Discussion:
With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
(too old to reply)
Dusty
2009-10-21 14:45:03 UTC
Permalink
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817

With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles

By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.

It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around the
cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and expensive
legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her former civil
union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the daughter they raised
together.

Miller and Jenkins joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000 as
Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, and had a child named Isabella
Miller-Jenkins together in 2002. Lisa was artificially inseminated from a
sperm donor who they chose because his physical traits closely matched
Janet's, who became Isabella's social mother. According to the Washington
Post:

"When Isabella was born, Janet had the honor of cutting the umbilical cord
... Lisa and Janet had researched how best to bond with the baby ... [at
night] 'Every two or three hours, Isabella would wake up so Lisa could nurse
her,' Janet said. 'I would take Isabella from that point. I would burp her
... I would rock her. She would go back to sleep on my heartbeat' ...
Janet's parents were enthralled, and embraced Isabella as their newest
grandchild."

In 2004 Miller decided to leave Jenkins and move to Virginia, agreeing to a
liberal parenting time schedule for Jenkins, who paid child support to
Miller. Yet after Miller got to Virginia, she violated the agreement,
deciding that she wanted sole custody of Isabella and excluding Jenkins from
the child's life. The Liberty Counsel, a close partner of the late Rev.
Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has spearheaded Miller's legal case.

Jenkins, who has helped care for children at day care centers in two states,
treasures pictures she has of Isabella helping her in their garden, picking
through her purse and playing with wooden trains. "These are hard to look at
... we were happy," she says. She remembers how Isabella would say "Uppy"
when she wanted Janet to pick her up.

Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving
Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and who
live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's been
married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in the whole
thing, of course, was the baby."

Vermont judges have seen the dispute Jenkins' way throughout the case. On
Aug. 25 a Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller
if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation.

Miller could have been incarcerated by the court but Jenkins -- showing
Miller a kindness both unreciprocated and unmerited -- told the court she
didn't want Miller jailed. What she wants is to see her daughter.
Afterwards, Miller declared that she's going to continue her legal battle to
keep Isabella away from Jenkins "because that's what a Christian is supposed
to do."

Miller is, of course, entitled to choose her own sexuality and religion. But
she chose to have a child with Jenkins and shouldn't be able to obliterate
this because it doesn't fit in with her new beliefs. And however one feels
about gay marriage, it is enormously damaging to children to have one of the
two people they love the most in the world -- a parent -- ripped out of
their lives. The saddest part is that children usually blame themselves,
asking, "What did I do to make mom not want to be with me anymore?"

Lesbian custody battles are now becoming routine, and dozens of them have
been the subject of hotly contested cases in recent years. Some of the
biological mothers are so determined to drive the social mothers out of
their children's lives that they even invoke laws which limit gays' parental
rights as a way to win their cases.

LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists believe courts
haven't adequately protected the rights of lesbian social mothers because of
the tenuous legal status of gay marriages and relationships, and they're
partly correct. But much of the problem lies in the way courts treat
noncustodial parents, regardless of sexual orientation.

Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers. According
to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based children's
advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have
their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or blocked by
custodial parents.

Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from her --
a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's grandparents out
of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive thousands of anguished
letters from distraught grandparents who were excluded from their
grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.

Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist Bruce
Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for the system
to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no matter how remote
the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial the contact." Many legal
experts have voiced similar concerns.

Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers like
Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for parent-child
bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of shared custody after a
divorce or separation.

Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will both have
the right to share equally in raising their children. These presumptions do
exist in some states, but they are generally weak and too easily evaded.

Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead of
allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with little or no
consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be investigated
seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences for false
accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars instead tend to
"err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse claims. False accusers
rarely suffer any penalty, while children must bear the loss of a parent.

Jenkins echoes the pain of millions of non-custodial parents when she
describes what it has been like losing little Isabella:

"There is a part of me missing. I feel like my heart has been ripped out
beating."

Glenn Sacks, M.A., is executive director of Fathers & Families. His columns
have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. Ned
Holstein, M.D., is the organization's chairman of the board. Their Web site
is http://FathersandFamilies.org

For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here.
Chris
2009-10-21 22:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817
With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles
By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.
It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around the
cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and
expensive legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her
former civil union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the
daughter they raised together.
Miller and Jenkins joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000 as
Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, and had a child named
Isabella Miller-Jenkins together in 2002. Lisa was artificially
inseminated from a sperm donor who they chose because his physical traits
closely matched Janet's, who became Isabella's social mother. According to
"When Isabella was born, Janet had the honor of cutting the umbilical cord
... Lisa and Janet had researched how best to bond with the baby ... [at
night] 'Every two or three hours, Isabella would wake up so Lisa could
nurse her,' Janet said. 'I would take Isabella from that point. I would
burp her ... I would rock her. She would go back to sleep on my heartbeat'
... Janet's parents were enthralled, and embraced Isabella as their newest
grandchild."
In 2004 Miller decided to leave Jenkins and move to Virginia, agreeing to
a liberal parenting time schedule for Jenkins, who paid child support to
Miller. Yet after Miller got to Virginia, she violated the agreement,
deciding that she wanted sole custody of Isabella and excluding Jenkins
from the child's life. The Liberty Counsel, a close partner of the late
Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has spearheaded Miller's legal
case.
Jenkins, who has helped care for children at day care centers in two
states, treasures pictures she has of Isabella helping her in their
garden, picking through her purse and playing with wooden trains. "These
are hard to look at ... we were happy," she says. She remembers how
Isabella would say "Uppy" when she wanted Janet to pick her up.
Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving
Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and who
live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's been
married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in the whole
thing, of course, was the baby."
Vermont judges have seen the dispute Jenkins' way throughout the case. On
Aug. 25 a Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on
Miller if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation.
Miller could have been incarcerated by the court but Jenkins -- showing
Miller a kindness both unreciprocated and unmerited -- told the court she
didn't want Miller jailed. What she wants is to see her daughter.
Afterwards, Miller declared that she's going to continue her legal battle
to keep Isabella away from Jenkins "because that's what a Christian is
supposed to do."
Miller is, of course, entitled to choose her own sexuality and religion.
But she chose to have a child with Jenkins and shouldn't be able to
obliterate this because it doesn't fit in with her new beliefs. And
however one feels about gay marriage, it is enormously damaging to
children to have one of the two people they love the most in the world --
a parent -- ripped out of their lives. The saddest part is that children
usually blame themselves, asking, "What did I do to make mom not want to
be with me anymore?"
Lesbian custody battles are now becoming routine, and dozens of them have
been the subject of hotly contested cases in recent years. Some of the
biological mothers are so determined to drive the social mothers out of
their children's lives that they even invoke laws which limit gays'
parental rights as a way to win their cases.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists believe courts
haven't adequately protected the rights of lesbian social mothers because
of the tenuous legal status of gay marriages and relationships, and
they're partly correct. But much of the problem lies in the way courts
treat noncustodial parents, regardless of sexual orientation.
Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers. According
to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based children's
advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have
their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or blocked by
custodial parents.
Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from
her -- a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's
grandparents out of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive
thousands of anguished letters from distraught grandparents who were
excluded from their grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist Bruce
Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for the
system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no matter
how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial the
contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers
like Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for
parent-child bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of shared
custody after a divorce or separation.
Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will both
have the right to share equally in raising their children. These
presumptions do exist in some states, but they are generally weak and too
easily evaded.
Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead of
allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with little or
no consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be investigated
seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences for false
accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars instead tend to
"err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse claims. False accusers
rarely suffer any penalty, while children must bear the loss of a parent.
Jenkins echoes the pain of millions of non-custodial parents when she
"There is a part of me missing. I feel like my heart has been ripped out
beating."
Glenn Sacks, M.A., is executive director of Fathers & Families. His
columns have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United
States. Ned Holstein, M.D., is the organization's chairman of the board.
Their Web site is http://FathersandFamilies.org
For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here.
"Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller
if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation."

Uhuh, contempt with no penalty. Now THAT sure is effective. When was the
last time you saw the threat of fine, let alone actual imposition of such,
when a MAN is the one being denied visitation? "Family" court discrimination
is so glaring even sunglasses don't help...............
Bob W
2009-10-22 01:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Dusty
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817
With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles
By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.
It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around
the cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and
expensive legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her
former civil union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the
daughter they raised together.
Miller and Jenkins joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000 as
Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, and had a child named
Isabella Miller-Jenkins together in 2002. Lisa was artificially
inseminated from a sperm donor who they chose because his physical traits
closely matched Janet's, who became Isabella's social mother. According
"When Isabella was born, Janet had the honor of cutting the umbilical
cord ... Lisa and Janet had researched how best to bond with the baby ...
[at night] 'Every two or three hours, Isabella would wake up so Lisa
could nurse her,' Janet said. 'I would take Isabella from that point. I
would burp her ... I would rock her. She would go back to sleep on my
heartbeat' ... Janet's parents were enthralled, and embraced Isabella as
their newest grandchild."
In 2004 Miller decided to leave Jenkins and move to Virginia, agreeing to
a liberal parenting time schedule for Jenkins, who paid child support to
Miller. Yet after Miller got to Virginia, she violated the agreement,
deciding that she wanted sole custody of Isabella and excluding Jenkins
from the child's life. The Liberty Counsel, a close partner of the late
Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has spearheaded Miller's legal
case.
Jenkins, who has helped care for children at day care centers in two
states, treasures pictures she has of Isabella helping her in their
garden, picking through her purse and playing with wooden trains. "These
are hard to look at ... we were happy," she says. She remembers how
Isabella would say "Uppy" when she wanted Janet to pick her up.
Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving
Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and who
live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's been
married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in the whole
thing, of course, was the baby."
Vermont judges have seen the dispute Jenkins' way throughout the case. On
Aug. 25 a Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on
Miller if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation.
Miller could have been incarcerated by the court but Jenkins -- showing
Miller a kindness both unreciprocated and unmerited -- told the court she
didn't want Miller jailed. What she wants is to see her daughter.
Afterwards, Miller declared that she's going to continue her legal battle
to keep Isabella away from Jenkins "because that's what a Christian is
supposed to do."
Miller is, of course, entitled to choose her own sexuality and religion.
But she chose to have a child with Jenkins and shouldn't be able to
obliterate this because it doesn't fit in with her new beliefs. And
however one feels about gay marriage, it is enormously damaging to
children to have one of the two people they love the most in the world --
a parent -- ripped out of their lives. The saddest part is that children
usually blame themselves, asking, "What did I do to make mom not want to
be with me anymore?"
Lesbian custody battles are now becoming routine, and dozens of them have
been the subject of hotly contested cases in recent years. Some of the
biological mothers are so determined to drive the social mothers out of
their children's lives that they even invoke laws which limit gays'
parental rights as a way to win their cases.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists believe courts
haven't adequately protected the rights of lesbian social mothers because
of the tenuous legal status of gay marriages and relationships, and
they're partly correct. But much of the problem lies in the way courts
treat noncustodial parents, regardless of sexual orientation.
Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers.
According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based
children's advocacy group, more than five million American children each
year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or
blocked by custodial parents.
Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from
her -- a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's
grandparents out of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive
thousands of anguished letters from distraught grandparents who were
excluded from their grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist Bruce
Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for the
system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no matter
how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial the
contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers
like Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for
parent-child bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of shared
custody after a divorce or separation.
Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will both
have the right to share equally in raising their children. These
presumptions do exist in some states, but they are generally weak and too
easily evaded.
Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead of
allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with little or
no consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be investigated
seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences for false
accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars instead tend to
"err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse claims. False accusers
rarely suffer any penalty, while children must bear the loss of a parent.
Jenkins echoes the pain of millions of non-custodial parents when she
"There is a part of me missing. I feel like my heart has been ripped out
beating."
Glenn Sacks, M.A., is executive director of Fathers & Families. His
columns have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United
States. Ned Holstein, M.D., is the organization's chairman of the board.
Their Web site is http://FathersandFamilies.org
For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here.
"Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller
if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation."
Uhuh, contempt with no penalty. Now THAT sure is effective. When was the
last time you saw the threat of fine, let alone actual imposition of such,
when a MAN is the one being denied visitation? "Family" court
discrimination is so glaring even sunglasses don't help...............
My "fines" for contempt were usually paying attorney fees that were inflated
far above the actual legal costs to have the contempt hearing. I paid the
equivalent of one year's legal bills for my ex for matters totally unrelated
to the contempt charge. Once I got a 30 day jail sentence, but it was
suspended in lieu of two year's probation. The family law system does treat
fathers differently.

BTW - A couple of years ago I contacted my state senator expressing my
belief any new laws authorizing gay marriage would also require new laws to
cover gay divorce. He told me there would be no need for gay divorce laws.
It was his opinion heterosexual divorce laws would work just fine for gay
divorces. I still doubt he was right.
Chris
2009-10-23 04:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by Chris
Post by Dusty
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817
With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles
By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.
It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around
the cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and
expensive legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her
former civil union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the
daughter they raised together.
Miller and Jenkins joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000
as Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, and had a child named
Isabella Miller-Jenkins together in 2002. Lisa was artificially
inseminated from a sperm donor who they chose because his physical
traits closely matched Janet's, who became Isabella's social mother.
"When Isabella was born, Janet had the honor of cutting the umbilical
cord ... Lisa and Janet had researched how best to bond with the baby
... [at night] 'Every two or three hours, Isabella would wake up so Lisa
could nurse her,' Janet said. 'I would take Isabella from that point. I
would burp her ... I would rock her. She would go back to sleep on my
heartbeat' ... Janet's parents were enthralled, and embraced Isabella as
their newest grandchild."
In 2004 Miller decided to leave Jenkins and move to Virginia, agreeing
to a liberal parenting time schedule for Jenkins, who paid child support
to Miller. Yet after Miller got to Virginia, she violated the agreement,
deciding that she wanted sole custody of Isabella and excluding Jenkins
from the child's life. The Liberty Counsel, a close partner of the late
Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has spearheaded Miller's legal
case.
Jenkins, who has helped care for children at day care centers in two
states, treasures pictures she has of Isabella helping her in their
garden, picking through her purse and playing with wooden trains. "These
are hard to look at ... we were happy," she says. She remembers how
Isabella would say "Uppy" when she wanted Janet to pick her up.
Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving
Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and who
live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's been
married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in the
whole thing, of course, was the baby."
Vermont judges have seen the dispute Jenkins' way throughout the case.
On Aug. 25 a Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on
Miller if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation.
Miller could have been incarcerated by the court but Jenkins -- showing
Miller a kindness both unreciprocated and unmerited -- told the court
she didn't want Miller jailed. What she wants is to see her daughter.
Afterwards, Miller declared that she's going to continue her legal
battle to keep Isabella away from Jenkins "because that's what a
Christian is supposed to do."
Miller is, of course, entitled to choose her own sexuality and religion.
But she chose to have a child with Jenkins and shouldn't be able to
obliterate this because it doesn't fit in with her new beliefs. And
however one feels about gay marriage, it is enormously damaging to
children to have one of the two people they love the most in the
world -- a parent -- ripped out of their lives. The saddest part is
that children usually blame themselves, asking, "What did I do to make
mom not want to be with me anymore?"
Lesbian custody battles are now becoming routine, and dozens of them
have been the subject of hotly contested cases in recent years. Some of
the biological mothers are so determined to drive the social mothers out
of their children's lives that they even invoke laws which limit gays'
parental rights as a way to win their cases.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists believe courts
haven't adequately protected the rights of lesbian social mothers
because of the tenuous legal status of gay marriages and relationships,
and they're partly correct. But much of the problem lies in the way
courts treat noncustodial parents, regardless of sexual orientation.
Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers.
According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based
children's advocacy group, more than five million American children each
year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or
blocked by custodial parents.
Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from
her -- a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's
grandparents out of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive
thousands of anguished letters from distraught grandparents who were
excluded from their grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist
Bruce Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for
the system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no
matter how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial the
contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers
like Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for
parent-child bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of shared
custody after a divorce or separation.
Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will both
have the right to share equally in raising their children. These
presumptions do exist in some states, but they are generally weak and
too easily evaded.
Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead of
allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with little
or no consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be
investigated seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences
for false accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars
instead tend to "err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse claims.
False accusers rarely suffer any penalty, while children must bear the
loss of a parent.
Jenkins echoes the pain of millions of non-custodial parents when she
"There is a part of me missing. I feel like my heart has been ripped out
beating."
Glenn Sacks, M.A., is executive director of Fathers & Families. His
columns have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United
States. Ned Holstein, M.D., is the organization's chairman of the board.
Their Web site is http://FathersandFamilies.org
For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here.
"Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller
if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation."
Uhuh, contempt with no penalty. Now THAT sure is effective. When was the
last time you saw the threat of fine, let alone actual imposition of
such, when a MAN is the one being denied visitation? "Family" court
discrimination is so glaring even sunglasses don't help...............
My "fines" for contempt were usually paying attorney fees that were
inflated far above the actual legal costs to have the contempt hearing. I
paid the equivalent of one year's legal bills for my ex for matters
totally unrelated to the contempt charge. Once I got a 30 day jail
sentence, but it was suspended in lieu of two year's probation. The
family law system does treat fathers differently.
BTW - A couple of years ago I contacted my state senator expressing my
belief any new laws authorizing gay marriage would also require new laws
to cover gay divorce. He told me there would be no need for gay divorce
laws. It was his opinion heterosexual divorce laws would work just fine
for gay divorces. I still doubt he was right.
My question is how can the law that the man pays the woman apply when there
is NO man in a lesbian "divorce"? Or for that matter, no woman when two men
"divorce" each other?
Bob W
2009-10-23 05:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Bob W
Post by Chris
Post by Dusty
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817
With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles
By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.
It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around
the cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and
expensive legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her
former civil union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the
daughter they raised together.
Miller and Jenkins joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000
as Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, and had a child named
Isabella Miller-Jenkins together in 2002. Lisa was artificially
inseminated from a sperm donor who they chose because his physical
traits closely matched Janet's, who became Isabella's social mother.
"When Isabella was born, Janet had the honor of cutting the umbilical
cord ... Lisa and Janet had researched how best to bond with the baby
... [at night] 'Every two or three hours, Isabella would wake up so
Lisa could nurse her,' Janet said. 'I would take Isabella from that
point. I would burp her ... I would rock her. She would go back to
sleep on my heartbeat' ... Janet's parents were enthralled, and
embraced Isabella as their newest grandchild."
In 2004 Miller decided to leave Jenkins and move to Virginia, agreeing
to a liberal parenting time schedule for Jenkins, who paid child
support to Miller. Yet after Miller got to Virginia, she violated the
agreement, deciding that she wanted sole custody of Isabella and
excluding Jenkins from the child's life. The Liberty Counsel, a close
partner of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has
spearheaded Miller's legal case.
Jenkins, who has helped care for children at day care centers in two
states, treasures pictures she has of Isabella helping her in their
garden, picking through her purse and playing with wooden trains.
"These are hard to look at ... we were happy," she says. She remembers
how Isabella would say "Uppy" when she wanted Janet to pick her up.
Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving
Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and
who live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's
been married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in
the whole thing, of course, was the baby."
Vermont judges have seen the dispute Jenkins' way throughout the case.
On Aug. 25 a Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on
Miller if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation.
Miller could have been incarcerated by the court but Jenkins -- showing
Miller a kindness both unreciprocated and unmerited -- told the court
she didn't want Miller jailed. What she wants is to see her daughter.
Afterwards, Miller declared that she's going to continue her legal
battle to keep Isabella away from Jenkins "because that's what a
Christian is supposed to do."
Miller is, of course, entitled to choose her own sexuality and
religion. But she chose to have a child with Jenkins and shouldn't be
able to obliterate this because it doesn't fit in with her new beliefs.
And however one feels about gay marriage, it is enormously damaging to
children to have one of the two people they love the most in the
world -- a parent -- ripped out of their lives. The saddest part is
that children usually blame themselves, asking, "What did I do to make
mom not want to be with me anymore?"
Lesbian custody battles are now becoming routine, and dozens of them
have been the subject of hotly contested cases in recent years. Some of
the biological mothers are so determined to drive the social mothers
out of their children's lives that they even invoke laws which limit
gays' parental rights as a way to win their cases.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists believe courts
haven't adequately protected the rights of lesbian social mothers
because of the tenuous legal status of gay marriages and relationships,
and they're partly correct. But much of the problem lies in the way
courts treat noncustodial parents, regardless of sexual orientation.
Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers.
According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based
children's advocacy group, more than five million American children
each year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered
with or blocked by custodial parents.
Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from
her -- a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's
grandparents out of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive
thousands of anguished letters from distraught grandparents who were
excluded from their grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist
Bruce Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for
the system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no
matter how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial
the contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers
like Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for
parent-child bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of shared
custody after a divorce or separation.
Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will both
have the right to share equally in raising their children. These
presumptions do exist in some states, but they are generally weak and
too easily evaded.
Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead
of allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with
little or no consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be
investigated seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences
for false accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars
instead tend to "err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse claims.
False accusers rarely suffer any penalty, while children must bear the
loss of a parent.
Jenkins echoes the pain of millions of non-custodial parents when she
"There is a part of me missing. I feel like my heart has been ripped
out beating."
Glenn Sacks, M.A., is executive director of Fathers & Families. His
columns have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United
States. Ned Holstein, M.D., is the organization's chairman of the
board. Their Web site is http://FathersandFamilies.org
For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here.
"Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller
if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation."
Uhuh, contempt with no penalty. Now THAT sure is effective. When was the
last time you saw the threat of fine, let alone actual imposition of
such, when a MAN is the one being denied visitation? "Family" court
discrimination is so glaring even sunglasses don't help...............
My "fines" for contempt were usually paying attorney fees that were
inflated far above the actual legal costs to have the contempt hearing.
I paid the equivalent of one year's legal bills for my ex for matters
totally unrelated to the contempt charge. Once I got a 30 day jail
sentence, but it was suspended in lieu of two year's probation. The
family law system does treat fathers differently.
BTW - A couple of years ago I contacted my state senator expressing my
belief any new laws authorizing gay marriage would also require new laws
to cover gay divorce. He told me there would be no need for gay divorce
laws. It was his opinion heterosexual divorce laws would work just fine
for gay divorces. I still doubt he was right.
My question is how can the law that the man pays the woman apply when
there is NO man in a lesbian "divorce"? Or for that matter, no woman when
two men "divorce" each other?
Forget the gender bias. The bigger questions are should a bio-mom get CS
from a non-bio mom and should a non-bio dad get CS from the bio-dad. Or
should the custody decisions be made in favor of the best interest of the
children like the law supposedly requires? IOW - Does biology play a role
in custody and CS decisions or does the best interests of the children in
the parenting relationships over-ride those decisions? If the best interest
standard of parenting is applied to gay divorces should the best interest
standard also apply to heterosexual divorces?

The difficulty of double standards of gender role assumptions become major
decisions for courts to decide.
Chris
2009-10-23 19:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by Chris
Post by Bob W
Post by Chris
Post by Dusty
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817
With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles
By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.
It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around
the cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and
expensive legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her
former civil union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the
daughter they raised together.
Miller and Jenkins joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000
as Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, and had a child named
Isabella Miller-Jenkins together in 2002. Lisa was artificially
inseminated from a sperm donor who they chose because his physical
traits closely matched Janet's, who became Isabella's social mother.
"When Isabella was born, Janet had the honor of cutting the umbilical
cord ... Lisa and Janet had researched how best to bond with the baby
... [at night] 'Every two or three hours, Isabella would wake up so
Lisa could nurse her,' Janet said. 'I would take Isabella from that
point. I would burp her ... I would rock her. She would go back to
sleep on my heartbeat' ... Janet's parents were enthralled, and
embraced Isabella as their newest grandchild."
In 2004 Miller decided to leave Jenkins and move to Virginia, agreeing
to a liberal parenting time schedule for Jenkins, who paid child
support to Miller. Yet after Miller got to Virginia, she violated the
agreement, deciding that she wanted sole custody of Isabella and
excluding Jenkins from the child's life. The Liberty Counsel, a close
partner of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has
spearheaded Miller's legal case.
Jenkins, who has helped care for children at day care centers in two
states, treasures pictures she has of Isabella helping her in their
garden, picking through her purse and playing with wooden trains.
"These are hard to look at ... we were happy," she says. She remembers
how Isabella would say "Uppy" when she wanted Janet to pick her up.
Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving
Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and
who live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's
been married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in
the whole thing, of course, was the baby."
Vermont judges have seen the dispute Jenkins' way throughout the case.
On Aug. 25 a Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine
on Miller if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered
visitation.
Miller could have been incarcerated by the court but Jenkins --
showing Miller a kindness both unreciprocated and unmerited -- told
the court she didn't want Miller jailed. What she wants is to see her
daughter. Afterwards, Miller declared that she's going to continue her
legal battle to keep Isabella away from Jenkins "because that's what a
Christian is supposed to do."
Miller is, of course, entitled to choose her own sexuality and
religion. But she chose to have a child with Jenkins and shouldn't be
able to obliterate this because it doesn't fit in with her new
beliefs. And however one feels about gay marriage, it is enormously
damaging to children to have one of the two people they love the most
in the world -- a parent -- ripped out of their lives. The saddest
part is that children usually blame themselves, asking, "What did I do
to make mom not want to be with me anymore?"
Lesbian custody battles are now becoming routine, and dozens of them
have been the subject of hotly contested cases in recent years. Some
of the biological mothers are so determined to drive the social
mothers out of their children's lives that they even invoke laws which
limit gays' parental rights as a way to win their cases.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists believe courts
haven't adequately protected the rights of lesbian social mothers
because of the tenuous legal status of gay marriages and
relationships, and they're partly correct. But much of the problem
lies in the way courts treat noncustodial parents, regardless of
sexual orientation.
Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers.
According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based
children's advocacy group, more than five million American children
each year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered
with or blocked by custodial parents.
Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from
her -- a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's
grandparents out of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive
thousands of anguished letters from distraught grandparents who were
excluded from their grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist
Bruce Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for
the system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no
matter how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial
the contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers
like Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for
parent-child bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of
shared custody after a divorce or separation.
Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will
both have the right to share equally in raising their children. These
presumptions do exist in some states, but they are generally weak and
too easily evaded.
Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead
of allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with
little or no consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be
investigated seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences
for false accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars
instead tend to "err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse
claims. False accusers rarely suffer any penalty, while children must
bear the loss of a parent.
Jenkins echoes the pain of millions of non-custodial parents when she
"There is a part of me missing. I feel like my heart has been ripped
out beating."
Glenn Sacks, M.A., is executive director of Fathers & Families. His
columns have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the
United States. Ned Holstein, M.D., is the organization's chairman of
the board. Their Web site is http://FathersandFamilies.org
For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here.
"Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller
if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation."
Uhuh, contempt with no penalty. Now THAT sure is effective. When was
the last time you saw the threat of fine, let alone actual imposition
of such, when a MAN is the one being denied visitation? "Family" court
discrimination is so glaring even sunglasses don't help...............
My "fines" for contempt were usually paying attorney fees that were
inflated far above the actual legal costs to have the contempt hearing.
I paid the equivalent of one year's legal bills for my ex for matters
totally unrelated to the contempt charge. Once I got a 30 day jail
sentence, but it was suspended in lieu of two year's probation. The
family law system does treat fathers differently.
BTW - A couple of years ago I contacted my state senator expressing my
belief any new laws authorizing gay marriage would also require new laws
to cover gay divorce. He told me there would be no need for gay divorce
laws. It was his opinion heterosexual divorce laws would work just fine
for gay divorces. I still doubt he was right.
My question is how can the law that the man pays the woman apply when
there is NO man in a lesbian "divorce"? Or for that matter, no woman when
two men "divorce" each other?
Forget the gender bias. The bigger questions are should a bio-mom get CS
from a non-bio mom and should a non-bio dad get CS from the bio-dad. Or
should the custody decisions be made in favor of the best interest of the
children like the law supposedly requires? IOW - Does biology play a role
in custody and CS decisions or does the best interests of the children in
the parenting relationships over-ride those decisions? If the best
interest standard of parenting is applied to gay divorces should the best
interest standard also apply to heterosexual divorces?
The difficulty of double standards of gender role assumptions become major
decisions for courts to decide.
They have but ONE standard: man pays woman.
Big D
2009-10-25 17:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Bob W
Post by Chris
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-doc...
With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles
By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.
It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around
the cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and
expensive legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her
former civil union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the
daughter they raised together.
Miller and Jenkins joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000
as Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, and had a child named
Isabella Miller-Jenkins together in 2002. Lisa was artificially
inseminated from a sperm donor who they chose because his physical
traits closely matched Janet's, who became Isabella's social mother.
"When Isabella was born, Janet had the honor of cutting the umbilical
cord ... Lisa and Janet had researched how best to bond with the baby
... [at night] 'Every two or three hours, Isabella would wake up so Lisa
could nurse her,' Janet said. 'I would take Isabella from that point. I
would burp her ... I would rock her. She would go back to sleep on my
heartbeat' ... Janet's parents were enthralled, and embraced Isabella as
their newest grandchild."
In 2004 Miller decided to leave Jenkins and move to Virginia, agreeing
to a liberal parenting time schedule for Jenkins, who paid child support
to Miller. Yet after Miller got to Virginia, she violated the agreement,
deciding that she wanted sole custody of Isabella and excluding Jenkins
from the child's life. The Liberty Counsel, a close partner of the late
Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has spearheaded Miller's legal
case.
Jenkins, who has helped care for children at day care centers in two
states, treasures pictures she has of Isabella helping her in their
garden, picking through her purse and playing with wooden trains. "These
are hard to look at ... we were happy," she says. She remembers how
Isabella would say "Uppy" when she wanted Janet to pick her up.
Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving
Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and who
live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's been
married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in the
whole thing, of course, was the baby."
Vermont judges have seen the dispute Jenkins' way throughout the case.
On Aug. 25 a Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on
Miller if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation.
Miller could have been incarcerated by the court but Jenkins -- showing
Miller a kindness both unreciprocated and unmerited -- told the court
she didn't want Miller jailed. What she wants is to see her daughter.
Afterwards, Miller declared that she's going to continue her legal
battle to keep Isabella away from Jenkins "because that's what a
Christian is supposed to do."
Miller is, of course, entitled to choose her own sexuality and religion.
But she chose to have a child with Jenkins and shouldn't be able to
obliterate this because it doesn't fit in with her new beliefs. And
however one feels about gay marriage, it is enormously damaging to
children to have one of the two people they love the most in the
world --  a parent -- ripped out of their lives. The saddest part is
that children usually blame themselves, asking, "What did I do to make
mom not want to be with me anymore?"
Lesbian custody battles are now becoming routine, and dozens of them
have been the subject of hotly contested cases in recent years. Some of
the biological mothers are so determined to drive the social mothers out
of their children's lives that they even invoke laws which limit gays'
parental rights as a way to win their cases.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists believe courts
haven't adequately protected the rights of lesbian social mothers
because of the tenuous legal status of gay marriages and relationships,
and they're partly correct. But much of the problem lies in the way
courts treat noncustodial parents, regardless of sexual orientation.
Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers.
According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based
children's advocacy group, more than five million American children each
year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or
blocked by custodial parents.
Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from
her --  a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's
grandparents out of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive
thousands of anguished letters from distraught grandparents who were
excluded from their grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist
Bruce Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for
the system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no
matter how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial the
contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers
like Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for
parent-child bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of shared
custody after a divorce or separation.
Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will both
have the right to share equally in raising their children. These
presumptions do exist in some states, but they are generally weak and
too easily evaded.
Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead of
allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with little
or no consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be
investigated seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences
for false accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars
instead tend to "err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse claims.
False accusers rarely suffer any penalty, while children must bear the
loss of a parent.
Jenkins echoes the pain of millions of non-custodial parents when she
"There is a part of me missing. I feel like my heart has been ripped out
beating."
Glenn Sacks, M.A., is executive director of Fathers & Families. His
columns have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United
States. Ned Holstein, M.D., is the organization's chairman of the board.
Their Web site ishttp://FathersandFamilies.org
For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here.
"Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller
if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation."
Uhuh, contempt with no penalty. Now THAT sure is effective. When was the
last time you saw the threat of fine, let alone actual imposition of
such, when a MAN is the one being denied visitation? "Family" court
discrimination is so glaring even sunglasses don't help...............
My "fines" for contempt were usually paying attorney fees that were
inflated far above the actual legal costs to have the contempt hearing.  I
paid the equivalent of one year's legal bills for my ex for matters
totally unrelated to the contempt charge.  Once I got a 30 day jail
sentence, but it was suspended in lieu of two year's probation.  The
family law system does treat fathers differently.
BTW - A couple of years ago I contacted my state senator expressing my
belief any new laws authorizing gay marriage would also require new laws
to cover gay divorce.  He told me there would be no need for gay divorce
laws. It was his opinion heterosexual divorce laws would work just fine
for gay divorces.  I still doubt he was right.
My question is how can the law that the man pays the woman apply when there
is NO man in a lesbian "divorce"? Or for that matter, no woman when two men
"divorce" each other?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.
Ted
2009-10-25 21:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.
Big D
2009-10-25 22:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Since when are only women custodial parents? Are you serious?
You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't
you?
I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents
would appreciate your comment.
I'd like to see proof that ONLY women are custodial parents.
Please point me to the site where you got your information from.
Somewhere there is a site that shows women being custodial parents
100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion
since it lacks fact to back it up.
Ted
2009-10-26 00:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big D
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
Since when are only women custodial parents? Are you serious?
You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't
you?
You seem a bit confused. I haven't made any statement.
Post by Big D
I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents
would appreciate your comment.
I'd like to see proof that ONLY women are custodial parents.
Please point me to the site where you got your information from.
Somewhere there is a site that shows women being custodial parents
100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion
since it lacks fact to back it up.
Bob W
2009-10-26 02:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Since when are only women custodial parents? Are you serious?
You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't
you?
I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents
would appreciate your comment.
I'd like to see proof that ONLY women are custodial parents.
Please point me to the site where you got your information from.
Somewhere there is a site that shows women being custodial parents
100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion
since it lacks fact to back it up.

======

Here's the point being missed. When a heterosexual couple divorces the
bio-mom gets preference for custody the vast majority of the time. And when
a homosexual couple divorces the bio-mom gets preferential treatment for
custody the vast majority of the time. The legal standard is supposed to be
the best interest of the children. Yet both heterosexual and homosexual
divorce proceedings seem to ignore the best interest standard and go with
the bio-mom standard.

My point was the bias towards bio-mom custody gets exposed as the judicial
preference when both types of sexual orientation parents divorce. Both of
those outcomes are in conflict with the best interest custody standard
written into the custody laws. The non-bio parent loses custody in both
cases which means the bio-mom is getting preference regardless of the
parenting abilities of the other parent that could benefit the children.

Some smart lawyer will figure out how to make the legal arguments to expose
the obvious discrepancies between the law as written and the law as applied.
And I think the homosexual custody divorce outcomes will be the opening to
do so.
Chris
2009-10-26 15:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big D
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Since when are only women custodial parents? Are you serious?
You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't
you?
I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents
would appreciate your comment.
I'd like to see proof that ONLY women are custodial parents.
Please point me to the site where you got your information from.
Somewhere there is a site that shows women being custodial parents
100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion
since it lacks fact to back it up.
======
Here's the point being missed. When a heterosexual couple divorces the
bio-mom gets preference for custody the vast majority of the time. And
when a homosexual couple divorces the bio-mom gets preferential treatment
for custody the vast majority of the time. The legal standard is supposed
to be the best interest of the children. Yet both heterosexual and
homosexual divorce proceedings seem to ignore the best interest standard
and go with the bio-mom standard.
My point was the bias towards bio-mom custody gets exposed as the judicial
preference when both types of sexual orientation parents divorce. Both of
those outcomes are in conflict with the best interest custody standard
written into the custody laws. The non-bio parent loses custody in both
cases which means the bio-mom is getting preference regardless of the
parenting abilities of the other parent that could benefit the children.
Some smart lawyer will figure out how to make the legal arguments to
expose the obvious discrepancies between the law as written and the law as
applied. And I think the homosexual custody divorce outcomes will be the
opening to do so.
Don't hold your breath. They're simply going to say the best interest of the
child is to be with the mother because the mother is the best parent.
Bob W
2009-10-26 16:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Big D
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Since when are only women custodial parents? Are you serious?
You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't
you?
I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents
would appreciate your comment.
I'd like to see proof that ONLY women are custodial parents.
Please point me to the site where you got your information from.
Somewhere there is a site that shows women being custodial parents
100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion
since it lacks fact to back it up.
======
Here's the point being missed. When a heterosexual couple divorces the
bio-mom gets preference for custody the vast majority of the time. And
when a homosexual couple divorces the bio-mom gets preferential treatment
for custody the vast majority of the time. The legal standard is
supposed to be the best interest of the children. Yet both heterosexual
and homosexual divorce proceedings seem to ignore the best interest
standard and go with the bio-mom standard.
My point was the bias towards bio-mom custody gets exposed as the
judicial preference when both types of sexual orientation parents
divorce. Both of those outcomes are in conflict with the best interest
custody standard written into the custody laws. The non-bio parent loses
custody in both cases which means the bio-mom is getting preference
regardless of the parenting abilities of the other parent that could
benefit the children.
Some smart lawyer will figure out how to make the legal arguments to
expose the obvious discrepancies between the law as written and the law
as applied. And I think the homosexual custody divorce outcomes will be
the opening to do so.
Don't hold your breath. They're simply going to say the best interest of
the child is to be with the mother because the mother is the best parent.
So which parent is the "mother" when both domestic partner parents are gay
men or when neither of the lesbian women are the bio-mom?

If the courts are able to apply the best interest of the children standard
in those scenarios, then the courts should not be allowed to use some
different custody standard, like bio-mom preference, just because of the
parents have a different sexual orientation. I think there will be an
opening to argue reverse discrimination based on how the sexual orientation
of heterosexual parents are treated differently than homosexual parents.
Chris
2009-10-26 20:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob W
Post by Chris
Post by Big D
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Since when are only women custodial parents? Are you serious?
You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't
you?
I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents
would appreciate your comment.
I'd like to see proof that ONLY women are custodial parents.
Please point me to the site where you got your information from.
Somewhere there is a site that shows women being custodial parents
100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion
since it lacks fact to back it up.
======
Here's the point being missed. When a heterosexual couple divorces the
bio-mom gets preference for custody the vast majority of the time. And
when a homosexual couple divorces the bio-mom gets preferential
treatment for custody the vast majority of the time. The legal standard
is supposed to be the best interest of the children. Yet both
heterosexual and homosexual divorce proceedings seem to ignore the best
interest standard and go with the bio-mom standard.
My point was the bias towards bio-mom custody gets exposed as the
judicial preference when both types of sexual orientation parents
divorce. Both of those outcomes are in conflict with the best interest
custody standard written into the custody laws. The non-bio parent
loses custody in both cases which means the bio-mom is getting
preference regardless of the parenting abilities of the other parent
that could benefit the children.
Some smart lawyer will figure out how to make the legal arguments to
expose the obvious discrepancies between the law as written and the law
as applied. And I think the homosexual custody divorce outcomes will be
the opening to do so.
Don't hold your breath. They're simply going to say the best interest of
the child is to be with the mother because the mother is the best parent.
So which parent is the "mother" when both domestic partner parents are gay
men or when neither of the lesbian women are the bio-mom?
Pretty remote already that even one man has custody, let alone TWO men. And
probably just as rare that NEITHER lesbian woman would be the bio-mom. But
in the unlikely event such cases arise, any influence on the system as a
whole will be nil. It's anybody's guess how "family" court will behave since
it already operates without a rudder.
Post by Bob W
If the courts are able to apply the best interest of the children standard
in those scenarios, then the courts should not be allowed to use some
different custody standard, like bio-mom preference, just because of the
parents have a different sexual orientation. I think there will be an
opening to argue reverse discrimination based on how the sexual
orientation of heterosexual parents are treated differently than
homosexual parents.
Like I said, don't hold your breath. You're assuming that reason will be
part of the equation. Just look at their DNA argument.
Big D
2009-11-03 21:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big D
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
Since when are only women custodial parents? Are you serious?
You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't
you?
I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents
would appreciate your comment.
I'd like to see proof that ONLY women are custodial parents.
Please point me to the site where you got your information from.
Somewhere there is a site that shows women being custodial parents
100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion
since it lacks fact to back it up.
======
Here's the point being missed.  When a heterosexual couple divorces the
bio-mom gets preference for custody the vast majority of the time.  And when
a homosexual couple divorces the bio-mom gets preferential treatment for
custody the vast majority of the time.  The legal standard is supposed to be
the best interest of the children.  Yet both heterosexual and homosexual
divorce proceedings seem to ignore the best interest standard and go with
the bio-mom standard.
My point was the bias towards bio-mom custody gets exposed as the judicial
preference when both types of sexual orientation parents divorce.  Both of
those outcomes are in conflict with the best interest custody standard
written into the custody laws.  The non-bio parent loses custody in both
cases which means the bio-mom is getting preference regardless of the
parenting abilities of the other parent that could benefit the children.
Some smart lawyer will figure out how to make the legal arguments to expose
the obvious discrepancies between the law as written and the law as applied.
And I think the homosexual custody divorce outcomes will be the opening to
do so.
Bob,
I think the first case of this kind of civil proceeding will set the
precedent of the following cases. Until the time comes when a same sex
couple can marry legally and then divorce, we will be able to assume
the outcomes of any cases pertaining to same sex couples in a fair
manner.
Big D
2009-11-03 21:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?
I know they are NOT my words, so they MUST be your words, since they
never came from my keyboard. Of course there is always the chance that
you have made yourself believe I said that, and then you'd be hard
pressed to prove it, since I NEVER SAID THAT.
Are you just trying to make yourself look good by telling falsehoods
on me, or are you that deluded that you have talked yourself into
believing that I made that statement?
Post by Ted
You seem a bit confused. I haven't made any statement.
but clearly you did, because those are YOUR words and NOT MY words.
Why would you do something like that and prove yourself a liar?


Once again, I ask for the proof of the statement that YOU made to me
concerning custodial parents and the gender of ALL custodial parents
being female.
If you are unable to do so, just admit to that, but it does make you
look like a giant wanker to sit there and lie so boldly about what you
said, and then try to tell me that I said it, when we BOTH know those
are your words.

Let me know when you get that proof there, buddy. Don't worry, I won't
hod my breath;)
Ted
2009-11-03 22:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big D
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
I know they are NOT my words, so they MUST be your words, since they
never came from my keyboard.
According to the attribution that appears above, someone called Big D
<***@gmail.com> typed those words on Oct 26, 6:36 am.
Isn't that you?
Post by Big D
Of course there is always the chance that
you have made yourself believe I said that, and then you'd be hard
pressed to prove it, since I NEVER SAID THAT.
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
Are you saying you didn't type the section above?
Post by Big D
Are you just trying to make yourself look good by telling falsehoods
on me, or are you that deluded that you have talked yourself into
believing that I made that statement?
It looks to me like you made that statement.
Post by Big D
You even went as far as to respond to me this trife shit:>You seem a bit confused.  I haven't made any statement.
but clearly you did,
No, I'm not making any statement. I'm asking you to what extent you
agree with: "only women are custodial parents and men are treated
differently" which somebody called Big D <***@gmail.com>
appears to have typed at 6:36 am on Oct 26.
Post by Big D
because those are YOUR words
No, I didn't type them.
Post by Big D
and NOT MY words.
But they appear to have been typed by you. How strange.
Post by Big D
Why would you do something like that and prove yourself a liar?
Once again, I ask for the proof of the statement that YOU made to me
concerning custodial parents and the gender of ALL custodial parents
being female.
You do seem to be confused.
Post by Big D
If you are unable to do so, just admit to that, but it does make you
look like a giant wanker to sit there and lie so boldly about what you
said, and then try to tell me that I said it, when we BOTH know those
are your words.
Let me know when you get that proof there, buddy. Don't worry, I won't
hod my breath;)
Big D
2009-11-16 00:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
I know they are NOT my words, so they MUST be your words, since they
never came from my keyboard.
According to the attribution that appears above, someone called Big D
Isn't that you?
Post by Big D
Of course there is always the chance that
you have made yourself believe I said that, and then you'd be hard
pressed to prove it, since I NEVER SAID THAT.
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
Are you saying you didn't type the section above?
Post by Big D
Are you just trying to make yourself look good by telling falsehoods
on me, or are you that deluded that you have talked yourself into
believing that I made that statement?
It looks to me like you made that statement.
Post by Big D
You even went as far as to respond to me this trife shit:>You seem a bit confused.  I haven't made any statement.
but clearly you did,
No, I'm not making any statement.  I'm asking you to what extent you
agree with: "only women are custodial parents and men are treated
appears to have typed at 6:36 am on Oct 26.
Post by Big D
because those are YOUR words
No, I didn't type them.
Post by Big D
and NOT MY words.
But they appear to have been typed by you.  How strange.
Post by Big D
Why would you do something like that and prove yourself a liar?
Once again, I ask for the proof of the statement that YOU made to me
concerning custodial parents and the gender of ALL custodial parents
being female.
You do seem to be confused.
Post by Big D
If you are unable to do so, just admit to that, but it does make you
look like a giant wanker to sit there and lie so boldly about what you
said, and then try to tell me that I said it, when we BOTH know those
are your words.
Let me know when you get that proof there, buddy. Don't worry, I won't
hod my breath;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My bad, I didn't recognize my words when you took them out of context,
partly because they were not my words, just snippets of the complete
statement, which was:

Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).


I guess you don't know that once you take something out of context and
reword it, or omit certain key elements, it stops being the other
person's statement-as you can see, and becomes the distorters
statement. Well, no that you know that, try not to let it happen
again.

Just so I am being clear, this was my statement:
Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).


And this is your statement (It stopped belonging to me once you
changed context and omited key phrases):

"Only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently". These are your words. To what
extent do you believe that?

So, it is your statement now. That is actually not even a statement
anymore, just random words you picked out of the entire statement.
Ted
2009-11-16 01:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big D
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
Post by Big D
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
I know they are NOT my words, so they MUST be your words, since they
never came from my keyboard.
According to the attribution that appears above, someone called Big D
Isn't that you?
Post by Big D
Of course there is always the chance that
you have made yourself believe I said that, and then you'd be hard
pressed to prove it, since I NEVER SAID THAT.
Post by Ted
Post by Big D
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
Are you saying you didn't type the section above?
Post by Big D
Are you just trying to make yourself look good by telling falsehoods
on me, or are you that deluded that you have talked yourself into
believing that I made that statement?
It looks to me like you made that statement.
Post by Big D
You even went as far as to respond to me this trife shit:>You seem a bit confused.  I haven't made any statement.
but clearly you did,
No, I'm not making any statement.  I'm asking you to what extent you
agree with: "only women are custodial parents and men are treated
appears to have typed at 6:36 am on Oct 26.
Post by Big D
because those are YOUR words
No, I didn't type them.
Post by Big D
and NOT MY words.
But they appear to have been typed by you.  How strange.
Post by Big D
Why would you do something like that and prove yourself a liar?
Once again, I ask for the proof of the statement that YOU made to me
concerning custodial parents and the gender of ALL custodial parents
being female.
You do seem to be confused.
Post by Big D
If you are unable to do so, just admit to that, but it does make you
look like a giant wanker to sit there and lie so boldly about what you
said, and then try to tell me that I said it, when we BOTH know those
are your words.
Let me know when you get that proof there, buddy. Don't worry, I won't
hod my breath;)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My bad, I didn't recognize my words when you took them out of context,
partly because they were not my words, just snippets of the complete
Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
I guess you don't know that once you take something out of context and
reword it, or omit certain key elements, it stops being the other
person's statement-as you can see, and becomes the distorters
statement. Well, no that you know that, try not to let it happen
again.
Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).
And this is your statement (It stopped belonging to me once you
"Only women are custodial parents and men are
 treated differently".  These are your words.  To what
extent do you believe that?
So, it is your statement now. That is actually not even a statement
anymore, just random words you picked out of the entire statement.
Hmmm... but to what extent do you believe that "only women are
custodial parents and men are treated differently"? I am interested
in "extent". A majority? An overwhelming majority? Equal? What?
Chris
2009-10-26 02:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Bob W
Post by Chris
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-doc...
With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles
By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.
It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around
the cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and
expensive legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her
former civil union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the
daughter they raised together.
Miller and Jenkins joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000
as Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, and had a child named
Isabella Miller-Jenkins together in 2002. Lisa was artificially
inseminated from a sperm donor who they chose because his physical
traits closely matched Janet's, who became Isabella's social mother.
"When Isabella was born, Janet had the honor of cutting the umbilical
cord ... Lisa and Janet had researched how best to bond with the baby
... [at night] 'Every two or three hours, Isabella would wake up so Lisa
could nurse her,' Janet said. 'I would take Isabella from that point. I
would burp her ... I would rock her. She would go back to sleep on my
heartbeat' ... Janet's parents were enthralled, and embraced Isabella as
their newest grandchild."
In 2004 Miller decided to leave Jenkins and move to Virginia, agreeing
to a liberal parenting time schedule for Jenkins, who paid child support
to Miller. Yet after Miller got to Virginia, she violated the agreement,
deciding that she wanted sole custody of Isabella and excluding Jenkins
from the child's life. The Liberty Counsel, a close partner of the late
Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has spearheaded Miller's legal
case.
Jenkins, who has helped care for children at day care centers in two
states, treasures pictures she has of Isabella helping her in their
garden, picking through her purse and playing with wooden trains. "These
are hard to look at ... we were happy," she says. She remembers how
Isabella would say "Uppy" when she wanted Janet to pick her up.
Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving
Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and who
live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's been
married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in the
whole thing, of course, was the baby."
Vermont judges have seen the dispute Jenkins' way throughout the case.
On Aug. 25 a Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on
Miller if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation.
Miller could have been incarcerated by the court but Jenkins -- showing
Miller a kindness both unreciprocated and unmerited -- told the court
she didn't want Miller jailed. What she wants is to see her daughter.
Afterwards, Miller declared that she's going to continue her legal
battle to keep Isabella away from Jenkins "because that's what a
Christian is supposed to do."
Miller is, of course, entitled to choose her own sexuality and religion.
But she chose to have a child with Jenkins and shouldn't be able to
obliterate this because it doesn't fit in with her new beliefs. And
however one feels about gay marriage, it is enormously damaging to
children to have one of the two people they love the most in the
world -- a parent -- ripped out of their lives. The saddest part is
that children usually blame themselves, asking, "What did I do to make
mom not want to be with me anymore?"
Lesbian custody battles are now becoming routine, and dozens of them
have been the subject of hotly contested cases in recent years. Some of
the biological mothers are so determined to drive the social mothers out
of their children's lives that they even invoke laws which limit gays'
parental rights as a way to win their cases.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists believe courts
haven't adequately protected the rights of lesbian social mothers
because of the tenuous legal status of gay marriages and
relationships,
and they're partly correct. But much of the problem lies in the way
courts treat noncustodial parents, regardless of sexual orientation.
Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers.
According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based
children's advocacy group, more than five million American children each
year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or
blocked by custodial parents.
Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from
her -- a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's
grandparents out of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive
thousands of anguished letters from distraught grandparents who were
excluded from their grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist
Bruce Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for
the system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no
matter how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial the
contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers
like Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for
parent-child bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of shared
custody after a divorce or separation.
Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will both
have the right to share equally in raising their children. These
presumptions do exist in some states, but they are generally weak and
too easily evaded.
Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead of
allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with little
or no consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be
investigated seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences
for false accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars
instead tend to "err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse claims.
False accusers rarely suffer any penalty, while children must bear the
loss of a parent.
Jenkins echoes the pain of millions of non-custodial parents when she
"There is a part of me missing. I feel like my heart has been ripped out
beating."
Glenn Sacks, M.A., is executive director of Fathers & Families. His
columns have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United
States. Ned Holstein, M.D., is the organization's chairman of the board.
Their Web site ishttp://FathersandFamilies.org
For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here.
"Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller
if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation."
Uhuh, contempt with no penalty. Now THAT sure is effective. When was the
last time you saw the threat of fine, let alone actual imposition of
such, when a MAN is the one being denied visitation? "Family" court
discrimination is so glaring even sunglasses don't help...............
My "fines" for contempt were usually paying attorney fees that were
inflated far above the actual legal costs to have the contempt hearing.
I
paid the equivalent of one year's legal bills for my ex for matters
totally unrelated to the contempt charge. Once I got a 30 day jail
sentence, but it was suspended in lieu of two year's probation. The
family law system does treat fathers differently.
BTW - A couple of years ago I contacted my state senator expressing my
belief any new laws authorizing gay marriage would also require new laws
to cover gay divorce. He told me there would be no need for gay divorce
laws. It was his opinion heterosexual divorce laws would work just fine
for gay divorces. I still doubt he was right.
My question is how can the law that the man pays the woman apply when there
is NO man in a lesbian "divorce"? Or for that matter, no woman when two men
"divorce" each other?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible
for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not
gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe
it is.

*************

Untrue. The woman, by default, is automatically the recipient of the free
cash. The burden of trying to reverse this rests with the man. Think of it
like a new computer. When you take it out of the box, it comes with default
settings. It is up to the user to change such settings. Your argument is
akin to saying there is no debtors' prison; that it is simply incarceration
for "contempt of court". Well guess what, a rose by any other name still
smells like a ROSE.

**************

I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem
with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial
parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that
particular question when you are supposed to know the difference
between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents)
and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are
treated differently).

************

I asked it because I was seeking a legitimate answer, that's why.

*****************

You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into
effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your
agenda.

***********

No I won't.

************

The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in
same sex divorce.
Loading...