You haven’t been following this case, have you? Nor did you actually read the post at all, did you?

Janet is not some stranger, she is Isabella’s second mother. Isabella was born in 2002, and the couple broke up in 2003. So yes, Isabella did initially have a relationship with Janet. Lisa decided to interfere with that, despite the agreements made when the civil union was dissolved.

Here is a picture from CNN of Janet and Isabella.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/06/06/same-sex.custody/art.janet.jenkins.jpg

So dry up those crocodile tears. The court didn’t show up in the middle of the night kidnap Isabella and force her into the arms of some stranger. It sounds awfully scary, but it’s nowhere NEAR the truth.

God does not look kindly on those who bear false witness.

Of course you do, it happens all the time. Children are frequently removed from abusive parents even though that’s the only parents they’ve ever known, and its for the best.

When I was a child my eldest sister became a single mother. She left that baby with our parents and they raised him for a number of years. In the meantime my sister married and decided she and her husband decided they wanted the child back. The came and took the child from our parents and the child screamed and cried because he didn’t know these people who were taking him.

Do you think that child should have stayed with his grandparents or gone with his biological mother?

If Isabella is “taken from the only parent she has ever known, and given to a stranger.” that is entirely Miller’s fault. She had every opportunity to prevent this, but through her selfishness and indifference to others such an unfortunate situation may come about. No way can the courts reward Miller’s criminal actions by allowing her to continue to deny Isabella a relationship with her mother.

And my nephew? It didn’t take long for him to adjust, he grew up to be fine young man loving his parents deeply and never once expressed any concern that he had been “taken from the only parents he had ever known and given to strangers”.

You’re giving away your own agenda here, in spite of your insistence that you “don’t care one wit about who’s gay or ex-gay or who’s Christian or ex-Christian.” This child is Janet’s as well, and, as I understand, knows Janet. And there are reasons why “the law” decided it was in Isabella’s best interests to put her with Janet.

Also, in spite of the fact that Thurman and others, including yourself, defend Miller, kidnapping is still a crime. Maybe you disagree with the court’s decision, but can you explain why disagreeing with the decision justifies the act of kidnapping a child?

And, if Lisa Miller has absconded and eventually goes to prison, imagine the harm that is going to do to Isabella. In her child’s mind, all she will know is that “the law” took her from her mother and gave her to a stranger. This child might never feel safe or secure again. Do any of you really imagine that Isabella will love Janet for doing this to her? Do you?

I believe I can shed some light on her way of thought:

For example, she expresses sorrow for the murder of Matthew Shepard. BUT declares that “we don’t have *all the facts* surrounding it.” Which is usually something people say when they want to, in their own minds, justify believing the absurd possibility that Matthew was a drug-addicted sexually aggressive person, aggressively coming on to his murderers, eager for a fix (of either sex OR drugs), making them so uncomfortable that they reacted with extreme violence. She still SAYS that the murder was inexcusable and needlessly brutal– But hey, Matt’s behavior *might have* triggered from within his attackers the (unacceptable) level of violence surrounding what was, by literal definition, his own crucifixion. His murderers, btw, were a foot taller than him and weighed twice as much.

Another example is her laying blame on gays for infecting children with HIV. (I assume, by the way, that she refers only to gay men – anti-gays have an obsession with the almighty phallus for some reason.)

In response to an article she wrote tying gay (men) to pedophilia, insisting they bear the burden of responsibility for HIV infected individuals (especially children), she said “I paint a part of [the gay community] with the brush it merits. … What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” (that last statement was in response to how we gays paint the conservative Christian community with a broad negative stroke.) So while she might not outright *declare* that gays are inherently linked to pedophilia, she prefers to let the “damning evidence” she presents in her writing speak for itself. Once again, saying one thing out loud so that she can believe something with certainty that she might not dare say out loud.

What presumption cuts both ways?

Yes, we presume to equal citizens and human beings. How dare we.

Alas therein lies the irony of your position – it is precisely what you do and say that’s going to determine whether or not people like you. That you think your behavior is unconnected with how LGBT people feel about you demonstrates just how far removed from reality you are.

The ACLU has supported some of America’s most bigoted citizens, as well as conservative Christians and members of other faiths — their “agenda” is the Constitution… period!

Lambda Legal and GLAD is focused on fighting for legal rights of all TLBGs against the oppression of heterosexism, prejudice, and bigotry.

The Liberty Counsel is a cabal of conservative “Christian” lawyers whose sole goal is to openly violate the Fourteenth Amendments in fighting *against* the equal rights of TLBG Americans! They’re no better than those sympathetic lawyers who defended the Klan members when they murdered, lynched, and intimidated Americans who were fighting for their equal rights.

They also openly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as they advocate using their twisted and perverted interpretation of a religious book as the basis of not only secular law, but society as well.

The Liberty Counsel is supported by an indoctrination camp purporting itself to be a university, which was created by one of America’s most vocal bigots, Jerry Falwell. They have about as much validity as a supermarket tabloid.

Do you mean, what if she were the biological mother, as well? Because that’s an important consideration, don’t you think?

No. I don’t.

You see, Debbie, I believe that the father of a child conceived by artificial insemination is no less his and that he should not lose parental rights in a divorce.

I believe that the mother of a child conceived with a donated egg is no less a parent than the father whose sperm was used.

And I do not make exceptions to that principle based solely on the sexual orientation of the parties.

Happy Thanksgiving