Being gay doesn't pay.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by dread, Apr 17, 2008.

  1. dread
    Offline

    dread Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    603
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Ratings:
    +43
    Lesbian demands control over Christian's daughter

    http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61657


    This hearing will determine whether a lesbian woman who is Lisa Miller's former partner will share custody of Isabella, Lisa's daughter," wrote Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America. "The woman is neither an adoptive parent nor is she biologically related to Isabella. In fact, she's a total stranger to the little girl.
    Isabella, who is now 6 years old, hadn't seen this woman since she was 17 months old.
    The two women were living in Virginia in 2000 when they went to Vermont to get a "civil union." Miller later gave birth to a girl through artificial insemination, but the child was not adopted by Jenkins.
     
  2. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Actually gays generally have significantly higher incomes than straights. But yes, the state discriminates against gays and their children. We've known this for a while. Nice source, btw. No bias at all. :rolleyes:
     
  3. dread
    Offline

    dread Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    603
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Ratings:
    +43
    All sources have thier own bias. So what!

    And how the hell is this case discriminating AGAINST gays?

    Seems like a person who has NO association with a child gets EVERYTHING spoon fed to her INCLUDING a state that has NO jurisdiction in the matter. If you had studied family law to any length you would have known that the state the child resides in has the rights over the child NOT some state that a couple were in to get a quickie civil union.


    Then there is the fact that there are parental rights abuses going on as well in this case.
     
  4. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    LMFAO...some sources have significantly more bias than others.

    :rolleyes:

    If a married couple had a child in vitro and the mother took it away, would you say the father had NO rights to the kids?

    Obviously not.

    Spoon fed to her? She gets access to her child, and thats it and the state is fighting to take that away.

    This has to do what with any argument I made? Nothing. Thanks.

    Is she a parent or not? Make up your mind. And the abuses are alleged abuses. Whether there are actually abuses is up to a court to decide
     
  5. dread
    Offline

    dread Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    603
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Ratings:
    +43


    No the lesbian IS NOT a mother. Because she NEVER adopted the child. So she has NO rights to claim it as hers. Also Vermont has no right to claim the child because the child never resided in that state. So from the story it is the lesbian who is getting whatever she wants. And family law has EVERYTHING to do with your argument. You are claiming that the poor widdle lesbian is getting bent over and THAT simply isnt the case.


    Again so what if some articles have bias. Thats the nature of the beast. Everyone has an angle. Get over it.

    Wait...On second thought you wont get over it because the article is not pumping your homosexual agenda.
     
  6. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Does the non-related husband of a woman when she bears a child have to adopt the child?

    No?

    Hence the term discrimination. Thanks.

    Vermont has no claim to the child, but it DOES have a claim to the relationship and the status of it.

    Not quite, no.

    Again, not quite, no.

    Yes again....

    And everyone hurts other peoples sometimes. But there is a difference between calling them a fuckwit and going after them with a chainsaw. Get the different now, genius?

    And you won't recognize the bias because you are pumping your homophobic agenda.

    By the way, congrats on skipping over that minor part where I proved the discrimination. Real subtle of you. :rolleyes:
     
  7. dread
    Offline

    dread Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    603
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Ratings:
    +43
    Jesus Christ you live in a dream world dont you...
    You didnt EVEN read the fuckin article.

    The article SAYS that Vermont gave the lesbian rights to the child. How the FUCK is THAT discrimination? How the fuck can a stae give something to someone when they have NO jurisdiction over it?

    You proved NOTHING fucktart.


    And YES a father has to adopt a child when he isnt the biological father of the child or his has no claim to it. Otherwise he has to have spent many years with the child to claim it as his. Otherwise the male gets no consideration.


    AND AGAIN...YES the State of Vermont NEVER took to into account the Parental rights of the Christian female because they trampled all over them by giving partial custody to the lesbian.

    Maybe you need to check out Troxell vs. Granville....


    But you probably wont because researching isnt in your bag of tricks.
     
  8. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    so.. the FORMER GAY PARTNER is the mother and the child was concieved during marriage?

    wow.


    talk about hiding behind nomenclature for the sake of child custody. Dread, you DO realize that the MOTHER was also a fan of the furburger, yes? That this "mother" is more than likely just a label being waved in order to purposfully attract shallow automatic support from those who are against anything gay?


    devious.
     
  9. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Right...I just made up the facts that I pulled from it. :cuckoo:

    Is Vermont the only state involved here? No. Could it possibly be that when I was talking about discrimination I was referring to another state? Maybe just possibly?

    And obviously they DO have jurisdiction over it. Enough for the Vermont Supreme Court to claim it, and Virginia lower courts to give it.

    Right. :cuckoo:

    [quote
    And YES a father has to adopt a child when he isnt the biological father of the child or his has no claim to it.
    [/quote]

    Umm, sorry, but no. Most state automatically assume that if a man and woman are married and have a child the man is the father, no matter WHAT the circumstances are.

    And you wanted to tell me about family law?

    Incorrect.

    LMAO...its amazing to see you not realize the bias from the article and then stating it here.

    Tell me...why is there an automatic preference for the Christian over the lesbian? Why is the lesbian not getting her rights trampled over? Ah, right, because unlike a man she can't get married so you feel free to discriminate against her. Right.

    Which is relevant how?

    I'm not going to do your research for you, no. But do feel free to explain how that case is the same as the case here.
     
  10. TopGunna
    Offline

    TopGunna Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Messages:
    149
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +26
    Wow, I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm by no means an expert on child custody law, but I would imagine that a different set of rules are necessary in heterosexual parents cases vs. homosexual parents cases.

    In a heterosexual marriage, both parents have the biological link to the child - in a homosexual union, only one member can be a biological parent. I would think that should be the trump card in child custody cases.

    Suppose a widow and a widower (each with their own children) get married, each then becomes a step-parent to the others children. If that marriage end in divorce, how is custody determined then?

    Like I said, I don't know how the law is written... but it seems reasonable that the biological parent in such a situation should have custody of the child, regardless of lifestyle choice.
     

Share This Page