Millange's Blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.!

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

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.

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!!!!!!!