reality a step father – had no contact with the child in many years. I would then see VERY little advantage in causing a “reunion” – and would call the “Dad” EVIL if he did anything to cause, or agreed to a Judges decision, to remove the child from the Mom. I would ESPECIALLY feel this way if there was even a HINT of abuse – and in this case there is at least the accusation of something untoward when Isabella was with Janet many years ago. So – my answer would be exactly the same.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 29, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Doug,
you don’t have any patent on concern for Isabella. To attack us for not caring about the little girl in pursuit of some cause is highly hypocritical because you initiated this conversation with a nasty untrue attack on gays in regards to children. You have also attacked the sanity of the judge ruling in the case (William Cohen)and have accused Janet Jenkins of being bigoted against Christianity. And then you went on some bizarre tangent.
Aren’t you pursuing “a cause” in your ramblings?
I think it’s safe to say that we are all concerned with little Isabella, but facts are facts. If Lisa Miller and the Liberty Counsel had not pushed this situation, it wouldn’t have gotten to the point that it is now. Why was it so hard for her to abide the court ruling? She lost several times but I suppose you will spin a huge conspiracy theory in regards to that.
Comment by a. mcewen — December 29, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Doug said “Jenkins has never in the most recent 6 of the child’ 7 years shown any parental relationship.”.
See this is where you’re being an A**hole. Jenkins never had that relationship because Miller prevented it. To use that as an excuse to justify further denying a relationship to Jenkins is to reward Miller for disobeying the visitation agreement, its to scream to the public “Disobey the law and not only will we ignore your lawlessness we will reward you for it.”. Under no circumstances can the court send this disasterous message to the public.
Miller broke the law. Miller denied a parent a relationship with her child. Miller has taken an innocnent child into a hellacious life of hiding from the law. Miller has demonstrated she is an unfit parent, the child is rightfully given to Jenkins.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 29, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
And, as has been pointed out before, when Liberty Counsel is done with Lisa, they’ll throw her out like trash, because they truly don’t care about Isabella, but rather about advancing their theocratic agenda.
They’re very much like the Alliance Defense Fund in that way.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 29, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
Doug: Please provide a link to your claims regarding #1 and #2. You act as if you have some special knowledge beyond the news reports that have been already linked here and elsewhere. And just because Lisa has claimed that #1 and #2 are true, doesn’t mean they are, as she has a vested interest in the outcome. She has already disobeyed court orders on numerous occasions, which shows she has no regard for the rule of law. This strikes a blow to her veracity.
Also, are you indicating that the legal process is always unable to determine the truth of the matter when it comes to the custody of a child? Or just in this case? And if it is just in this case, on what basis do you determine that the legal process is flawed here?
I focused on “parent’s rights” because you alleged that Janet was not a real parent. I have since shown that your accusations are baseless. OF COURSE I want the best for little Isabella. However, the fact is… NONE of this would have happened had not Lisa decided to 1) deny custody, 2) flee to a state specifically BECAUSE the laws are heavily anti-gay, and 3) when all else failed, kidnap Isabella. And you say that *she* is fit to be a parent? What example is *she* setting?
Finally, about point #4, Janet did NOT seek to take Isabella away from Lisa. Your claim is a lie. It was the presiding judge that decided this because of the aforementioned, aggressively punitive actions that Lisa had taken against Janet. Janet only wanted visitation. But because Lisa showed that she would do anything to flaunt the law, it was decided she was no longer a fit parent.
Janet only wanted visitation, but Lisa has 1) disobeyed the law regarding visitation rights in Vermont; 2) fled to Virginia in order to gain a more favorable ruling, which is a punitive act; 3) falsely accused Janet of abuse in order to gain sole custody, which is another punitive act, and finally, 4) kidnapped Isabella… yet another punitive act.
And yet… you consider *Janet* to be evil? It’s mind-boggling.
Comment by Christopher‚Ñ¢ — December 29, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
I see from several people here it’s the inclusion of Liberty Counsel here that has so many people frothing. That, and the fear this might end up being a precedent against homosexual parenting (or the hope it might be a precedent for…)
Why the big fear and/or hatred toward Liberty Counsel???
Why the focus on precedents over the happiness and well-being of a human – in this case, a little girl???
Moreover – I was not aware this site was an “anti-ex-homosexual” site. Why the fear and loathing toward people who leave gaydom behind?
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 12:44 am
Miller created this problem by denying court-ordered access to her daughter. I don’t know if there’s much data on adult-onset Christianity and how that could effect a person’s judgment and morals. Clearly Miller is not too keen on obeying the law, a problem for someone trying to pose as the better parent in a custody dispute. It will be interesting to see if she’s on the lam or will obey the court orders of both Vermont and Virginia in surrendering the child to Jenkins.
Comment by JeffreyRO5 — December 30, 2009 @ 12:46 am
How would it be a precedent against gay parents, Doug, since Lisa keeps losing?
Because she’s a lawbreaker.
And now, possibly a common criminal, but we don’t know yet.
OH, and this isn’t an “anti-ex-homosexual” site, it’s a site dedicated to exposing the fraud of the “ex-gay” industry, which hurts countless people around the world. But that doesn’t count for your kind, I understand, because in your world, it’s okay to rape and kill in the name of The Jeezus.
Clear now?
Jesus Christ, let me know if I need to get a blackboard to spell all of this out.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 2:08 am
To Evan
Bigot much?
Ever try NOT being a bigot??????
Give it a shot; you may just ENJOY it!
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 2:44 am
Uh huh, okay.
Troll show’s over. Stop feeding it, everybody. I’m as guilty as anyone else, but we have to know when we’re arguing with poorly constructed brick walls.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 3:13 am
I see Doug prefers throwing insults, rather than actually answering my request that he provide links to outside sources that support his position regarding the details of Lisa and Janet’s relationship to Isabella.
Also, there is no “fear” of those who choose to suppress their sexual orientation for reasons of religious belief or simply to remain accepted by their family, but it is sad and tragic. And the only “loathing” that exists is directed at those who promise cures that cannot be fulfilled, then pretend that they bear no responsibility when people lose their faith, or worse, their lives. Doug, if you really care about this issue–which I doubt you do, beyond making yourself feel superior in blog comments–you’d read the book Anything But Straight, and check out the Beyond Ex-Gay website to learn more about the damage that so-called “ex-gay” ministries and leaders have inflicted upon those who sincerely pursued “change,” only to discover it was unobtainable.
Comment by Christopher‚Ñ¢ — December 30, 2009 @ 4:03 am
i suppose that if isabella is taken from her
biological mother and that relationship is severed
then you guys would be happy. let’s just
cut the biological mother completly out and let
janet have sole custody. balderdash. isabella
needs to stay with her biological mother. let
janet have supervised visits
Comment by brad anderson — December 30, 2009 @ 4:13 am
by the way wayne, miller is not a scoundrel,
she is the woman who gave birth to isabella
and like any birth mother is concerned for her
child, i just can’t believe that you and your
friends should think that she or any biological
mother should willingly give up her child
Comment by brad anderson — December 30, 2009 @ 4:19 am
No, Brad, you’re simply not paying attention. Or you don’t care about the facts of the story. Take your pick.
If Lisa had allowed Janet the unrestricted visitation that Vermont laws required, we wouldn’t be talking about this, because the situation wouldn’t be happening. Isabella would be living with Lisa, and Janet would also be part of her life. Everyone would have been happy.
Instead, Lisa decided to flagrantly disobey the law in this regard, then flee to another state to seek sole custody for herself. Then, when the court ruled against her yet again, she “disappeared” with Isabella. So please… stop trying to make Lisa a martyr. She’s not. She’s a lawbreaker. And stop trying to paint those of us on this blog as anti-family. I know that supports your predetermined opinion of GLBT people, but it’s a lie. Lisa is trying to destroy a family relationship, and that’s why we’re critical.
I’m curious why you support only “supervised” visits, though.
We would love to see
Comment by Christopher‚Ñ¢ — December 30, 2009 @ 4:26 am
Dunno where that last, incomplete sentence came from. Just ignore it.
Comment by Christopher‚Ñ¢ — December 30, 2009 @ 4:28 am
I love this glorification of the “biological mother.” Biological parents are unfit ALL the time. The fact is that there are thousands of unwanted children waiting to be adopted who are in that situation because of their unfit, heterosexual parents. It’s also a fact that very often, it’s gay couples who are willing to adopt those children that no one else wants, while infertile heterosexual parents would rather adopt shiny new babies…don’t get me wrong, they need homes, too. But gay couples are often the ones who say, “Let’s adopt children who nobody else wants.”
As has been said, if Lisa had behaved as a responsible parent in regards to this situation, she would still have full custody, Janet would have unrestricted visits and be a part of Isabella’s life, and we wouldn’t be talking about this. The only reason we are is that Lisa has shown herself to be an irresponsible lawbreaker.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Actually, Evan, it’s glorification of a biological CHRISTIAN mother, as if Miller’s calculated plan to hide behind “becoming a good Christian” somehow insulates her from obeying the nation’s laws. But I love how the Liberty Counsel people fell for it, and came to her rescue. No wonder Christianity is falling out of favor in this country: so many people try to use and abuse it for personal needs and goals, legal or otherwise.
Comment by JeffreyRO5 — December 30, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Brad said “isabella
needs to stay with her biological mother. let
janet have supervised visits”.
That’s pretty much the way things would have worked if it weren’t for Miller denying Jenkins visition. If Miller is cut out of Isabella’s life that’s her own fault. Whether or not one is biologically related to a child has no bearing on whether or not one is a good parent. Obviously Doug and Brad are the ones unconcerned about Isabella’s well-being given that they propose leaving her with a criminal rather than a loving law-abiding mother.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 30, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
has it occured to you people that iasabella
could suffer psychological and emotional
damage if she’s taken from her biological mother?
Comment by brad anderson — December 30, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Nonsense Brad. She may be upset temporarilly (but I wouldn’t bet on that) but she’ll quickly adjust to her other mother and be fine.
Has it occured to you that Isabella will amost certainly suffer psychological and emotional damage and be deprived of an education and normal life because she’s living on the run with a criminal?
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 30, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
It is true that, because of her mother Lisa’s unwillingness to follow the law like a mature adult would, Isabella is being thrown around and could suffer psychological damage from this whole situation.
That, though, is completely Lisa’s fault, for creating a situation for Isabella that is not safe. If Janet is granted full custody, she may well have to work very hard to pick up the pieces of Isabella’s life which have been shattered by her other mother.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Isabella has only ONE MOM! There is no “other mother”.
After reading the comments since yesterday, I am struck by how non-parental homosexuals think. I suppose if you can’t and don’t have kids, that causes an inability to understand. Yet, the disability is striking.
I agree – IF Janet actually has some sort of emotional bond with Isabella (doubtful) and is not simply using this as an activist cause celebre, THEN I would like to see some SUPERVISED contact. Why supervised? To ensure Janet does not use the opportunity as an indoctrination session (a la GLESN) but rather as a chance for 2 people to grow closer. And – I would SUSPEND contact at the first notion of improper behavior (i.e., bathing together, masturbating, etc etc etc – some of which is alleged to have occurred).
But the folks here seem intent on their “legal focus”. Lisa broke this or that judicial ruling; this is all Lisa’s fault; Lisa has been thrown around. Perhaps you legal pundits are correct and Lisa has violated a valid court Order (doubt exists on that). So? If you had ever had a child of your own your focus would be on what is in the child’s best interests, regardless of how things got to where they are. You would NOT be advocating a child be wrested from he Mom (one and only) because, otherwise, legal precedents might be set. Gawd!
I’m trying to discuss and not be inflammatory here – but gay activists with the type of thinking seen here have alienated so many people. You seek to be accepted? How do you suppose that will happen when you alienate those you seek acceptance from.
Oh – that’s right – your rights this and your rights that.
GAWD!
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Nope, Doug, you are wrong.
You don’t get to make up your own facts, just because your poor interpretation of ancient literature conflicts with reality.
Also:
“THEN I would like to see some SUPERVISED contact. Why supervised? To ensure Janet does not use the opportunity as an indoctrination session, a la GLSEN.”
Um, right-wing fundamentalism is the real indoctrination, and everything they’ve told you about GLSEN is a lie, which has been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER again, and for some ridiculous reason, that reality can’t seem to be driven into the tiny pea-brains of the radicalized Christian anti-gay Right. Well, again, I’m sorry. But you don’t get to make up your own facts.
” (i.e., bathing together, masturbating, etc etc etc — some of which is alleged to have occurred).”
ALLEGED? By what credible source? Lisa? Excuse me, but she’s an immature, lawbreaking, brainwashed fool.
” If you had ever had a child of your own your focus would be on what is in the child’ best interests, regardless of how things got to where they are.”
I’d try to start by keeping the kid away from kidnappers and people who would teach her to hate entire classes of people, for starters…
Are you familiar with the dirty little secret about gay parenting? That every study done on gay parents has shown that our kids are just as successful, just as well adjusted as anyone else’s, and that, as Dan Savage has pointed out, before the studies are weighted to account for deadbeat straight parents whose only qualification for parenting is their ability to knock someone up/get knocked up, our children often do BETTER than the children of straight people? Why? Well, our children tend to be planned. Not accidents, not situations that we didn’t really want, but we make the best of, and then secretly resent. No. PLANNED. Wanted.
So, you know…none of your arguments are valid, they’re all recycled talking points from known liars, and it’s kinda boring, so I’m left with one question: Why are you trolling gay blogs? Is this the only way you can hang out with gay people without feeling guilty?
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Evan, your belligerent and vile rants are tedious.
Frank Lombard supports exactly what you support. Congratulations on the company you keep.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
You’re at our blog. If you don’t have anything more to contribute than “You’re mean,” then you’d have to consider whether you’re using your time efficiently by continuing to comment.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Your sense of ownership is curious.
You, sir, at at OUR society. Perhaps you should devote yourself to another venue if OUR SOCIETY is not what you seek.
I’ll bet you cannot see the reflection of your view and this view, can you?
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Whose society?
American society? I’m every bit as much of a citizen as you in this secular nation. If you’d like a nation where you can claim a greater claim to citizenship based on your religion, may I suggest conversion to Islam and a move to Iran, perhaps?
And by “our blog,” I’d point out that I’m a writer here. If you had anything to contribute besides your complaining on one post, you might have noticed that.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
“You are a writer here”, huh?
And so you have ownership rights. Further, you feel justified in excluding thoughts and individuals whose views are ‘in violation of the fuhrer’, ‘eh? What a lunatic.
As for your constant retreat into religious slaps:
I have told you repeatedly that I have not only NOT claimed anything based on my or your religious preferences – or lack thereof – but find those things irrelevant here. Yet you cannot let it go.
Why do you hate religion so? Why do you need to paint all dissenters from “your view” – as A WRITER HERE (OOOOOOOOOO!)as somehow ‘religious’ and thus monolithic? Oh – and why do so hate religion?
It’s clear one big thorn under your ever so thin skin is the Liberty Counsel group. Another seems to be the fact that Lisa fund God. Why so afraid of all things religious? Should all things religious be equally afraid – or at least alert – about YOU? Are all homosexuals afraid and hateful in this way to all things religious?
Inquiring minds, you know …………
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
By the way, Evan, I am an entrepreneur and have created a very large number of employment opportunities in OUR society.
Makes me an owner, I guess.
And there are a lot more like me – also owners.
Since only 2.3% of the population is homosexual (adult men; U.S.), i guess that makes you an interloper.
Funny how that “logic” stuff becomes troubling at times, huh?
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
Doug said “I’m trying to discuss and not be inflammatory here”.
LOL, as if! You came here to make up lies about this story and LGBTs in general and to demean them and, in your own words to have a laugh. You’re nothing but a troll.
Doug said “Isabella has only ONE MOM! There is no “other mother”.”.
Your screaming this won’t make it so. The facts of the case are that Isabella has two mothers, nothing will change that.
Doug said “I agree — IF Janet actually has some sort of emotional bond with Isabella (doubtful) and is not simply using this as an activist cause celebre, THEN I would like to see some SUPERVISED contact. Why supervised? To ensure Janet does not use the opportunity as an indoctrination session.”
You hypocrite, you’re fine with indoctrination as long as its the anti-gay christian bigot doing it. Jenkins has just as much right to teach Isabella tolerance as Miller has to teach her hate. In fact Jenkins has more right because Miller has surrendered her rights as a parent by violating the custody agreement and attempting to poison Isabella’s mind against Jenkins. Like a fool you continue to rationalize denying Jenkins a relationship with Isabella because Miller broke the law in the first place by preventing that relationship. No way can the law reward Miller’s criminal act by allowing Miller to continue to deny this relationship.
Doug said “I would SUSPEND contact at the first notion of improper behavior (i.e., bathing together, masturbating, etc etc etc — some of which is alleged to have occurred).”.
Fortunately biased people like you aren’t in charge of adminstering custody this custody ruling. What a bigot like you’d do is irrelevant. The evil attempts by the criminal Miller to smear Jenkins name with allegations of sexual abuse are entirely without merit. The allegations have been thoroughly investigated and found to be false. Its no surprise that a selfish criminal would also have no problem with lying to get her way.
Doug said “Perhaps you legal pundits are correct and Lisa has violated a valid court Order (doubt exists on that).”.
You started off lying in your very first post and its no surprise that you continue to do so. No, there is no doubt whatsoever that Miller violated the custody and visitation order. Only someone entirely devoid of ethics or blinded by the red haze of hatred would suggest otherwise.
Doug said “If you had ever had a child of your own your focus would be on what is in the child’ best interests, regardless of how things got to where they are. You would NOT be advocating a child be wrested from he Mom (one and only) because, otherwise, legal precedents might be set.”.
Given that you advocate leaving a child with a criminal on the run its obvious you don’t have Isabella’s best interests at heart – you’re just an anti-gay hack. You had no complaint about Miller wresting the child away from her mother, spare us the faux outrage at the thought of it happening to the anti-gay mother. You want to reward Miller for breaking the law and send the message out to every divorced couple that its okay to harm the child by denying them a relationship with the other parent if you violate the custody arrangements and abscond with them first because the court will look the other way. It will be utter chaos and one grotesque injustice after another in custody battles if the court were to allow this to stand. Of course all the other parents and children that would get screwed over because of that are irrelevant to you because the only thing that matters to you is that a lesbian be denied access to her child so a bigot can raise her to hate LGBTs.
Doug said “You, sir, at at OUR society. Perhaps you should devote yourself to another venue if OUR SOCIETY is not what you seek.”.
These statements are the epitome of your sociopathology. You are NOT in charge of society, You are NOT superior to any LGBT. You DO NOT have the right to dicate how anyone lives their lives other than yourself. Evan is your EQUAL in American society, if you don’t like that then get the hell out and move to Iran where you can be superior to LGBTs. You are quite possibly the most arrogant and delusional person I’ve encountered on the internet and that’s saying a lot. You need to seek psychiatric help and get your anger and delusions of grandeur under control. You are obviously a danger to others, if not yourself.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 30, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
“Why do you need to paint all dissenters from “your view” — as A WRITER HERE (OOOOOOOOOO!)as somehow “religious’ and thus monolithic?”
Um. Yeah, I wasn’t bragging, I was merely clarifying your confusion about what I said.
“Since only 2.3% of the population is homosexual (adult men; U.S.), i guess that makes you an interloper.”
Wow, you really don’t “get” America, do you? Jews are a minority. Are THEY interlopers? Blacks are a minority. Are THEY interlopers?
“I have told you repeatedly that I have not only NOT claimed anything based on my or your religious preferences — or lack thereof — but find those things irrelevant here.”
Yes, but your arguments are regurgitated fundamentalist Christian talking points. You don’t need to pretend, because it’s already obvious.
“Inquiring minds, you know …………”
Never in history have twelve periods constituted an ellipsis.
“It’ clear one big thorn under your ever so thin skin is the Liberty Counsel group. Another seems to be the fact that Lisa fund God. Why so afraid of all things religious?”
Actually, it’s really not about religion. It’s about people using religion as a shield for their bigotry. There are many lovely religious people in the world. I don’t agree with their beliefs, but they don’t use them to hurt people like fundamentalists do.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Priya, I KNEW it was you from the first sentence. What a toxic acid you are.
I am astounded you know Lisa is a convict on the lam. My understanding this was not yet known. But YOU, lacking any need to be honest, are not fettered by such realities. Forge on, oh unfettered one!
Regarding your misconstruction of my quip to Evan (NOT you, little idget) about society:
I realize this might be trying for you, but at least ATTEMPT to understand and see the statement in context with what Evan said — and my statement clearly showing this was an application of a logical fallacy in mirror to that used by evan.
too much to ask of you? Yeah, I guess so.
Simmer on, or acidic one!
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Evan
“Yes, but your arguments are regurgitated fundamentalist Christian talking points. You don’t need to pretend, because it’ already obvious.”
So sorry to disappoint you, but ……… ready ………… NO! That attack may work for others, but it is inappropriate here.
Again – the 2.3% issue was to show the logical fallacy of the ownership and censorship tact YOU had taken. I know Priya can’t grasp a notion this abstract, but I suspect you can (easily). Thus – kindly stop intentionally misrepresenting me. Thank you very much.
Regarding religion:
You DID prompt me to see what else is written here, and DID find you have authored some of the news articles. But, i found MOST of the editorializing was done by “Wayne Besson” (sp?) – and he ALSO seems crippled with hate for religion.
WHAT’S WITH THAT??????????
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
ps to Evan:
I just saw your last sentence or 2 … helped me understand you have a grip primarily “with people who use religion to hurt others”
But then
Why do you assume anyone with whom you disagree is a religious other people hurter???
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Haha, but see, Doug, I never said YOU were an interloper. I merely said that YOU don’t get to lord your iron age beliefs over secular society! You’re the ones trying to take things away from us. Remember that big prayer orgy Lou Engle called to take away our rights in your state?
Yeah.
And this is a simple case that would have played out the way it has regardless of the gender or religious beliefs of the parents involved. I know it’s being painted by your side as a great big victimization conspiracy to support fundamentalists’ pathetic ideas that they’re somehow oppressed, but sadly, no!
And I already pointed out the epic fail in your other comments.
Anyway, I’m taking my big scary mean gay self out for a big scary gay mean dinner.
Hope you can find something to occupy your time!
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
Doug said “By the way, Evan, I am an entrepreneur and have created a very large number of employment opportunities in OUR society. Makes me an owner, I guess.”.
Spare us your fantasies, you’re a nobody and a loser, if you weren’t you wouldn’t be here seeking to boost your self-esteem by attacking minorities. What matters is reality and nothing about you in anyway makes you more of an owner of society than anyone else.
Doug said “Since only 2.3% of the population is homosexual (adult men; U.S.), i guess that makes you an interloper.”.
Only in your delusional fantasies are people interlopers or less than equal because they are part of a minority. In the real world everyone’s an equal – get used to it, Evan has just as much say in American society as you do. Also, your estimates for the percentage of gay men are much lower than reality given that many, if not most gays are in the closet.
Doug said “Funny how that “logic” stuff becomes troubling at times, huh?”.
Troubling for you, you mean. You obviously have no grasp on logic, you’ve been making up your own self-aggrandizing, dictatorial version of reality since you appeared here. You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own set of facts.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 30, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
“religious other people hurter???”
Sung to the tune of “Purple People Eater?
Translate into English, plz.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
I’ve noticed that Doug refuses to give any supporting evidence–e.g, weblinks–to his assertions that:
1. Janet has “little to no” relationship with Isabella.
2. It has been proven that Janet acted abusively toward Isabella.
3. Janet seeks to “indoctrinate” Isabella. (The use of “indoctrination” has not been adequately defined, either.)
4. Janet has always sought exclusive custody of Isabella with no visitation from Lisa.
I’ve asked twice, and Doug would rather rant at others instead of providing support for his allegations.
Sorry, Doug, but raising your voice and INSISTING your version of the “facts” are true does not establish that your version of the facts are true.
Basically, there is NO evidence for your four allegations above. You know it, you can’t link to any legitimate sources to prove it, so you’re seeking to obfuscate that fact by ranting and hoping people like me don’t notice that you’re not answering the question.
If you can’t or won’t provide proof of your allegations, then you’re simply a troll.
Comment by Christopher‚Ñ¢ — December 30, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
“But, i found MOST of the editorializing was done by “Wayne Besson” (sp?) — and he ALSO seems crippled with hate for religion.”
You’re having trouble with the spelling of his last name, even though you just read it?
Okay, for real, dinner. Later!
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Doug said “I am astounded you know Lisa is a convict on the lam”.
It does take much to amaze a small mind. Its no surprise that you can’t determine what’s obvious, you’ve demonstrated your obliviousness to reality multiple times on this thread.
Doug said “Regarding your misconstruction of my quip to Evan (NOT you, little idget) about society:I realize this might be trying for you, but at least ATTEMPT to understand and see the statement in context with what Evan said ‚Äî and my statement clearly showing this was an application of a logical fallacy in mirror to that used by evan.”
LOL, please, give us more incoherence, its almost as entertaining as your delusions of grandeur.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 30, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Christopher said “I’ve noticed that Doug refuses to give any supporting evidence–e.g, weblinks–to his assertions that:
1. Janet has “little to no” relationship with Isabella.
2. It has been proven that Janet acted abusively toward Isabella.
3. Janet seeks to “indoctrinate” Isabella. (The use of “indoctrination” has not been adequately defined, either.)
4. Janet has always sought exclusive custody of Isabella with no visitation from Lisa.
I’ve asked twice, and Doug would rather rant at others instead of providing support for his allegations.”.
Of course Doug would rather rant – he made this all up. He can’t argue with facts and honesty, that’d destroy the web of lies he uses to rationalize his bigotry.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 30, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Priya: You are but a little vat of acid. I do not like acid. Good bye.
Christopher: sorry; I did not see your earlier comment. You can do the research also; here is what I found:
“According to Liberty Counsel lawyers, unrefuted testimony has shown that for the last five years, Janet has neither attempted to phone nor write Isabella. Lawyers say Jenkins has never sent Isabella a card of any kind for any occasion, and has refused to attend Isabella’ Christmas plays, because she does not want to be around a Christian environment. Also, they say, Jenkins has said that it is not in Isabella’ best interest to be raised in a Christian home.”
Bu>Unrefuted testimony ……….
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/12/14/125025/
“”She began having nightmares, bed-wetting, fears of leaving Lisa and even tried to physically harm herself after just a couple of visitations,” Staver said. “After having seen that, Lisa just simply said, ‘I cannot put my child in that situation anymore.’”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90625
“If, as many people believe, Isabella has two mommies, she doesn’t seem to know it. The little girl hasn’t seen Janet since she was 2 1/2 years old.
“According to Lisa, Janet continued to have an explosive temper…”
“Once, “Lisa had made me like three different kinds of cookies and mailed them to me with a card from Isabella and from her,” Janet recalled. “Really sweet things.”
“Cable said. “She had no idea when I explained to her who Deb Lashman was. I felt sorry for her.”
“In October 2004, Janet and her parents took Isabella for a six-hour visit at Ruth and Bucky’s home. Isabella was 2 1/2. “We painted pumpkins,” Janet recalled. It would be the last time Janet saw Isabella.”
“{In Feb., 20905} Ruth and Bucky sent a Valentine’s Day package with cards and presents for Isabella and Lisa.”
“{in the winter of 2007} “I don’t think she knows I exist,” Janet said. “I think if she saw me or saw photos, it would bring me back.”
“Ruth is glad she isn’t charged with deciding, Solomon-like, Isabella’s fate. “Lisa hasn’t endeared herself to me, but she’s been a good mother,” Ruth said. “I can’t see ripping Isabella away from her life. It would be unfair. Isabella deserves to be in Janet’s life, but not at the cost of taking her out of Lisa’s life.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001316_pf.html
“Miller thinks it’s a risk worth taking. “I do not feel safe leaving my daughter with her, and I believe I have a God-given and constitutional right to raise my child as I see fit,” says Miller, who is currently single but hopes to meet the right man someday. “There is a homosexual agenda at work here, and Isabella is a pawn in their game.”
“Miller has claimed she witnessed disturbing behavior in her daughter after visits with Jenkins, such as masturbating in public and putting a comb to her throat, threatening suicide. “What 6-year-old does and says these things?” says Miller …. I’m not sure what’s going on when she’s with Janet, but I know what happens right afterward. Isabella does not want to go back.” Miller leveled child-abuse allegations against her ex-partner last year. The claims were investigated by Virginia’s Child Protective Services and deemed “unfounded.” Still, Miller is petitioning to have this matter heard in court.”
“Miller says, she begged Jenkins to file adoption papers, because she didn’t want Isabella to end up as a ward of the state if something happened to her. “I was told we didn’t need to because we had the civil union,” says Jenkins. “God, if I had only known.”
“She had plenty of opportunities to visit in those months prior to me filing [for sole custody],” says Miller. “But she kept calling and saying she wasn’t coming. In my opinion, she made it clear that she wanted no part.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172554/page/4
“Staver claimed that Isabella responded negatively to Jenkins’ so-called “lesbian lifestyle,” saying, “Every time that the visitation actually occurred, Isabella had violent reactions, because Janet exposed her to the lesbian lifestyle.” Staver claimed that Jenkins “tried to convince her that she has two moms and even tried to scare her by saying that she was going to be taken from Lisa and transferred to Vermont.”
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=99531
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
First of all, World Net Daily is also the website where they’re still claiming that Barack Obama is Kenyan. If you want to sign on with the mental giants who can’t read legal documentation because they’re blinded by their racism, fine, but you can consider that source dead, because here at TWO, we live in the real world.
EdgeBoston quote: “Staver claimed that…” Yeah, Staver is the hack lawyer at Liberty who is making money off of Lisa. Poor source.
Newsweek: Lisa says the kid played with her hoo-hoo in public. Oh my god, no child has ever done that. Considering the fact that little baby boys start playing with their things in the crib and my mother had to explain to me in elementary school why I kept seeing girls humping the jungle gyms…Yeah. Maybe in Jesus Land you’re in denial about the reality of kids discovering their bodies, and if so, that’s sad, because my Evangelical parents were always very honest with us about sex. Of course, it’s all hearsay from Lisa, who has proven herself untrustworthy.
WaPo: basically states what would have happened if Lisa Miller had decided to abide by the law.
Catholic Exchange: Again, unverified statements from Liberty lawyers, who are, again, profiting off of using Isabella as a pawn.
Wanna go for a sixth fail, or is five enough?
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
And again, it’s funny, because if the facts were on Lisa Miller/Liberty’s side, you’d think maybe a judge would agree with them.
But that just doesn’t seem to be happening.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Thanks, Doug, for responding.
First off, we can ignore anything from WorldNetDaily and LifeSiteNews (which is what Catholic Exchange reprinted). Both are heavily biased and unreliable sources of news.
The best source you linked to is the Newsweek article. However, your quotes are ripped out of context in order to do what I *knew* you’d do–take Lisa’s comments at face value as unassailable truth. You haven’t proved your allegations at all–you’ve simply chosen to believe one woman over the other.
Basically, we have a classic “she said / she said” situation. None of us know for sure what allegations may be true or false. That’s why we have the courts, and that’s why we have Child Protective Services.
Lisa claims Janet was not part of Isabella’s life. Janet claims otherwise, and gives her side of the story. Therefore, it’s a wash. One can’t assume either side is telling the whole truth.
The abuse allegations Lisa lodged against Janet are *serious* and ones that Child Protective Services in any state would investigate immediately. If there were *any* shred of truth to these allegations, they would act against the perpetrator. However, they found the allegations to be “unfounded.” Therefore, unless you can prove that CPS in Vermont has a history of a “homosexual agenda,” we must take the results of their investigation as valid. Therefore, Lisa is an established liar, which should give you pause regarding any other allegations she has claimed.
Since judges in two states reviewed this case–including a judge in a state which is particularly anti-gay–and have heard arguments on *both* sides, they have reached the same conclusion: Lisa is in contempt of court and not worthy of custody of Isabella. As flawed as our court system can be at times, that’s all we have to determine the facts of a case. The courts have ruled in favor of Janet. They would not do so if she had a history of “abuse” or demonstrated that she was unfit, especially on such a high-profile case like this. So, unless you have proof that the judges were acting maliciously and improperly–other than your OPINION that they have–your allegations against Janet are unsupportable.
Finally, you are quick to accuse Janet of working an “agenda” here, but it is Lisa that has hired a noted right-wing legal team to help her with her case, a team that has a history of pushing an “agenda.” Mat Staver is notoriously anti-gay, and has misrepresented numerous scientific studies in order to push that agenda. On the other side, while Janet is represented by a gay lawyer with experience in custody cases, she is not represented by an *activist organization*. Therefore, the one with the open agenda here is Lisa, not Janet.
I’m sorry, Doug, but you have not proven any of the allegations to be true. You have simply chosen one side over the other.
Therefore, in the absence of third-party validation of Lisa’s story, why do you choose to believe her without question… and not Janet?
Comment by Christopher‚Ñ¢ — December 30, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Chris
1. Thanks for being a rational responder. What’s with Priya? Is she a normal here?
2. I didn’t make “allegations” and have nothing to prove. Note that I am neither a party to this case nor an attorney, and benefit not in the least either way. Rather, I said there WERE ALLEGATIONS, which should, as you said, always beget an investigation. As the victim of parental alienation myself, I’m no doubt more sensitive than are you when one “divorcing” parent claims the other was abusive. Still, you err on the side of the kid and investigate assuming you will find merit. I can only see that Virginia investigated, not Vermont, and O question what they could have done lacking access to Janet and the actual conditions accompanying Janet.
3. I’m tired of the “Oh, that’s a Christian organization” crap. True – it looks like Liberty Counsel IS a religious group – but so was Janet’s lawyer a gay activist. So? Further, Lisa hired (maybe unwittingly) a gay activist attorney herself, who may have (intentionally?) hurt her case. The agenda of the attorneys should be irrelevant – unless YOU are bigoted (does not sound like it)
4. I read the (pdf)ruling of the Virginia High Court (spending WAY too much time on this …….) and it was clear that their ruling against Lisa, at least in part – and seemingly in whole – is on the technicality that Lisa did not file some document in a timely fashion (she had some attorney churn going; this was prior to the Liberty people getting involved). BECAUSE OF THAT, the High Court ruled they would not intercede. That does NOT make it a ruling on substance.
5. I can find NO evidence that Janet has any involvement at all in Isabella’s life for the past 4 or 5 years. ALL of the (too many) articles I read spoke most recently of involvement between Isabella and Janet’s parents – not including Janet. I stand convinced Janet is a “parent” in, essentially, no real way at all other than her desire to be so. Given this, ripping Isabella from the only parent she knows and thrusting her into a strangers’ arms is … at best, inhumane.
The Newsweek article seems to be a piece commissioned by Janet. Still, that does not mean the contents are “false” any more than those of the WorldNetDaily or LifeSite groups are false. Rejecting the contents simply because you do not approve of the messenger seem to me the height of prejudice.
As a parent I’ve been party to a bitter divorce and have helped several women going thru very bitter divorces, and have seen all kinds of atrocious behavior. Don;t think I was ‘taking Lisa’a side’ and believing her over Janet. I simply think Janet has been an non-entity in Isabella’s life (even if not wanting that). I don’t care a hoot about legal precedent this or legal precedent that. I object to a kid being tossed around because of the antics of adults. Period.
Again – it would be best for gay people everywhere to figure out a way to muzzle people like Priya.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 30, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
I should add that my sympathies for Janet in this case are purely because of what two independent courts and an independent Child Protective Services have determined to be the facts in the case.
If all of Lisa’s allegations were true, and Janet was an abusive parent with no interest in her daughter’s life, driven to use her daughter as a pawn in a larger “culture war,” then I would agree with Lisa. Janet should not have custody, and limited visitation rights… if any. What matters is that a child is in a stable home with a parent who loves them and provides for their needs.
However, the facts are the facts. It is Lisa who has repeatedly acted with impunity in this situation. This is not because I choose to believe Janet over Lisa. I don’t know them personally, and I have no way to determine the truth of their stories. All I have to go on are two court rulings and the ruling of Child Protective Services.
Based on this evidence from dispassionate third parties, it is clear that Lisa is in the wrong here, and her actions threaten the stable home that ALL of us want for little Isabella.
Comment by Christopher‚Ñ¢ — December 30, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
DougInSanDiego
The courts in Virginia simply do not have jurisdiction in this case. That is what they are telling Lisa, again and again. The only option with regard to child custody cases that have already begun with an assigned court and judge is to refer the case back to the original court and the appelate process for that court (which in this case are located in Vermont). This is a case of settled law.
Aside from the politics invoked in this case, it is not substantially different from any other parental custodial case where one parent flees to another jurisdiction in hopes of finding a more sympathetic ear.
With regard to any allegations of abuse, unless those allegations relate to activities that occurred in the Commonwealth of Virginia, again, the court has no jurisdiction and must refer the allegations and the case back to the presiding court.
Interestingly, there was a case in Nevada where a disgruntled father shot a judge with a sniper rifle. He was angry that this judge did not intervene in his custody fight with his wife in Florida. The judge explained to the man that since the case started in Florida, Nevada has no jurisdiction.
One of the saddest parts of this case is that as much time has been spent on it at all. Every time this was presented to any judge other than the original presiding judge, the new judge should have cut the proceedings to less than 5 minutes, stated that he/she had no jurisdiction and referred it back to Vermont.
Comment by John — December 30, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
Doug,
you were the one who came into the discussion with both guns blazing. How else did you expect your comment about “how vile homosexuals can be” to be answered back?
In light of that, I find it highly insulting and very patronizing that you suddenly want to advise gays and lesbians about who allegedly speaks for us.
I also find it to be a dodge. You have come to this discussion being ugly and got answered back in kind. If you want a rational discussion, maybe you shouldn’t be so nasty.
Comment by a. mcewen — December 30, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
Pretty much. And again, it begs the question: Why are you picking fights at a gay blog if you have no dog in this fight?
I mean seriously. I have better things to do with my time than to go argue with the grunters in the comments section at WorldNetDaily or Free Republic, and I just really don’t get people who feel the need to go find people on the internet to bother.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 30, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Evan said,
I have better things to do with my time than to go argue with the grunters in the comments section at WorldNetDaily or Free Republic
Evan – I stumbled on this site simply while looking for more info on this ABSURD injustice regarding Miller & Jenkins. I didn’t know this was a place for bitter, hateful gay activists to spew loathing of “the other side” … but saw (and read) Besen’s fecal essay and responded. Appropriately, I think.
Besen’s attempts at being human:
* the unscrupulous “ex-lesbian”
* In a fit of holier-than-thou zeal
* Miller went on the lam
* Miller’ poor parenting and criminal behavior
* Mockery of … her parental responsibility
* even fundamentalist fugitives
* some time in the clink will clear Miller’ mind
* miserable morals she has taught her daughter
* dodging her responsibility as a parent and decent human being.
For the record: Miller did NOT “abscond” from Vermont nor “shop for a better venue”. That much is clear. She returned home to Virginia, with Jenkins sharing the driving!
Maybe you folks enjoy getting all stirred up by hatred and satanical (as in ‘evil’, not in a religious sense) discourse like this. Maybe you just wet your pants when “the other side” is referred to as Besen did here. Maybe you quake when an ex-homosexual – especially if he/she got religion – is burned at the stake. Great. What fine fellows!
This remains America, Evan, and you are free to stay cloistered in this den of hatred. Have at it; DON’T venture out to this horrific web sites like WorldNewsDaily and subject yourself to the vile, poisonous environment there. I don’t care: we are not related, have never met, no doubt never will, have fun. My take, though, is the acidity here is far higher than anywhere else I have seen – including your hated WorldNewsDaily. Heck – I read a letter from that ‘vicious’ Liberty Counsel today, and even those folks seem pretty sane compared to what I see here.
To Chris and John (the only 2 people here who seem capable of actual discourse):
It seems from what I read Virginia venue is deficient only because of a legal technicality (Miller, with lawyer churn, failed to file something by a deadline). I see no evidence whatsoever that Miller moved to Virginia for any reason other than to go home – and, Vermont was, for both Miller and Jenkins, a very short lived stopover when this all happened. There is no evidence the move was to hide the child (though that appears to have subsequently happened). You apparently hate religion, and see a home in which religion exists as a bad environment in which to raise a kid. While I can’t speak from experience any more than you, I disagree. At least religious folks try to be good people, and perhaps fall short of that less often than do the rest of us. I also see no evidence Lisa was a bad parent; heck – Jenkins even admitted so herself (see above). So – I continue, after all this discussion, to see this as a travesty in which a little girl is sacrificed for a political agenda. Sad and repugnant.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 31, 2009 @ 1:10 am
“You apparently hate religion, and see a home in which religion exists as a bad environment in which to raise a kid.”
Doug, I have been nothing but respectful in my exchanges with you, so I find your statement not only incredibly insulting, but a shocking display of hubris.
For the record, I have been a born-again Christian for almost 30 years, and I am part of the ministry team at my church. I clearly don’t have “a problem with religion.”
What I DO have a problem with is a hard-core fundamentalist mindset where facts don’t matter, where destroying your opponents in the name of “love” is considered godly, where political means are used to achieve spiritual ends (a process doomed to failure), and where lying constantly about the lives of GLBT people is considered upstanding “Christian” behavior.
Lisa Miller is using the cover of “deep religious faith” to promulgate some really heinous things against her former partner, and I find that unacceptable for someone who claims to follow in the footsteps of Christ. The fact that you would attempt to justify her actions in any way is deeply disappointing, if not disturbing.
The fact that you assume that my position on this issue couldn’t *possibly* be based on anything other than a deep antipathy for religion shows just how aggressively uninformed you are about people who disagree with you. Just lump us all in a box so you don’t have to *really* interact with us as individuals. Convenient, but unhelpful.
Comment by Christopher‚Ñ¢ — December 31, 2009 @ 1:32 am
Fecal?
What a strange adjective…
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 31, 2009 @ 1:35 am
And what’s funny is that I’m really not sure that anyone in this thread has said they “hate religion.”
There’s been a lot of exposing fundmentalists as frauds, but then again, that’s sort of a sane person’s responsibility, I think.
Reform-minded Muslims have to do it with their radicals, reform-minded Christians have to do it with theirs.
Etc.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 31, 2009 @ 1:37 am
Virginia is deficient because the case started in Vermont. There is no other issue on the table in Virginia. All other aspects of the case will be determined by the Vermont court. This isn’t a technicality. Wherever the case gets filed first has jurisdiction. Again, settled law.
Comment by John — December 31, 2009 @ 3:26 am
Christopher
I may have confused your comments with some other seen here, and if that is thew case I apologize. The anti-God rants are truly astounding and the level of acid higher than I, for one, have seen before. A bit “surprising”, to say the least. Anyway, if i attributed wrongly to you I apologize.
In reviewing, though, I see sources of difference cause by some of the things YOU have said:
1. “Instead, Lisa decided to flagrantly disobey the law in this regard, then flee to another state to seek sole custody for herself.” From what I have read, this is factually incorrect. She moved home to Virginia when the relationship ended – with Janet’s help in driving the moving van. At the time there was no custodial conflict; all that started later. This is either a gross error or an attempt to paint Lisa black.
2. “You said that [Janet] (1)has no relationship with the child …[She](2)has not attempted to have a relationship with the child…[She] (3)has no biological relationship with the child.” You (Chris) then used legal status to assert both 1 & 2 are false, and #3 irrelevant. You MUST have been able to tell I was speaking about a REAL relationship, not a legal association. As far as I can tell, Janet has made no attempt (other than waging war in the courts) to interact with Isabella in many years. To the child, Janet is a purely a stranger as can be. Blood motherhood may be irrelevant to you and to the courts, but I suspect most people – and certainly I – disagree. There is that certain bond ……..
3. You claimed I said: “2. It has been proven that Janet acted abusively toward Isabella.” This is factually incorrect. I said there had been assertions; not that anything had been proven. Why the misrepresentation? The same hold true with the “indoctrination” statement.
4. You claimed I said: “4. Janet has always sought exclusive custody of Isabella with no visitation from Lisa.” Again, factually incorrect. Perhaps you are thinking of what I said about Janet’s actions NOW: “Cooperating with a court order that would wrest the child from the only Mom she knows is pure evil.” I stand by that statement.
5. Regarding allegations of abuse. I am unaware CPS in Vermont has investigated anything (as you assert); only Virginia. I am further unaware that Vermont CPS has ruled any such allegations “unfounded” – only CPS in Va.
6. judges in two states reviewed this case–including a judge in a state which is particularly anti-gay–and have heard arguments on *both* sides, they have reached the same conclusion: Lisa is in contempt of court and not worthy of custody of Isabella. I believe this to be misleading at best. The Va lower court ruled in favor of Lisa. The Va Appeals court reversed this – apparently on a technicality. They asserted that the Parental anti-kidnapping law trumped family law. Since The kidnapping has never occurred ( to this point), and since the move to Va had nothing to do with hiding Isabella from Janet, I find this absurd application of the law. But, certainly, they did not review the merits of the custodial dispute and no court in Va ever concluded Lisa was “unfit to have custody of Isabella”, as you assert. They, rather, declined to assert jurisdiction. Period.
7. Regarding the attorneys involved. I don’t know who Mat Starver is. However, I heard Janet has a NJ based gay activist attorney. Is this incorrect?
8. “What matters is that a child is in a stable home with a parent who loves them and provides for their needs.” Here we agree completely. You have said several times you believe Lisa has NOT been a good Mom. I have only seen the exact opposite. Of course, if Lisa winds up in contempt and in jail, her ability to parent ends. However, to this point I have seen nothing to suggest Lisa is anything other than a very loving and caring Mom, fighting for what she sees as her child’s best interests against still opposition. What do you know that proves Lisa is not a loving mom who has adequately provided for Lisa’s needs?
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 31, 2009 @ 3:47 am
Doug, I’ve read through these comments and am appalled at the callousness of the posters. They are treating this child as through she’s some kind of consolation gift for all of the preceived hurts perceived by the gay community.
It seems not to have occurred to any of them that this 7 year-old girl knows that she is being taking away from her biological mother and being given to a woman she barely knows. All of the edits by this judge will not erase the fact that this child knows that Jenkins is not related to her in any way. Yet, they somehow believe that this child is simply going to forget that she has a mother and other blood relatives whom she has bonded with and live happily ever after in Vermont. I doubt any of them have children. They are treating this child like she’s a puppy or a cat as though any “owner” will do.
If they could put themselves for one moment in Isabella’s shoes and imagine how she’s going to feel when she is forciby removed from her mother’s arms, the only parent she has ever known, and thrust unto an unfamiliar environment with a virtual stranger. Imagine the terror, anguish, and the sense of abandonment she’s going to feel. If they could only think back to when they were seven and imagine how they would feel if it happened to them. I doubt they will though because for them, the most important point here is not Isabella, but that a law was broken.
Comment by I remember mama — December 31, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Doug said “I can find NO evidence that Janet has any involvement at all in Isabella’ life for the past 4 or 5 years.
This picture says otherwise:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/12/31/18960#comments
Aside from that it is profoundly evil for you to continue to blame Jenkins for not having a relationship with Isabella, when Miller is the one who denied it to her! You’re either profoundly stupid or evil.
Doug said “Given this, ripping Isabella from the only parent she knows and thrusting her into a strangers’ arms is … at best, inhumane.”.
No way can Miller be rewarded for breaking the law by denying Jenkins visitation. If the court does that then it will be sending the message to every parent in a custodial dispute that if you abscond with the child and deny the child a relationship with their co-parent, not only wlll we look the other way, we will reward your lawlessness by granting you sole custody. Family courts would be in utter chaos and countless children and parents damaged if the court allows that.
Doug said “For the record: Miller did NOT “abscond” from Vermont nor “shop for a better venue”. That much is clear. She returned home to Virginia, with Jenkins sharing the driving!”.
She most certainly did abscond with Isabella. Obviously she kept her evil plans a secret from Jenkins to facilitate the escape.
Doug said “There is no evidence the move was to hide the child (though that appears to have subsequently happened).”.
LOL, you fool, that this subsequently happened is NOT a coincidence, it was obviously part of the plan all along and only your willful blindness and dishonesty keeps you from acknowledging that fact.
Doug said “At least religious folks try to be good people, and perhaps fall short of that less often than do the rest of us.”
Spare us the “religious folks try to be good” lie – there is no correlation between religiosity and morality. In fact atheists make up 10 – 15 percent of the American popluation but only about .02% of the prison population.
Doug said “I also see no evidence Lisa was a bad parent”.
She denied the child a relationship with her mother and now has kidnapped the child and is planning on subjecting her to an unstable life on the run, that is by definition the acts of a bad parent.
Doug said “The anti-God rants are truly astounding and the level of acid higher than I, for one, have seen before.”.
Oh Puuhleeeze. You came here with guns blazing screaming about “vile homosexuals”. You started the acid and now you want to whine about getting back what you dish out?! If you can’t take the heat then don’t start the fire.
Doug said “I didn’t know this was a place for bitter, hateful gay activists to spew loathing of “the other side” … but saw (and read) Besen’ fecal essay and responded. Appropriately, I think.”.
You clearly have no concept what the word appropriate means. Your complaints about what Wayne Besen wrote don’t give you any excuse for you to attack the entire gay community by starting off ranting about “vile homosexuals”. You’re assigning blame to the entire community for what one person’s done and such unjust ideas have permeated your every post. If your beef was with Wayne you should have confined your attacks to him instead of assaulting the entire community which has no control over what he rights. But of course your being here was never about right and wrong, it was about attacking and demonizing the entire gay community and blaming all for the imagined slights of a couple of isolated individuals.
Doug said “You MUST have been able to tell I was speaking about a REAL relationship, not a legal association.”.
Miller prevented that relationship! It is entirelly her fault that Jenkins hasn’t had the full and complete relationship a mother is entitled to. Stop dishonestly blaming Jenkins for the criminal acts of Miller!
Doug said “As far as I can tell, Janet has made no attempt (other than waging war in the courts) to interact with Isabella in many years.”.
Miller has attempted to attend every scheduled visition and Miller is the sole reason this hasn’t happened. The only way Jenkins can seek to obatain her visition is THROUGH THE COURTS. Jenkins has fought tooth and nail to have a relationship with Isabella through the only means available to her and your attempts to blame her for the lack of a relationship are despicable and profoundly dishonest.
Doug asked “What do you know that proves Lisa is not a loving mom who has adequately provided for Lisa’ needs?”.
She has denied her a relationsip with her other mother, she has failed to set an example to the child of honesty, integrity, honoring commitments, law and order and respect for others, she has taken the child on the run and destroyed the stability of Isabella’s live, severed her ties with other family figures, and will likely deprive her of a decent education and connection with law abiding society. Miller is a criminal and unfit parent and let us hope she can be reunited with her real mother befofe permantent damage is done.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 31, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
To “I remember mama”:
When I was a child my eldest sister became a single mother. She left that baby with our parents and they raised him for a number of years. In the meantime my sister married and decided she and her husband decided they wanted the child back. The came and took the child from our parents and the child screamed and cried because he didn’t know these people who were taking him.
Do you think that child should have stayed with his grandparents or gone with his biological mother?
If Isabella is “taken from the only parent she has ever known, and thrust unto an unfamiliar environment with a virtual stranger.” that is entirely Miller’s fault. She had every opportunity to prevent this, but through her selfishness and indifference to others such an unfortunate situation may come about. No way can the courts reward Miller’s criminal actions by allowing her to continue to deny Isabella a relationship with her mother.
And my nephew? It didn’t take long for him to adjust, he grew up to be fine young man loving his parents deeply and never once expressed any concern that he had been “taken from the only parents he had ever known, and thrust unto an unfamiliar environment with a virtual strangers”.
Sometimes you have to take one step backwards to take two steps forward. If we reward people for breaking the law soon there will be no society at all.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 31, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Question for the haters:
What if Janet had been the one to bear the child and was trying to keep her from Lisa? Leave the rest of the situation intact: Lisa and Janet decide to raise a child, Janet bears the child, Lisa “finds god” and breaks up with Janet and “stops being gay.” In your opinions, would Lisa be entitled to visitation rights or joint custody?
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 31, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
To Evan.
Good question. Answer: same. You see, for YOU this is about gay versus straight; about winning; about using the courts as a club. For me, it’s about a little 7-year old girl.
I realize as a gay person (unless you are in the scant minority of gay people) you have no kids and thus have no parental understanding. Ponder, if you will, the king Salomon example. YOU would celebrate the victory of ‘winning’ 1/2 a child. The Mom, conversely, readily gave up her child rather than see her harmed. THAT is the difference.
To Priya
You Do more harm to your “gay activism” cause than could ANY opponent.
You may be the most ignorant person on the web. Are you REALLY this embittered you simply are unable to comprehend anything other than your quest for activist dominance? To you – as “mama” tried to explain to your closed ears – the little girl is a chess piece used to punish what you see as the sins of the ex-homosexual, now-religious mother. What on EARTH happened to you as a child to send you down this miserable path? All 3 of my sisters were molested and are pretty messed up; NONE of them, however, has become a human acid gun as have you. What on earth did this to you?
These are rhetorical questions; they do NOT beg a response. As I said to you already, you are but a small vat of acid; i do not like acid; good bye.
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 31, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
So Doug, you’re saying that if Janet had the child with Lisa, and then, like Lisa has, denied access to Lisa, and broke the law in honoring visitation requirements, etc., you would still support Janet’s rights?
I don’t believe you.
And your argument about the “scant minority” of gay people having, and thus understanding, parenting, is pretty stupid, since, A. Many parents are not good parents, and B. You actually don’t have to have children to be able to discern what’s best for a child, and C. More gay people have children than you’re willing to admit.
You see, this isn’t a straight vs. gay thing at all. The judges who continually rule against Lisa aren’t gay, as far as we know. This is about a shrinking minority of the populations refusal to accept that gay people ARE parents and just as valid as any other parents for that matter.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 31, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
And for the millionth time, the fact that Janet has had little access to Isabella is her other mother’s fault!
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 31, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Evan
I don’t care if you believe me
Comment by DougInSanDiego — December 31, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
Doug keeps promissing to ignore me but can’t control his own actions.
Doug said “You Do more harm to your “gay activism” cause than could ANY opponent.”.
LOL, you have just as much credibility on that claim as you do on your claim that Jenkins never tried to have a relationship with Isabella despite her taking every legal option available to her and fighting tooth and nail to do just that.
Doug said “To you the little girl is a chess piece used to punish what you see as the sins of the ex-homosexual, now-religious mother.”.
Nonsense. Its utterly irrelevant to me that Miller is religious or that she claims to be “ex-gay”. The sole issue is that they had an agreement to raise a child together as parents and when the relationship broke down they had a custody arrangment that involved both parents having a relationship with the child and Miller broke that committment. Miller is now subjecting the child to the additional grievous harm of living on the run divorced from society and all that she knew.
Doug said “What on EARTH happened to you as a child to send you down this miserable path?”.
There is nothing miserable about the path of righteousness and justice. I exalt in standing up to bullies like you. You’re used to verbally assaulting people and claiming a false superiority and now you can’t stand it when someone has the gall to stand up to your hot air – too bad for you.
Doug said “All 3 of my sisters were molested and are pretty messed up; NONE of them, however, has become a human acid gun as have you. What on earth did this to you?”.
You were the acid gun to begin with, you came here smearing gays as a community and smearing eveyone with the same demonic brush because of your fabricated tales about Jenkins amd your irrational hatred of those who harm no one. I am merely the mirror upon which your own bile, acid, and hate are projected back in your face. If you can’t stand the heat then stop going to LGBT blogs and starting the fire fool.
Doug said “Answer: same. You see, for YOU this is about gay versus straight; about winning; about using the courts as a club. For me, it’ about a little 7-year old girl.”.
Oh BS, you’re lying about that just like you lied about Jenkins making no effort to have a relationship with Isabella. If Jenkins had born the child you’d be all for Miller taking sole custody and raising her to be anti-gay bigot. If the situation were reversed I’d absolutely support Miller having joint custody, this is about the law, equality and what’s best for the child.
Doug said “I realize as a gay person (unless you are in the scant minority of gay people) you have no kids and thus have no parental understanding.”.
That’s absurd. For starters 30% of gay couples have children, its far from a scant minority. Secondly just because you don’t have children doesn’t mean you have no parental understanding and just because you have children doesn’t mean you do have parental understanding. I’ve seen far more horrible parents than I’ve seen good ones and I’ve seen new parents devoid of experience do an excellent job. I myself looked after my sisters children for days on end and they had nothing but praise for the way I handled their children.
Doug said “Ponder, if you will, the king Salomon example.”.
LOL, you whine about how you people have no right to pigeon-hole you as a religionist and you can’t help but give away the truth that you are by constantly referring to the bible. Here’s laughing at you Fundy.
Doug said “YOU would celebrate the victory of “winning’ 1/2 a child. The Mom, conversely, readily gave up her child rather than see her harmed. THAT is the difference.”.
You’re an a**hole. WE would do no such thing. You can’t argue with facts and honesty so you rely on lies about the case and what we would do because you can’t support your bigotry anyother way.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 31, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Doug said “I don’t care if you believe me”.
Of course you don’t. You also don’t care about facts, honesty, or doing the right thing. You said right from the very beginning you’re here to slap around some LGBTS and have some laughs. We’re all to aware of what shallow hateful people like you are all about.
Comment by Priya Lynn — December 31, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
Doug does not like acid? By his bizarre responses, it sounds like he likes it more than he would like to admit. Sugar cubes anyone?
Comment by Wayne Besen — December 31, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
I see no minds have been changed, but, in all honesty, I’m not really surprised. All that seems to matter is that Lisa Miller is punished. Well, I’m fairly certain that she will be. But, in the end it will be Isabella that will suffer the most.
I suppose this affects me so much because I too experienced a similar situation as a child, only with a vindicative step-father. Since he couldn’t have my mother, he took away the one thing he knew she really cared about, her children. Even though he had been the only father I ever knew, I grew to hate him, not for anything he did to be personally, but because because he took from me something precious and irreplacable. I suspect Janet Jenkins will soon see that hurt, pain, and anger in Isabella’s eyes. But, hey, I forget, it’s not really about Isabella at all, is it? God, I feel so sad.
Comment by I remember mama — December 31, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
That sucks, but this situation is different because JANET IS ISABELLA’S MOTHER TOO.
As in, from the beginning. Lisa has denied Janet access to her own daughter!
I can’t believe that your side’s moral character is so flaccid that you can’t see what this is all about.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 31, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
It really is pointless to be arguing the various merits of this case with Lisa Miller’s supporters (or for that matter with Janet’s supporters). They both have lawyers to represent them before the judge in this case. Those are the only arguements that mean anything anyway.
Judge Cohen will remain on the case. Nobody has made an effective case that he has committed judicial misconduct or anything else. If he did, there are proceedures in place for Lisa Miller’s lawyers to make such complaints.
Judge Cohen in Vermont has heard all the arguements, dealt with all the various actions of the litigants, weighed all the options and has ruled accordingly. To borrow a Biblical line, he has shown the patience of Job in this case. If Lisa Miller does not follow his instructions tommorrow, he will deal with that as well.
Comment by John — December 31, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
I Remember Mama said: “Even though he had been the only father I ever knew.”
Reply: If Lisa Miller did not illegally heist the child and leave the state, then Isabella would have known both parents. Let’s not pretend that Janet is responsible for this mess. It is totally the fault of Lisa Miller. Whatever negative effects there will be in the life of the child, it is 100% Miller’s fault.
She is the culprit here. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda and really doesn’t give a rats rear end about the mental health of Isabella.
Comment by Wayne Besen — December 31, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
Frankly, I don’t care who is to blame. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, is not going to make this child’s life any better or this situation more palatable. Look, Janet Jenkins has won. Lisa Miller has lost. The law has been upheld and gay and lesbian rights vindicated. But, that really doesn’t concern me. What I am concerned about is the quality of life of this child after being taken away from her mother.
Contrary to the opinions on this board, you only get one mother and no piece of paper or ruling by a judge will change that in the mind and heart of this child. I honestly can’t comprehend why you don’t know that.
I came to this board hoping to make sense of this situation, but after reading these comments I only feel worse. My heart aches for Isabella for I know only too well what she is going to have to endure should she ever resurfaces.
Anyway, thanks for allowing me to be a part of this conversation but I think I’ll move on to a more sympathetic environment.
I remember mamma.
Comment by I remember mama — December 31, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
No, not “contrary to the opinions on this board.” According to fact.
I’m sorry that facts don’t jibe with your narrow worldview, but facts don’t jibe with most religious worldviews. To deny reality for that reason is a mental problem, and it’s not MY mental problem, it’s YOURS.
Comment by Evan Hurst — December 31, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
“Lesbian rights” have not been vindicated, I.R.M. — parental rights have been vindicated.
Isabella has a right to live her life balanced by the love of two parents, and not consumed solely by the paranoia, prejudice, and unresolved social and sexual dysfunctions of one lawbreaking parent.
Comment by Michael Airhart — January 1, 2010 @ 3:42 am
Excuse me, i remember mama, but isn’t what you say your stepfather did to you exactly what Lisa, NOT Janet tried to do?? Keep her child from the other parent? Why yes it is! Lisa is the parent Isabella will grow to resent, not Janet who has always played by the rulings.
It just proves how unstable and unfit of a parent Lisa has always been. No child should be under her care.
Comment by SheQuon — January 7, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
Consequences. Choices have consequences.
Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins went to Vermont for a Civil Union. Then they went home to Virginia. They lived there a while longer, where Lisa gave birth to Isabella. Janet declined to adopt Isabella, even though the two women lived in VA, where their Civil Union was not recognized as legal or binding. The two ladies moved to Vermont, where they lived for about a year. Then Lisa and Isabella returned to VA. Lisa returned to the lifestyle she was most comfortable in, and sought to end her Civil Union with Janet.
Remember, choices have consequences. Her Civil Union was nonsense in VA. Janet couldn’t dissolve it in a VA court, where such an agreement was considered null and void anyway. Janet had to dissolve the Civil Union back in Vermont. Competent legal council would have told Janet that her emotional impulse to return to Vermont and dissolve her Civil Union with Janet was unwise. Unfortunately, Lisa went into Vermont family court for emotional reasons, not logical ones.
Dissolving a Vermont civil union is much harder than initiating one. Starry-eyed romantics beware:
“Civil unions can be dissolved in Vermont family court in exactly the same manner as divorce of married couples. But while there is no residency requirement to contract a civil union, there is a six-month residency requirement to dissolve one. An attempt of a Connecticut resident for a formal dissolution of his Vermont civil union with a New York City resident was rejected by the court of appeals on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.”
When Lisa Miller foolishly entered the Vermont Family Court to dissolve her Civil Union, she placed her custody of Isabella at risk. While Lisa and Janet’s home state of Virginia didn’t recognize Civil Unions, they did recognize child custody decisions passed down from other states. Virginia would be crazy not to do so. There are many, many inter-jurisdictional custody disputes. Cooperation between the states is absolutely necessary to prevent total anarchy in family law. With a series of short-sighted decisions, Judge Cohen created a legal quagmire that damaged all parties involved.
Who’s most at risk of losing child custody as a consequence of Judge Cohen’s decision to give custody of seven year old Isabella to Janet?
Lesbians and Gays who happen to be biological parents, of course. Oh yes, heterosexual parents are the first to see the risk to their parental rights, but gays and lesbians aren’t morons either. In spite of the activists’ rhetoric, gay and lesbian biological parents should be quaking in terror. Which of their former partners may stake the next claim? On what grounds? Do they dare go back to the jurisdiction they entered into a civil union in to dissolve said civil union? How do they protect their children against frivolous custody claims from all sides?
There are no winners in this case, only losers. It’s possible to win a battle, and in doing so sacrifice all hope of winning the war. This battle to rip Isabella away from Lisa is just such a fight.
The best interests of the child has always been the litmus test for deciding custody cases. When Judge Cohen varied from that standard, he made a huge mistake. Nobody wins when children lose.
Comment by Annie Mouse — January 26, 2010 @ 9:55 am
Annie, gays and lesbians aren’t stupid, none of us are going to buy your idiotic line that its in our best interests to support Miller’s kidnapping of Isabella so get off it. Jenkins is as much Isabella’s mother as Miller is, there is nothing frivolous about her attempting to have a relationship with her daughter. Judge Coen did decide based upon the best interests of children. It is in Isabella’s best interests to have a relationship with both her parents. Miller acted against Isabella’s best interests and if the justice system were to reward her crime by allowing her custody that would send a message to all divorced parents to deny their child a relationship with their other parent and the court will reward your lawlessness. That would harm countless numbers of children involved in custody battles. The law cannot reward criminal acts or soon the U.S. will be a nation of criminals.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 26, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
Yeah, Annie, your comment is called “concern trolling.”
That’s why I ignored it.
Comment by Evan Hurst — January 26, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
” none of us are going to buy your idiotic line that its in our best interests to support Miller’ kidnapping of Isabella..”
Well Duh! Of course not. I never suggested you should support Miller’s going into hiding with her child.
I simply pointed out that Judge Cohen’s decision to transfer custody from Miller to Jenkins, if allowed to set precedent, would endanger gay biological parents’ right to custody of their children at a greater rate than anyone else’s.
Comment by Annie Mouse — January 28, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
Miller going into hiding is a national tragedy. Many parents do this every year, and it’s always sad.
Comment by Annie Mouse — January 28, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
No it wouldn’t Annie. The only reason Miller has lost her custody rights is because she denied Jenkins court ordered visitation. If she’d have been an upstanding law-abiding person she’d still have legal custody. Gays and lesbians aren’t afraid of losing custody of their biological children because they’ve broken the law, we’re law abiding people.
In any event gays and lesbians are just as likely to be non-biological parents as biological ones. We support the right of non-biological parents to have access to their children because it is right and just. We have no desire to deprive any fit lawabiding parent of a right to see their children so Judge Cohen’s decision not only doesn’t worrry us, it comforts us that a precident of doing the right thing has been set.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 28, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
Yes, but Annie, gay couples aren’t the only people who ever have children that are only biologically linked to one of them, and if both are legally parents of the child, then that can’t be the final arbiter of custody settlements.
Comment by Evan Hurst — January 28, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
“and if both are legally parents of the child,”
…and therein lies the problem. Judge Cohen in Vermont has worked out a new way for a person to become a legal parent of a child. If this new way for a person to become a legal parent becomes common practice, there will be consequences. Not all of these consequences will be as felicitous as many here apparently imagine.
Social experiments always begin optimistically. Harm is rarely intended. How they end is another matter.
Comment by Annie Mouse — January 28, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
“and therein lies the problem. Judge Cohen in Vermont has worked out a new way for a person to become a legal parent of a child.”.
No he has not. Any time two people get married (or similar to married) they become parents of the children they bring into the relationship. This has been done this way for a very very long time and it works well. It is you who seeks to unsettle centuries of law and to deny parenthood to people the law has long assumed to be parents. Children are best served by having a relationship with both parents assuming both are fit. Jenkins is a fit parent and now Miller has demonstrated that she is unfit. It is in the best interests of the child to be placed with Jenkins.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 28, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Priya Lynn,
I understand your confidence. “Gays and lesbians aren’t afraid of losing custody of their biological children because … we’re law abiding people. ” It’s easy to believe that, before you’ve had a few hard knocks.
Nobody joins in a marriage or civil union expecting it to end badly. That would be daffy. It’s only after things end badly that former partners often mistrust or even fear each other.
Life brings many surprises, most good, some bad. Custody battles are always tragic, and never simple.
Look, I’m not here to shatter any of your dearly held preconceptions. Life does that soon enough, but what it gives back to you in joy is more than worth the ride.
Just don’t be so sure that everyone who says things you don’t like is out to get you. It’s simply not true. Most people are well-intentioned, even the ones who disagree with you.
Comment by Annie Mouse — January 28, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
Annie, you’re a bigot and you need to accept the truth of that. You come here to attack LGBT people and justify their maltreatment. You wouldn’t know what well-intentioned was if it bit you in the ass. I’ve dealt with countless bigots like you pretending (poorly) to be well-intentioned. You’re not fooling me and you’re not going to fool the vast majority of LGBTs.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 28, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
ROFLMFAO!
Wow! Do you really have this much time on your hands?
OK. Let’s assume you do. Examine the oft touted phrase
“Children are best served by having a relationship with both parents assuming both are fit…”
Instead of just swallowing it hook line and sinker, examine the “fact” from all angles. Consider all the possibilities and permutations. Is it really universally true? Of course not!
So it is with many things “Everybody knows.” “Everybody knows” a lot of silly disjointed nonsense they’ve never rationally examined.
You don’t need me to present alternative ideas to you. You can come up with them for yourself – or not. It’s up to you. Thinking for yourself is uncomfortable, and often puts you out of step with the crowd. You will probably be happier if you don’t do it.
I’ve got to go teach Logic now. Thinking for yourself isn’t a choice in this school. It’s a graded event.
Blessings!
Comment by Annie Mouse — January 28, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
Annie, logic totally eludes you. Your stating that there are exceptions to the idea that children are best served by having a relationship with both parents assuming both are fit doesn’t make it so. Give us some examples or STFU.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 28, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
I’m a bigot? OK. If it makes you comfortable, then go with that. There’s absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t stay in your comfort zone. Don’t let anybody coax you out until you’re ready.
Again, it’s time to take my distressing notions off line for the day.
Happy Posting!
Comment by Annie Mouse — January 28, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
Oh good grief. After all that, you really want me to “give” you some examples? Does your mommy still dress you?
I’ll “ST*U, as you so charmingly put it.
Comment by Annie Mouse — January 28, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
No, Annie, I’m not comfortable with the reality that you’re a bigot, I wish everyone was nice and reasonable. But I can accept that there are people in this world that seek to harm those who harm no one and who try to cover their efforts with a facade of being “well intentioned”. There will always be bigots like you in the world and there will always be people like me who put fairness first and debunk your disingenous attempts to rationalize injustices.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 28, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
Good one Annie, you can’t defend your statements so you just make the empty claim that you can and run away – you’re a real logician all right.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 28, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
For many decades family courts have held that its in the best interests of children to have a relationship with both their parents if they are fit. Annie lives under the delusion that she knows better despite having nothing to back up that delusion. Go tell it to the justice system Annie and straighten them out. Clearly thousands of the finest legal minds have missed your genius.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 28, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
Priya Lynn,
I know I seem impatient. I’m sorry to come across as dismissive.
Do you understand what “black and white thinking” is, and how it effects a person’s ability to reason?
I’m sure you do, when you consider the far Right. Christian Fundamentalists are famous for “black and white thinking”, or “splitting”, as Sociologists and Psychologists call it.
I understand that right now you’re focused on “winning” a discussion. That’s understandable.
At some other time, when you’re not dealing with the overwhelming stress of communicating with a “bad” person like me, please consider how black and white thinking might be distorting your ability to appreciate humanity as it really is.
Comment by Annie Mouse — January 28, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Annie I don’t give a damn about your off-topic BS. You’re a dishonest bigot, when I asked you for an example of how children are not best served by having a relationship with both parents if they are fit you pathetically used the “its so obvious I’m not going to mention it” dodge. If you had any valid examples you’d have been eager to demonstrate them. The fact is you don’t have any logic to back up your delusions and that’s also why you’re trying to now change the subject. I’m not playing your game, so STFU like you promised you would.
Comment by Priya Lynn — January 28, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
Annie, Christian Rightists boast about black-and-white thinking but they rarely practice it. They are notorious for moral relativism whenever it suits their objective. That is what you are doing throughout this discussion: distorting facts and bending principles into a pretzel, while failing to supply any independent confirmation of your assertions.
There is no evidence that Judge Cohen has ever placed other considerations ahead of the welfare of Isabella. Your contempt for principle, family law, and child welfare are duly noted.
Until you can provide independent and reputable substantiation for your assertions — and demonstrate that you can adhere to coherent principles — please cease commenting. Strawman argumentation and meandering gossip are not welcome here.
Comment by Michael Airhart — January 28, 2010 @ 4:36 pm