|
Grandpa
Santa Cruz, CA
|
For those who care I did report Bill S.
to the Pleasant Hill Pd and provided
a second witness to Bill's transgressions
against the children at the day care center.
Bill had bragged to me that he was involved
with the 'White Bear' orgainzation and the
undercover officers were very, very interested
in 'White Bear' and any information we had on that.
The week after we made the report to PHPD
Bill quit his job at the day care center
and moved to San Francisco because
'Contra Costa is too HOT for ME!'
A year later at the Christmas party
Bill's hippie friends apologized to me
for sticking up for Bill when I told
what I saw him do.
We were wrong, we are sorry.
How many kids did he get to because
some well meaning but ultimately confused
individual stuck up for a perv who was
molesting small boys at a day care?
Disgusting.
|
|
“Ahhhh hee ahw”
Since: Aug 09
Twin Cities
|
Please wait...
Grandpa wrote: (to BlueLamp)...Every strident and shrill voice
like yours gives cover for these freaks.
Put a sock in it... Hey Gramps, I'm right here... puttin' any part of me in him or him in me is completely out of the question, so don't be making any offers on my behalf. Capiche?
|
|
“Fight bigotry.”
Since: Feb 07
Toms River, NJ
|
Please wait...
Hey, Gramps, nobody is defending child molesters, we are however defending ourselves against your hatred and lies.
|
|
“Does not play well ”
Since: Nov 07
Salina, KS
|
Please wait...
The Virgin Queen wrote: A woman with a child gets into a relationship with a guy who is not the child's father.(edited down for length) In your hypothetical the best that the guy could ever hope for would be visitation. BUT and it is a really big one, to gain that he would have the burden of proving that not only was there anything similar to a "parent-child" relationship between himself and the child of his former partner AND that a right to continued visitation would be in the child's best interests. Given that you've made the guy into an addict, quickly moves the best interest consideration into the not bloody likely category, even if there were a "parent-child" relationship proved. HOWEVER, your hypothetical is too dissimilar on the facts to have any meaning here. First, the couple would have to be married, not merely living together. Vermont's Civil Union law was designed to be the legal equivalent of marriage, whether you like the idea or not. Second, the child could not be the result of a previous relationship, they are viewed differently under the law. A step-parent's rights are different from those of a parent. A step can win visitation in the best interest of the child, but his custodial rights would be secondary to those of the biological father. The child in your hypothetical, in order to match the real situation, would have to be the result of artificial insemination of the wife DURING the marriage, due to the husband's infertility/impotence. This would grant him the same rights as Ms Jenkins in the actual story, as the non-biological parent of a child born into the marriage. Make those changes to your hypothetical and the answer becomes, unless not in the best interest of the child, his parental rights to visitation and/or custody are a given under the law. But since he's still the junkie you wrote him to be, if visitation is granted, it would be at best supervised and of very short duration and custody would be out of the question, even if the circumstances were like they are in this story with mom not allowing court ordered visitation. She maybe being a bitch, but he's still a junkie. Despite your and Ms Miller's views on the subject, Ms Jenkins still being a Lesbian isn't even a consideration. Since she was one when she and Miller entered their civil union, she was one when they planned the child, she was one when she became a legal non-biological parent, when their child was born, so the fact that she still is one, is completely irrelevant to the best interests of their child and her visitation/custodial rights. The fact that Ms. Miller claims to no longer be a Lesbian and that she has adopted a particular set of religious beliefs, is also irrelevant to her ex's visitation and/or custodial rights. While those beliefs do get a say in what the child's best interests are in regards to the manner in which the child will be raised, they do not trump Ms Jenkins' rights to influence the same. The only reason Miller is losing custody of THEIR child is that she has demonstrated herself to be untrustworthy in living up to the custody agreement and not because she is a Christian and not because Jenkins is a Lesbian. In your hypothetical, if the non-biological father weren't a junkie and yet his ex-wife were pulling crap like this, not only would he get custody too, it would have been ordered a couple of years ago at least. Your only hang-up with this story is that it involves a parent who happens to be gay. You're letting your obsession with homosexuality get in the way of reason.
|
|
The Virgin Queen
Miami, FL
|
cwbuff wrote: <quoted text>
I agree with you, but unless she gets one heck of a lawyer, legally I think she's screwed. Run Lisa run.
|
|
Ocean View
Carmel, CA
|
Rick in Kansas wrote: <quoted text> In your hypothetical the best that the guy could ever hope for would be visitation. BUT and it is a really big one, to gain that he would have the burden of proving that not only was there anything similar to a "parent-child" relationship between himself and the child of his former partner AND that a right to continued visitation would be in the child's best interests. Given that you've made the guy into an addict, quickly moves the best interest consideration into the not bloody likely category, even if there were a "parent-child" relationship proved. HOWEVER, your hypothetical is too dissimilar on the facts to have any meaning here.
First, the couple would have to be married, not merely living together. Vermont's Civil Union law was designed to be the legal equivalent of marriage, whether you like the idea or not. Second, the child could not be the result of a previous relationship, they are viewed differently under the law. A step-parent's rights are different from those of a parent. A step can win visitation in the best interest of the child, but his custodial rights would be secondary to those of the biological father. The child in your hypothetical, in order to match the real situation, would have to be the result of artificial insemination of the wife DURING the marriage, due to the husband's infertility/impotence. This would grant him the same rights as Ms Jenkins in the actual story, as the non-biological parent of a child born into the marriage.
Make those changes to your hypothetical and the answer becomes, unless not in the best interest of the child, his parental rights to visitation and/or custody are a given under the law. But since he's still the junkie you wrote him to be, if visitation is granted, it would be at best supervised and of very short duration and custody would be out of the question, even if the circumstances were like they are in this story with mom not allowing court ordered visitation. She maybe being a ****, but he's still a junkie.
Despite your and Ms Miller's views on the subject, Ms Jenkins still being a Lesbian isn't even a consideration. Since she was one when she and Miller entered their civil union, she was one when they planned the child, she was one when she became a legal non-biological parent, when their child was born, so the fact that she still is one, is completely irrelevant to the best interests of their child and her visitation/custodial rights. The fact that Ms. Miller claims to no longer be a Lesbian and that she has adopted a particular set of religious beliefs, is also irrelevant to her ex's visitation and/or custodial rights. While those beliefs do get a say in what the child's best interests are in regards to the manner in which the child will be raised, they do not trump Ms Jenkins' rights to influence the same.
The only reason Miller is losing custody of THEIR child is that she has demonstrated herself to be untrustworthy in living up to the custody agreement and not because she is a Christian and not because Jenkins is a Lesbian. In your hypothetical, if the non-biological father weren't a junkie and yet his ex-wife were pulling crap like this, not only would he get custody too, it would have been ordered a couple of years ago at least. Your only hang-up with this story is that it involves a parent who happens to be gay. You're letting your obsession with homosexuality get in the way of reason. Again, excellent analysis.
|
|
The Virgin Queen
Miami, FL
|
Rick in Kansas wrote: <quoted text> I appreciate your legal explanation, but you are still missing the point. I was explaining Ms. Millers position from a religious point of view and not a legal one. I and any evangelical Christian with a conscience believe that this situation where the laws of this country have been so manipulated that a Christian mother is forced to share custody and perhaps custody of her child althogether to another invdividual whose very lifestyle goes against her religious beliefs. Had the laws not been so perverted by liberal activists with their own amoral social agendas, a woman would not have been able to legally appoint herself as the second parent of her lesbian lovers child, and this whole tragic situation would never have occured. This is yet another manifestation of the great harm that comes from the liberal War on the Family, and as usual a child is caught in the crossfire.
|
|
Grandpa
Santa Cruz, CA
|
The Virgin Queen wrote: <quoted text>
Run Lisa run. I think I'd like to donate some money to the Lisa Miller defence fund. She believes she will be protected from the evil that hunts her. A real Mother will do anything to protect her child from abuse. Both Mother and daughter are fleeing from emotional and physical abuse at the hands of the former lover. Run Lisa RUN!! You GO GIRL!!!
|
|
|
Ocean View
Carmel, CA
|
The Virgin Queen wrote: <quoted text>
I appreciate your legal explanation, but you are still missing the point. I was explaining Ms. Millers position from a religious point of view and not a legal one. I and any evangelical Christian with a conscience believe that this situation where the laws of this country have been so manipulated that a Christian mother is forced to share custody and perhaps custody of her child althogether to another invdividual whose very lifestyle goes against her religious beliefs. Had the laws not been so perverted by liberal activists with their own amoral social agendas, a woman would not have been able to legally appoint herself as the second parent of her lesbian lovers child, and this whole tragic situation would never have occured. This is yet another manifestation of the great harm that comes from the liberal War on the Family, and as usual a child is caught in the crossfire. Fortunately, we don't have religious courts in the United States, and citizens have rights instead. This isn't 18th Century France or 16th Century Spain.
|
|
monet
Glendale, AZ
|
ACLU-Tom wrote: Hey, Gramps, nobody is defending child molesters, we are however defending ourselves against your hatred and lies. Ah yes, the deviants rush in to defend their own, no matter what the unnatural cause, charging hate and lies, the very offences that they themselves are guilty of.
|
|
“Does not play well ”
Since: Nov 07
Salina, KS
|
Please wait...
The Virgin Queen wrote: I appreciate your legal explanation, but you are still missing the point. I was explaining Ms. Millers position from a religious point of view and not a legal one. I and any evangelical Christian with a conscience believe that this situation where the laws of this country have been so manipulated that a Christian mother is forced to share custody and perhaps custody of her child althogether to another invdividual whose very lifestyle goes against her religious beliefs. Had the laws not been so perverted by liberal activists with their own amoral social agendas, a woman would not have been able to legally appoint herself as the second parent of her lesbian lovers child, and this whole tragic situation would never have occured. This is yet another manifestation of the great harm that comes from the liberal War on the Family, and as usual a child is caught in the crossfire. I didn't miss your point, I answered it. Miller's religious beliefs are no more relevant to Jenkins' parental rights than Jenkins' being a Lesbian. The laws have not been "perverted", they were written to identify and protect the rights of non-biological parents in a marriage, while they were originally written with opposite sex couples in mind, now that same sex couples have a right to marry and are protected by these laws is just happenstance. While Miller has every right to her religious beliefs they don't supercede her ex's rights as their child's parent. The outcome of this case would have been the same (and probably even quicker) if the non-biological parent had been Miller's husband and he had remained a Muslim after their divorce and her conversion to Evangelical Christianity. Her religious objection to his "lifestyle" being in "moral opposition" to her beliefs would still be completely irrelevant to his parental rights. Your hang ups about homosexuality and religion are making you less than rational here. They just don't matter.
|
|
cwbuff
Philadelphia, PA
|
Ocean View wrote: <quoted text>
Fortunately, we don't have religious courts in the United States, and citizens have rights instead. This isn't 18th Century France or 16th Century Spain. You are absolutely fooling yourself if you believe that. When you go to family court you are at the judge's mercy and all his biases. Perhaps he/she just went through their own nasty divorce and aren't too happy with the opposite sex at the time, maybe they have racial prejudices, or perhaps they just don't like the way you look. They are just human after all. Jury trials have to be even worse. People can say they can be objective but can they really?
|
|
Clueless
Minneapolis, MN
|
Rick in Kansas wrote: <quoted text>The answer to that is simple, the majority is wrong. It happens, has happened and will continue to happen, a majority of people, sometimes even a huge majority of people, can be talked into to doing something discriminatory if not downright evil to a minority of those among them. <quoted text>You claim that I am wrong, but do nothing to prove that I am. Why is that?<quoted text>Neither are you. The final say on the matter is left to the US Constitution which has been interpreted to say that marriage is a fundamental right of a free people and in order for that right to be restricted to us by our government, a compelling governmental interest must exist against such a marriage taking place. The race of those involved has not proved to be such an interest, being a dead beat parent has not proved to be such an interest, even being in a "guest of the state" as a convicted felon has proved to be such an interest, so why would the gender of those who wish to marry qualify? Other than your "majority" opposition that is? <quoted text>While there are some state laws which attempt to prohibit those who are "insane, idiot, feeble minded, or epileptic" from marrying (the eugenics movement, another not so great moment in American history), the Americans with Disabilities Act has rendered them constitutionally suspect. Anyone who is able to prove a capacity to consent to such a relationship is qualified to marry.
***CONTINUED*** Thanks, my friend, for ansering; I have been away today. One by one: the majority is not right or wrong, it is a consensus and, therefore, the statement of society. You are entitled to believe what you want, but you are no more right than anyone else. Next, I cannot prove you are wrong anymore than you can prove you are right; see above. And the Constitution doesn't say anything at all about any of this; it leaves it to the states. Check the 10th ammendment. The state can set any determining factors the consensus of said state concludes. And, no, not everyone who can consent to marry can legally do so. Not only will my son not be able to, I work with adults who are able to make certain decisions and not others based on their low IQ abilities. Do I really need to go on? You see predjudice; the "majority" sees a problem with the definition of family being anything anyone wants it to be. That's it. Period. The people you advocate for are creating situations in which children are used as pawns in your game of changing society. Let's have the debate, and if you win, so be it. I am willing to lose.......... are you?
|
|
“LIVE WELL, LAUGH OFTEN”
Since: Aug 08
LOVE MUCH:-)
|
Please wait...
cwbuff wrote: <quoted text>
You are absolutely fooling yourself if you believe that. When you go to family court you are at the judge's mercy and all his biases. Perhaps he/she just went through their own nasty divorce and aren't too happy with the opposite sex at the time, maybe they have racial prejudices, or perhaps they just don't like the way you look. They are just human after all. Jury trials have to be even worse. People can say they can be objective but can they really? So, then you are accusing the Judges in both states as being liberal, right? I guess if they had ruled in Lisa Miller's favor you would HAIL them as being upstanding Justices, right? You can't have it both ways........sorry you don't understand that.
|
|
Clueless
Minneapolis, MN
|
Rick in Kansas wrote: <quoted text>There is no evidence that those who become pedophiles are in fact born that way and even IF there were such evidence, sexual acts engaged in by pedophiles and those to whom they are "oriented" to, are easily proved as physically, emotionally and psychologically harmful to those with whom they would engage in such acts and so by any standard there is a state interest served by preventing such acts from occurring, let alone given legal recognition. IF someone were born to be a pedophile, they should be free to be a pedophile in mind only. A very definite line is drawn and has to be drawn at the point where engaging in sexual acts as a pedophile with a child is strictly forbidden as it is easily proved harmful to that child (no ifs, ands, or buts about it). <quoted text> One word, consent. <quoted text>Even IF they are born that way, since their potential sexual partners are incapable of providing informed consent to sexual acts, any such acts can and should be deemed criminal in nature.
<quoted text>Unfortunately yes, BUT, we go back to that one word CONSENT. <quoted text>Our committed relationships need the rights, benefits and protections associated with the LEGAL definitions of words such as "marriage" and "family". Why there is so much opposition to that is beyond me. <quoted text>You can already marry one of those, heck, in around half the states you can marry all the way up to a first cousin and have that marriage recognized in all but one state. Something you need to realize, is that without legal recognition for a same sex couple, if that sixth cousin is your closest living relative, they are your legal next of kin, even if you don't have a clue as to who they are, NOT your partner, no matter how long you may have been together. <quoted text>I hope I've helped. A Happy New Year to you and yours.... Again, thanks for answering; you are the only one who has. I have to say, though, that you appear to be saying what I hypothosized; everyone is perfectly normal except them. And then, only because "we" can consent. Children "consent", everyday. So do the mentally ill. So do the physically and emotionally abused. So do the drunk and drug users. Sorry, but the argument falls short. "Consent" changes hour by hour with some people. And I am sorry; the term "6th cousin" was just a loose term meaning the sixth form of sexual orientation pedophiles claim to be, not a relation to you. I should have been more clear. It is somewhat confusing to me, in the end, that you consider all who fall under the "rainbow" of GLBT perfectly normal and our 6th cousin (sorry) a criminal. Do you really believe that, or is it just for acceptance purposes? And I hope your new year is good to you, also, my friend.
|
|
cwbuff
Philadelphia, PA
|
Rose T-H wrote: <quoted text>
So, then you are accusing the Judges in both states as being liberal, right?
I guess if they had ruled in Lisa Miller's favor you would HAIL them as being upstanding Justices, right?
You can't have it both ways........sorry you don't understand that. NO, I'M SORRY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Did you even read the posts or did you just jump right in and assume? I wasn't referring to judges in any particular state neither was I referring to this particular case. Don't be so damn defensive. If you just want to attack before you engage your brain please, let me know so I can ignore you.
|
|
“LIVE WELL, LAUGH OFTEN”
Since: Aug 08
LOVE MUCH:-)
|
Please wait...
cwbuff wrote: <quoted text>
NO, I'M SORRY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Did you even read the posts or did you just jump right in and assume? I wasn't referring to judges in any particular state neither was I referring to this particular case. Don't be so damn defensive. If you just want to attack before you engage your brain please, let me know so I can ignore you. I read your post.......and that's what I got out of it.......either that or you seriously believe that judges make decisions based on their personal feelings........and that's just as unlikely. Maybe if you aren't commenting on this case.......maybe you need to go find a forum in more in line with your thought process.
|
|
cwbuff
Philadelphia, PA
|
Rose T-H wrote: <quoted text>
I read your post.......and that's what I got out of it.......either that or you seriously believe that judges make decisions based on their personal feelings........and that's just as unlikely.
Maybe if you aren't commenting on this case.......maybe you need to go find a forum in more in line with your thought process. "just as unlikely" eh? Wow, are you naive! I won't even dignify the rest of your drivel with a response.
|
|
Malcolm
Hayward, CA
|
Sheri wrote: Put the child up for adoption. Being raised by in a normal family enviroment is the only chance this child has. People that say things like this are the people who's kids should be put up for adoption. Or here you go, you adopt it and raise it and if it turns out to be a homosexual give it up for adoption. Because you know gay people don't deserve to love or be loved, right? And I'd like to know what a normal family is, because I have NEVER witnessed a normal family. And most people would comfortably say that.
|
|
“Sustainability Now!”
Since: May 08
Saint Paul
|
Please wait...
The Virgin Queen wrote: <quoted text>
Unjust laws were made to be broken. I wonder how many gays in this forum would become celibate if homosexuality was criminalized. Anybody?? I agree about unjust laws, but that wasn't my point. The birth mom gave her Word to her partner in their civil ceremony. There is Integrity in rescinding and repromising, but only while being responsible for any damage done by doing so. "I am now a Christian -- I don't have to keep my Word nor obey the law." That is essentially what the birth mom is telling the world here, and some of you are applauding her. Of course, I am certain that all of you applauding her fully expect everyone who made promises to YOU had damn well better keep THEIR word to you!
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Gemini