MyFox
 

Millange's Blog

by Millange from Alexandria, VA

Last Post 151 days, 12 hours Ago


I read the article in today's Washington Post Magazine about the lesbian couple who are in the midst of a custody battle. The gist of the story is the couple, once in love, decided to have a child. They moved from VA to Vermont where their liaison is recognized by the state. Some time after the child was born, the couple split. The birth mother moved back to VA with the child. Eventually she filed for "divorce" and later filed for full custody of the child. The other mother counter filed. After years of court dates, VA finally upheld Vermont's law that the other mother had rights. The birth mother has appealed. Court date set for April. Forgot to add that the birth mother has turned her life over to GOD and is no longer gay. She says homosexuallity is a sin - now. So what do you think? About the custody issue, I mean? My thoughts: I am neither for or against homosexuality. People live however they chose to live and that is between them and God. However, there is a child involved here. It's been two years since the other mother has seen the child. Yes, they could probably go on and the child may,if not all ready have, forget the woman. But is that really fair to the other mother who helped pay for all the medical expenses and loves that child as her own?
19 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 19
Page 1 of 1
caffeinated-cow read my blog
Feb 4, 2007 | 10:41 AM

I think they should have joint custody. Just like I think fathers should have joint custody. Of course, if the other parent (mother or father, heterosexual or homosexual) is a miscreant (like a convicted child rapist), then no joint custody and very limited if any visitation.

grandillusion read my blog
Feb 4, 2007 | 10:42 AM

I don't understand how VA could uphold a law in VT. I also don't understand how VA taxpayers could be expected to pay for a court hearing that by in itself is not recognized in this state. This is a VT issues, and the VT taxpayers should have to pay the costs of any hearing on the matter.

They've played their little game and now the taxpayer is getting ready to foot the bill. Now what must be decided is if and to what extent the biological role of the child plays in gay marriage. This will be particularly disturbing as children caught up in this un-natural union mature and become aware of the ramifications and possibilities that custody may not necessarily be with their own blood. IMHO, gay rights in particular involving children has removed the right of the child to be secure in lineage, heritage and the expectation of a biological tie with the parent.

caffeinated-cow read my blog
Feb 4, 2007 | 10:50 AM

Also, I don't think this is a "gay rights" issue at all. I think this is a parental rights issue.

It's along the same lines as this hypothetical" a heterosexual couple were in a committed realtionship, but not married. They undergo donor artificial insemination and then separate. The mother is the biological mother, but her ex has no genetic claim on the child. What then?

Millange read my blog
Feb 4, 2007 | 2:03 PM

Good point, Caffeinatedcow. It's not exactly a Gay rights, but closely related. Using your scenario, the un-married father would probably have rights if they live in a state that recognizes common-law marriages. Are there any left? I don't know. To GrandIllunsion, this is not just a Vermont problem because the birth mother filed for custody in VA. You've got two states with opposing views on the issue of gay marriages and their rights. I personally think they should have joint custody.

Millange read my blog
Feb 4, 2007 | 2:07 PM

add on...
the birth mother does not want the other mother to have access to the child because she no longer believes in that(gay) lifestyle. There is also the "grandparents" (parents of the other mother) who has been told they can still visit the child but cannot be referred to as Mom mom and Pop pop. Their hearts are broken as well.

yestheyareallmine read my blog view my photos
Feb 4, 2007 | 3:11 PM

I thought that when a gay couple had a baby, the other parent actually had to adopt the baby...
Maybe I read wrong. To me that would sort of end any question of custody. The child belongs to both of them.
That being said, Gay or not; shame on the mother who is using her child to create drama.

rescuediva read my blog
Feb 4, 2007 | 10:30 PM

Like CC I dont really care about the gay issue. A child's life is at stake here. These two made the conscious choice to move to VT for the sole purpose of circumventing VA law to pursue their life style. That being said, the other mother should not have any rights to this child. I think YTAAM was right .. the other mother is supposed to adopt the baby .. The birth mother has more rights, if not, sole rights to this child. Now presuming they both know who the donor was, he would also have more rights to this kid than the non biological mother. VA should not get invovlved because this mother is now back and has supposedly found God. I didnt know that there was a gay on/off switch. The 'Union' was created in VT and this kid was also born in VT .. this is VT's problem and not ours. What a mess !!!

jadeddude read my blog
Feb 5, 2007 | 12:32 AM

The gay off on switch is just a ploy to bring anti gays to her side.Why doesen't she have a baby?I agree with grand send it back to Vermonts courts and let them figure it out.We know Va.s position on gays and gay marrige and so does the mother.It sounds like she's useing Va.s conservative base as a tool to have the court rule for her.Personelly I think the birth mother should maintain custody of the child solely.Some times it turns out bad for
ex,s but it in the childs best intrest that supperseeds the ex,s desire to maintain a relationship.

caffeinated-cow read my blog
Feb 5, 2007 | 9:01 AM

You all know birth mamma moved to VA in order to escape Vermont law, which probably would have ruled in favor of joint custody.

The question I have is this: is not-birth mamma paying child support? If she is, then she should have joint custody or at the very least visitation rights.

As I said, this case is primarily a parental rights issue and it should be decided in the best interest of the child and not in the best interest of a political agenda.

va2007 read my blog
Feb 5, 2007 | 4:24 PM

Per the on-line commentary today on the Wash Post the author of the article stated that Janet was paying child support after the birth mother moved to VA but when her visitation was cut off she stopped paying. She has resumed paying support again after VA decided the matter needed to be decided in VT and the VT judge told the birth mother she would be held in contempt if she did not allow Janet to visit the child.

caffeinated-cow read my blog
Feb 5, 2007 | 4:33 PM

Good to know that va2007.

IAMHE read my blog view my photos
Feb 5, 2007 | 8:53 PM

WHY DOSE NO BODY EVER LISTEN TO GOD ALMIGHTY?
in the beginning made he them male and female! adam and eve not adam and steve! at least one got her mind right. this is an issue that goes deeper than a conflict between two states, it is an issue of just and unjust, of wich there should be no seperation of state, we should all strive to take the side of righteousness, even against our self. this is one nation under god, not a few states under god, not commit a sin in one state and hide in another under god. homosexualls should have no rights they are an abomination to our creator and should be cut off from the people. treated as a criminal trespasser and put in jail where homosexuallity is preferred.
we will all be judged by him who has eyes as a flame of fire.!

IAMHE read my blog view my photos
Feb 5, 2007 | 8:54 PM

WHY DOSE NO BODY EVER LISTEN TO GOD ALMIGHTY?
in the beginning made he them male and female! adam and eve not adam and steve! at least one got her mind right. this is an issue that goes deeper than a conflict between two states, it is an issue of just and unjust, of wich there should be no seperation of state, we should all strive to take the side of righteousness, even against our self. this is one nation under god, not a few states under god, not commit a sin in one state and hide in another under god. homosexualls should have no rights they are an abomination to our creator and should be cut off from the people. treated as a criminal trespasser and put in jail where homosexuallity is preferred.
we will all be judged by him who has eyes as a flame of fire.!

yestheyareallmine read my blog view my photos
Feb 5, 2007 | 9:27 PM

God should always be capitalized.
He did not send us here to judge others.

IAMHE read my blog view my photos
Feb 5, 2007 | 11:52 PM

AND HE SAID ALSO TO THE PEOPLE, WHEN YE SEE A CLOUD RISE OUT OF THE WEST, STRAITWAY YE SAY, THERE COMETH A SHOWER; AND SO IT IS. AND WHEN YE SEE THE SOUTH WIND BLOW, YEA SAY, THERE WILL BE HEAT;AND IT COMETH TO PASS. YE HYPOCRITES, YE CAN DISCERN THE FACE OF THE SKY AND OF THE EARTH;BUT HOW IS IT THAT YE DO NOT DISCERN THIS TIME? YEA WHY EVEN OF YOURSELVES JUDGE YE NOT WHAT IS RIGHT?
-GOD
LUKE 12:54-57
BUT IT IS NOT MY JUDGEMENT, BUT GODS, AND YES THE G SHOULD ALWAYS BE CAPITALIZED WHEN REFERING TO THE ALMIGHTY. AND WE ARE COMMANDED NOT TO BE HOMOSEXUALS, IT IS A SIN, AND THE WAGES OF SIN ARE DEATH.

JFLM read my blog view my photos
Feb 6, 2007 | 2:11 PM

it is sad when a relationship breakups.
even worse when children are involved.
still worse when the "adults" treat each other like children.
and worse when they use "GOD" as a shield to hide behind their actions
and FAR worse when people misrepresent GODs teachings.

VA should have never agreed to hear the case unless it was willing to recognize the legal relationship between the two women.

Nessiemonster read my blog
Feb 6, 2007 | 4:46 PM

The relationship is not legal in most of the states and most countries in the world. The "mother" in VT did not have the baby, nor did she adopt it AFTER knowing what the law is. It's her fault. The child should be raised by the biological mother who has raised her since birth. Taking the child away now, at 4 1/2 years old and putting her in another gay union situation would be detrimental to her fragile psyche. She's been through enough. Are we now supposed to except 3 mommies?

I read the article and the VA woman made a mistake and has repented and moved on. We should allow her to raise HER child as she sees fit and keep the politics of "gay rights" (whatever that means) out of it. She's a child, not some liberal cause!

Rhedscorpion
Feb 7, 2007 | 2:48 AM

Why VA have such a rule? DC & MD accept gay unions why don't VA? .....The action by the birth mother throws up a concern of how good of a mother is she?.....She made the decision to unite with the other mother in a ceremony and in the midst of everything they have a child through whatever method they choose....So why use the child as a pawn?.....This concerns me......I feel that they should be mature and share joint custody and regardless of her decisions to become a heterosexual again, she should still be required to allow the child to see the other mother throughout her life until 18. At 18 the daughter could then determine who is best fit for her to reside with. It is no different than being in a heterosexual relationship. IMHE, you are judging people and u r not that higher being and should be shame to so quickly judge someone because of how they choose to live their life! Shame on u!!!!! If u are true to "GOD" and preach and practice his word then you would not be judging at all!!!! THOU SHALL NOT HATE!!!!!!!

IAMHE read my blog view my photos
Feb 8, 2007 | 7:51 PM

Rhedscorpion, keep running from scripture and ignoring it, it still wont go away! shame on your self for not sideing with the WRITEN truth, even against yourself.
i do not hate, i speak writen truth and thats what people dont like because the truth is the light into their own lifes, and when we see it wieghed in the balance, and we are found wanting, the reaction is always the same...
kill the messenger, if you dont believe me just ask christ.
HOMOSEXUALLITY IS A SIN!

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Millange

I am a combination of Dreamgirl Effie, Madea and Monique rolled into one.

Member Since: 1/26/2007