RECENT  POSTS:  » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

« 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