RECENT  POSTS:  » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings  

« 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