RECENT  POSTS:  » What most people aren't getting about the fake non-troversies of the anti-gay right » 'Weekly Standard' asst. editor equates Tim Cook with man who pits God against him » Michigan pastors make unfortunate lifestyle choice; say they'll go to jail rather than not discriminate » PFOX's Quinlan says SBC leader's opposition to 'reparative therapy' is cruel » That Idaho wedding venue posts new 'rules and regulations'; will still perform non-Christian weddings » Another deceptive thing about NOM's duplicitous anti-Hagan ad » NOM trying to shape Arkansas politics without even learning state's abbreviation » Video: Focus on the Family staffer who calls homosexuality 'particularly evil lie of Satan' hangs out in Chicago's Boystown » Video: Another new NOM ad targets Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR); uses James O'Keefe video as source » What the heck is 'NOM Victory Fund'?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/08/2008

Miller-Jenkins case: Judicial accurat-ivism rules the day

by Jeremy Hooper

Get ready, folks: Matt Barber and other social conservatives are about to literally flip their same-sex parenting-detesting wigs:

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a ruling that Virginia must enforce a Vermont court order awarding child-visitation rights to a mother's former lesbian partner.

The high court Monday declined to hear the case of Lisa Miller, who claimed that the Virginia Supreme Court improperly ignored a state law and constitutional amendment that prohibit same-sex unions and the recognition of such arrangements from other states.

Supreme Court: Va. Must Enforce Gay Visitation Rights [AP via WRIC]

One small step for (parenting without a) man; one giant leap for (parenting without a) man-kind!

**For background on the MIller-Jenkins case, you can check out Dana Rudolph's fantastic Mombian blog: Miller-Jenkins roundup [Mombian]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Maybe that is at least one nail in the DOMA coffin! Is this the second or third time that they have refused hear the case? They may just consider it to be a child custody issue that has nothing to do with DOMA, though. When they summarily dismiss cases, you don't really have many clues as to their thought process, but maybe one of them will spill the beans in an interview.

But we can hope that DOMA is so shaky that the conservatives on the court don't want to it for fear that they will necessarily have to strike it down!

Posted by: Dick Mills | Dec 8, 2008 9:23:58 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails