RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism » The 'why can't they take their business elsewhere?' line: Not only offensive but legally meaningless » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm) » Video: 'Vice' covers the sad, dangerous, discredited world of 'conversion therapy' » Buzzfeed: Jeb Bush's nascent team is teeming with gay Republicans » FRC prays against gay acceptance to 'avoid the wrath of God' » Video: Mark Cuban supports religious biz owners that 'just say no' to serving same-sex weddings » We're not driven by animus, say groups that are known for showing animus toward gay couples » Video: Onetime LGBT community foe delivers crushing blow to 'religious freedom' (a.k.a. license to discriminate) bills » Q. How does Mark Regnerus 'prove' he's not an anti-gay activist?  

« 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