Good Lord, what hath the Lord wrought?

[Zero Tolerance]

http://www.examiner.com/x-11467-Bost...m11d25-custody

Good Lord, what hath the world wrought????

1. Is it the verbage of the article, or the laws of Vermont which declare mariage = civil unions (the article calls this a "legally recognized marriage," then calls this relationship a "one-year civil union")? This may not be relevant to the case, but it's an interesting contribution to the discourse. I always thought them the same under the law.

2. Miller is the biological mother, but the court awarded custody to Jenkins. Why? The article says, "Miller made it exceedingly difficult for Jenkins to see her daughter" after the split, but I missed the part where Jenkins had any claim to Isabella, the girl in question. Even the usage of "her" rather than "their" bothers me.

3. "Isabella was conceived by Miller during the couples one-year civil-union." Something about one-person conception does not sit well with me.

4. "The court concludes that it is in the best interest of (Isabella) that Ms. Jenkins exercise parental rights and responsibilities," the judge said. "This court stated that continued interference by Ms. Miller with the relationship between (Isabella) and Ms. Jenkins could lead to a change of circumstances and outweigh the disruption that would occur if a change of custody were ordered."

Outweigh the disruption that will occur when Isabella discovers that she has two mothers, when one mother is condemning the other, and all kinds of other ideological issues that will arise?

Man,

[supton]

So, the one who bore the child decides to no longer be homosexual, and leaves; and the other gains custody on the sole basis of "she's easier to get along with"? I have to wonder if other details were left out.

[rossum]

Something about one-person conception does not sit well with me.

Well you know what happened last time there was a one-person conception...

rossum

[Zero Tolerance]

So, the one who bore the child decides to no longer be homosexual, and leaves; and the other gains custody on the sole basis of "she's easier to get along with"? I have to wonder if other details were left out.

The ruling in itself is problematic.

See, the decision was based upon what I guess has to be a special law for those in gay marriages with children. The biological mother would not let her ex-partner see the child, so the judge ruled in favor of the ex-partner because (and this is my translation of the legal jargon) she has a right to see her daughter.

In my head, I'm thinking, "HER daughter?"

IMO, jacked up on all kinds of levels, beginning with single conception.

[Faramir]

The ruling in itself is problematic.

See, the decision was based upon what I guess has to be a special law for those in gay marriages with children. The biological mother would not let her ex-partner see the child, so the judge ruled in favor of the ex-partner because (and this is my translation of the legal jargon) she has a right to see her daughter.

In my head, I'm thinking, "HER daughter?"

IMO, jacked up on all kinds of levels, beginning with single conception.

If the non-natural mother adopted the child, then "legally" it is "her daughter".

You may not like it, but thems the facts.

[Seasanctuary]

It would be similar to a hetero married couple with these events:

* The wife has an affair and conceives.
* The child is born with the marriage intact.
* The couples splits up later and the ex-wife doesn't want the ex-husband to visit the child
* Judge awards custody to the ex-husband even though the child isn't biologically his.

Clearly, this would be controversial all on its own without throwing the volatile topic of same sex marriage into the mix.