Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Debbie Thurman endorses Lisa Miller’s kidnapping of Isabella

Timothy Kincaid

December 30th, 2009

Debbie ThurmanDebbie Thurman is the facilitator of an ex-gay ministry in Lynchburg, VA, called The Formers. She is also a regular participant at Dr. Throckmorton’s site and an infrequent commenter here at Box Turtle Bulletin.

It was, I suppose, inevitable that Thurman would become interested in Lisa Miller, the woman who is seeking to keep Janet Jenkins, her former partner, from having contact with their child. Thurman’s anti-gay political attitudes, along with their mutual attendance at Thomas Road Baptist Church (the church Jerry Falwell founded), surely drew them together.

And, indeed, Thurman is an avid advocate for Lisa Miller. Although she pretends some distance and objectivity in some of her comments, it is not coincidence that the “Protect Isabella” website is registered at her business address and that she was their contact person (the site is rife with homophobic smear and insinuation).

Debbie likes to see herself as a civil person, one who follows the example of Andrew Marin, who has made it his mission to build a bridge between the religious and LGBT communities. But, unlike Marin who believes that love should be an expression of behavior of Christians towards gay people, Thurman seems to think that adopting a sheen of momentary civility while at a gay website is effort enough.

Let me be fair. Debbie’s recent conversion to civility is not without some measurability. She was quick to join in opposition to the Ugandan effort to enact the draconian Kill Gays bill. But she is so immersed in a culture of animus towards gay people that she is also quick to believe the worst about gay people, no matter how bizarre or comical.

And she seems incapable of seeing gay people as equal to herself or, indeed, much other than an enemy to conquer and vanquish. Convinced that a battle is waging between homosexuality and God, she appears incapable of disengaging from her Culture War.

And it is through that prism that Debbie Thurman sees the custody battle between Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins over their daughter Isabelle. Let’s look at how she discusses Miller’s refusal to conform with the visitation and custody ordered by a judge and upheld by the Supreme Courts of Virgina and Vermont and the United States Supreme Court.

Responding to Miller’s disappearance with Isabella, Thurman wrote an article titled “This is True Motherhood”, in which she endorses Lisa Miller’s apparent kidnapping of Isabella and compares her to the nation’s founding fathers.

I cannot answer the burning question on everyone’s lips: Where are Lisa and Isabella? Somewhere safe, I pray. How and when did they get there? Only God knows.

What happens now? A lot of frustration, recrimination and more lies on one side and a collective sigh of relief on the other. The courts still have a huge task set before them, meanwhile. Lisa and Isabella represent only one of many similar cases waiting to be resolved. We need precedents that honor the prevailing states’ rights, laws and constitutions. The majority of Americans overwhelmingly support traditional marriage. If the tyrannical minority wants to push against that, it can and will be met with civil disobedience. There is no other way.

Lisa Miller is a mother who would give up her life to save her child. Of that there is no doubt. She apparently has chosen to forfeit a large measure of her liberty, personal property and pursuit of happiness in assuring that child her God-ordained future, much as a group of patriots pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor more than two centuries ago to establish this nation.

I say God bless and long live Lisa and Isabella Miller. All who have known them are the better for it. [emphasis added]

If, as Andrew Marin says, love is “a measurable expression of one’s unconditional behaviors towards another”, then we can use this measure to see if there is any love in Debbie Thurman.

Kidnapping a child so as to spite a former partner, using religion as an excuse for one’s own selfish desires, and taking advantage of local bigotries to elicit sympathy are not admirable traits. But, in the passion of parental ownership and the emotions of failed relationships, these are not unheard of or unfathomable.

But endorsing kidnap as a tactic in a Culture War, that’s just plain evil.

(hat tip Truth Wins Out)

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Ray
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

Some days I approach BTB with such dread, I think I should go back to bed and draw the covers over my head to avoid seeing the next horror. Then I get hopeful and think something not quite so bad will be in the news.

I can scarcely believe my eyes to read of what Thurman now endorses openly. It amounts to trashing the rule of law, the very foundation of our country.

sigh.

Richard W. Fitch
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

It only seems as a ‘logical’ consequence for those who endorse the Manhattan Declaration.

Burr
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

Oh boy I can’t wait to hear how much she loves the gays in her forthcoming comments!

Emily K
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

Let’s test Debbie’s “love” for a mother who kidnaps their daughter for her child’s own good, shall we?

Situation A: The mother on the lam is a lesbian, while the mother awarded custody is an “ex-gay” Christian.

Situation B: The mother on the lam is the biological mother of the child – but is also a lesbian.

Let’s not delude ourselves. Debbie would be demanding the mother on the lam come home and deliver the child to safety, into the other mother’s custody.

What a spiteful, shameless woman, using this tragic situation as a political pawn for her own culture war agenda. Shame on her. She needs to take a good long look in the mirror.

Lindoro Almaviva
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

If i worked on the offices of VA child services, i would be calling the prosecution in this case and the police and would be turning copies of everything this woman has written. Somehow i do not believe her claims that she doesn’t know what happened or where the child is, given how closely connected she is to the case.

I think an investigation for accessory is warranted.

cowboy
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

The flag pin on her lapel means what? She proudly supports the U.S. government and accepts how the judiciary system is supposed to work? Or: She thinks it’s just a pretty pin…

BobN
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

“We need precedents that honor the prevailing states’ rights, laws and constitutions.”

What an odd thing to say. She’s not very bright, is she?

Debbie Thurman
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy, you might want to rethink your statement that I am endorsing kidnapping because my Christian sympathies lie with Lisa and Isabella. I do believe there are certain cases where civil disobedience may be warranted. Lisa has apparently chosen that route. I am not saying I would have done it. But what’s done is done.

You also may want to ask some of the commenters here to think before making potentially libelous statements. In fact, you could heed that advice yourself.

Burr
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

You called it “civil disobedience” which means you agree with it, and then said “there is no other way” which means you support no other course of action.

Burr
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

Also what is the tyrannical minority in this case? The majority of Americans have little objection to gay parents and almost all states allow them to adopt. Me thinks the tyrannical minority is represented by the likes of those who think kidnapping is fair game.

Lindoro Almaviva
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

What? for inferring that because you are way too close to the case, and given your statements that you support her taking her daughter in direct challenge of court orders, you might not be telling the whole truth? How libelous is that? Actually, any police officer worth their salt would be talking to you to see how much you know.

You want to sue me for saying what any police officer would immediately think given your statements? Do you really think that gay people are so stupid, or that we are supposed to be afraid of the big bad hairy mean woman who has a website and a lot of friends in the Christian right? Please, throw that bone to another more gullible dog.

GreenEyedLilo
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

Debbie, there’s no need for you to worry about anything Timothy or anyone else here has posted. You’ve said more than enough about yourself.

Jason D
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

Debbie, good luck with that libel suit. Opinions are not libelous, nor is it considered libelous for you to be quoted, verbatim, from a source YOU published.

Intimidation tactics, so that’s what you’re reduced to. You can’t defend your statements, ugly as they are. Nor can you defend Miller’s actions. Is it really better for a child to be raised on the run, unable to communicate with extended family, or ever see one of her parents again just because that parent is a lesbian? It’s just plain evil, and you support it by calling it something else so that you can sleep at night.

Why is it those that claim to be so close to God are so far from being moral? Why is it that those who claim to be Christians act nothing like Christ and ignore his commands?

Richard W. Fitch
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

It is truly interesting to see someone invoking the power of the American judicial system when they themselves are spurning it.

Tommy
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

Funny how “judicial activism” and other such admonishments of the judiciary only apply to rulings people don’t like.

The minute the judicial system might be on someone’s side they love it.

Pete H
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

Somehow Debbie Thurman’s feeble threats remind me of the bible verse about a dog returning to it’s vomit…

Lindoro Almaviva
December 30th, 2009 | LINK

my Christian sympathies

Honey, there is nothing remotely Christian in you. You are just an opportunistic leech.

If Christ stands for what you stand then he was a hypocrite; the cross was not enough punishment for him. If it is people like you the ones that will inherit the kingdom, then I will gladly spend the rest of eternity in hell, cause i would rather spit on God’s face than see him make toilet paper out of his message. If what you stand for is the true message, then God is not good enough to have my soul.

AdrianT
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I have no problem with people who want to live their lives according to their faith, if it gives them consolation, and they are welcome to all the jot they derive from it.

Take the Trappist monks in Belgium for instance, renouncing all sexual relations and possessions. Inspired by their faith and St Benedict, they dedicate their lives to helping the needy, prayer, offering hospitality and making seriously fine beer and orther organic produce (I have fond memories of cycling over the border to Achel when I lived in the Netherlands, to replenish my refrigerator.*). They have their own house rules for their kloosters and that’s fine. (e.g. http://www.trappistwestmalle.be/en/page/geloftingemeenschap.aspx ) But we would never imagine them forming taking part in lobby efforts to repeal gay marriage laws. They are too busy being a POSITIVE contribution to the community!

It wouldn’t be so bad if the likes of Deborah Thurman enjoyed living their ‘ex-gay’ lives to the full in a similar manner, and left it at that.

But that’s never good enough. Thurman, like everyone else in the ex-gay trade, has to make her opinions known about the private lives of other LGBT people – to denigrate and demonise the relationships of people she does not know, and worst of all, do her best to ensure her religious beliefs are imposed on everyone else.

The articles on Mrs Thurman’s Formers website are a source of amusement and alarm: especially one entitled ‘top 5 ex-gay myths’. If it were truly a myth that such ministries were not politicalls motivated, why is it necessary for Alan Chambers and others to hold Capitol Hill lobby days, and be photographed visiting members of Congress?

Alan Chambers summed it up by saying his support for Prop8 is vital because if gay marriage were possible, he wouldn’t be ex-gay now. Like all religious entrepreneurs, Chambers and Thurman depend on rejection and exclusion of GLBTs to run their businesses.

There is a comprehensive list of creeps, weirdos and pickpockets operating in the ex-gay trade, under the ‘Resources’ section, including a link to Richard Cohen (now that’s what I call a racketeer), whose work inspired the Kill The Gays bill in Uganda. How will gay people be motivated to fund their businesses, once they are accepted by others, with full protections in employment and not kicked out of the military?

I was particularly amused by Mrs Thurman’s attack on the APA, who don’t take ex-gay claims seriously because it’s based on ideology rather than research. This claim, she made on the website of NARTH (a supposedly scientific organization that takes the junk science of Intelligent Design creationism seriously: http://www.narth.com/docs/reflection.html ). If Mrs Thurman wants to be taken seriously by science, she has a huge challenge on her hands, to explain how she knows the mind of God so intimately, she knows its opinion about her and my sleeping arrangements (with the greatest respect, it is not unchristian to admit that the worldview of first century Palestinians is not exactly on an equal footing with 21st century science, 150 years after Darwin.).

If a reasonable proportion of ex-gays are sexually aroused by a member of the opposite sex, then I’ll take ex-gay therapy claims seriously. Transition to asexuality or celibacy, out of fear of what might happen in the next life, is not really success is it, Mrs Thurman?

Ex gays are entitled to live their lives as they choose, and hold their beliefs about homosexuality, and the very best luck to them. I respect that. Whatever floats your boat.

But that respect depends on respecting the rights of others, to be free from this belief, too.

Anyone who feels the need to set up stalls in West Hollywood and Castro telling other gay people they will go to hell, or to spread misinformation and deny equality under the law, must expect criticism and derision, whatever orientation they are. Hollow threats of libel action, to silence critics, will simply generate more deserved ridicule.

* would be delighted to offer a detailed article on the above. If you haven’t sampled the delights of Westmalle, Achel, Chimay, Rochefort, La Trappe, Westvleteren or Orval, sorry but you have never lived ;-)

AdrianT
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

(Damn, pressed ‘post’ instead of ‘preview’. Excuse the typos. You knew I meant ‘joy’ instead of ‘jot’ didn’t you…?)

Emily K
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I second what Richard said. Invoking the justice system against your critics will not work nearly as well if only because you expressed support for another to openly go against it. And your website is plenty for a prosecutor to question you, or for police to search for evidence. YOU were the one talking about how noble Jenkins’ actions are. None of us needed to insinuate this because you said it yourself, quite plainly.

And yes, labeling what Jenkins did “civil disobedience” does indeed imply a passive endorsement.

Emily K
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Sorry, I meant to say “Miller” where I said “Jenkins.” My mistake.

Debbie Thurman
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

FYI:

http://theformers.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/some-needed-clarification/

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

An unjust law is no law at all. Civil Disobedience is sometimes not only an option, but a DUTY.

There are many nations on earth without extradition treaties with the United States. There are even more whose only treaties operate under “Dual Criminality” provisions, and since “Parental Kidnapping” is not an offense in the majority of nations, Extradition is impossible. Hopefully, Lisa and Isabella are safe in one of these countries as we speak.

Not a thing you people can do about it either.

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I hope the homosexual activists realize where they have pushed our society. I’ve never seen more open contempt for the government at any point in my life.

People (of all political persuasions) are realizing that unjust law is no law at all. They are realizing that government does not have the power to dictate a perverse agenda on all of society.

We are sitting exactly where the nation was in the 1840s-1850s.

The days of homosexual activists using the power of government to bully people are over.

ZRAinSWVA
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Well, Debbie, you certainly backtracked quickly enough to make my head spin!

In the original post you stated, “If the tyrannical minority wants to push against that, it can and will be met with civil disobedience. There is no other way”, and in your linked post you state, “I want to make it clear it is not flouting of the law or of justice I am supporting (…)”.

I must admit that I’m now confused. What do you really mean?

Gabriel Arana
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Debbie,

You might want to read up on libel — nothing anyone’s said is anywhere close to libel. Something isn’t libelous just because you don’t like it or the portrayal of you — the law doesn’t protect vanity.

Gabriel

ZRAinSWVA
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

nomasfdrqs, LBGTQ individuals have been subject to unjust laws for more years than you’ve been alive. We’ve been subject to blatant abuse and discrimination. Our very lives were subject to the laws of the land; until recently, my 23 year relationship with the person whom I love placed me in jeopardy of being arrested and imprisoned. I could have lost my engineering license because my being gay could be viewed as moral turpitude.

And yet, the vast majority of LBGTQ individuals have patientily worked through the court systems and legislatures–and, yes, even the hearts and minds of our neighbors and friends–to change these awful, discriminatory laws. We’re not trying to use “the power of government to bully people”; rather, we are working within the established system to push for progressive change. It’s the way our system works. If you don’t like it, leave.

Riley Jones
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

The kid has only one recognized biological parent, Lisa Miller. The Judge is a leftwing hack and this decision is a travesty.

This isn’t ‘kidnapping.’ Its politics of the worst kind and Isabella Miller is a pawn.

Lisa Miller will hopefully never be found and Cohen will hopefully find a job more suiting of his abilities… like fry captain at McDonalds.

ZRAinSWVA
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Riley Jones wrote, “The kid has only one recognized biological parent”. The same is true for every heterosexual couple who has a child using a donated egg or sperm. Should the same stance be taken for these couples, or only for lesbian or gay couples? Be careful how you answer, Riley, or your bile may show.

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Sorry ZRAinSWVA, your whining about the difficulties that you face because of your own behavior choices are going to get my sympathy.

And yes, despite any attempts to insist otherwise, you people are trying to use the government to bully and oppress people of faith.

Elane Huguenin, The North Coast Women’s Medical Group, The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The list goes on and on.

Many people were willing to let you practice your behavior choices in private if you so desire. However, you people aren’t willing to keep your sexual choices in the bedroom (like most normal people do). You want to redefine society and FORCE others to accept your behavior.

People are fed up with a wealthy connected group that makes up less than 3% of the population, dictating to the other 97% how things are going to be.

You vastly underestimate the damage that you people are doing, and where the path leads. We are literally reliving the 1850s right now. People are ready

Sorry. I am not going anywhere. And neither will you force me to accept your behavior. You will not dictate to me, my family, or my friends how we believe or act. Anyone who ever interferes with my life, or the life of my family does so at their own peril.

Remember: “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Riley Jones
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

At least normal heterosexual couples usually have the ability to actually produce children. If they don’t, medical science can and does step in to help out.

Same Sex couples by their very nature cannot produce children. Furthermore it would seem evolution saw fit to require both Male and Female in procreating the species. Which would leave homosexual individuals on the ash heap of genetic advancement as they generally do not pass on their genes.

And watch it with the smear campaign on Ms. Thurmond, that knife cuts both ways.

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

No ZRAinSWVA, your bile is the only thing that is showing.

I know it angers you to no end that you have no power over people like me. People who will willingly and openly ignore any of your dictates or the dictates of any government that go along with you.

The fact that you have no power over people like me angers you more than anything else in the world.

That’s really what this is all about. You want power. Since 3% of the population doesn’t have the power of numbers, you people use infiltration and your large disposable income to get government to be your power for you.

Sadly, you seem to forget that government doesn’t tell the people what to do, people tell government what to do.

The only thing that your crusade is accomplishing, is to turn more and more people against government in general, and closer to the inevitable tipping point from which there is no return.

Tommy
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I like the fact that Thurman was getting so heavily and intellectually defeated she found it necessary to call in for back up. Let’s take a look at her sock-puppets… err… nomasfdrqs and Riley Jones.

“An unjust law is no law at all.”

Too bad we aren’t talking about a law. Unless you actually consider all custody law to be unjust. Rather silly position don’t you think?

“‘Parental Kidnapping’ is not an offense in the majority of nations,”

Well, the only problem with this is… Lisa Miller isn’t the sole parent, she doesn’t even have primary custody. Oh, and in case you were wondering, the majority of kidnappings are, in fact, one parent trying to take the child from the other parent.

“Not a thing you people can do about it either.”

Of course not. No one here, that I know of, works for the FBI. But rest assured, the FBI will be looking for her.

“I hope the homosexual activists realize where they have pushed our society.”

Yes. To a place where soon, hopefully, the rights of all people will be recognized.

“I’ve never seen more open contempt for the government at any point in my life.”

I’m not sure what this is supposed to be in reference to. If we are talking about all those teabaggers, then they crawl out of the woodwork whenever a Democratic president is elected. You must have been born after the Clinton years because people were behaving just as stupidly during that presidency.

“People (of all political persuasions) are realizing that unjust law is no law at all.”

Once again, not talking about a law…

“They are realizing that government does not have the power to dictate a perverse agenda on all of society.”

WHEW! That makes me glad. Because the government has been dictating the perverse agenda of the religious right for the last eight years. That is who we are talking about, right?

“We are sitting exactly where the nation was in the 1840s-1850s.”

Wow, it takes a certain amount of testicular fortitude to claim that a parent kidnapping her child is somehow similar to slavery. But I absolutely love the veiled threat of civil war behind this.

“The days of homosexual activists using the power of government to bully people are over.”

Funny, gay people aren’t bullying anyone, not even close. And this is the perfect example. Miller was given a reasonable custody agreement and threw a hissyfit about it. So the custody agreement had to be changed, and she kidnapped a child. Nope, no bullying. Just someone with an overly developed sense of entitlement. And another group of people with overly developed senses of entitlement protecting her.

Riley Jones
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Tommy, Debbie never asked me for ‘jack.’ She has this thing called ‘class.’ Something most of the gay rights movements does not have. You people have insulted opponents, invaded and disrupted church services, you stalked your opposition contributors following the California vote… Basically people like me who lean Libertarian and have little use for bible-thumpers are now counted among your detractors. The earlier post referencing ’1850′ was pretty much dead on.

Do you guys REALLY THINK that a biological mom is going to get stripped of her child to fulfill someone’s political agenda and the rest of us are going to stand by and do nothing?

Think again.

If that woman is incarcerated and her daughter robbed from her, its going to get very, very ugly.

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Sorry ZRAinSWVA, your whining about the difficulties that you face because of your own behavior choices are going to get my sympathy.”

My, aren’t you full of yourself. Your sympathy is neither desired nor required. I for one could care less what you think or believe about me or anyone else. I hate to break it to you, but you’re just not that important to me.

“And yes, despite any attempts to insist otherwise, you people are trying to use the government to bully and oppress people of faith.”

Yeah, right. Of course even if that we true, you should be glad and not whining about it. After all:

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. – Matthew 5:10-12

It’s difficult to hear the “rejoicing” admist all the bluster from you guys…

“You vastly underestimate the damage that you people are doing, and where the path leads. We are literally reliving the 1850s right now. People are ready.”

Bring it. If you think we are going to meekly go back into the closet so bigots like you can resume trying to live out your fantasies of theocracy, you are sadly mistaken. I cherish my 2nd Amendment rights just as much as you probably do.

Tommy
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Moving on to sock puppet #2.

“The kid has only one recognized biological parent, Lisa Miller.”

Yes, and? Sorry, but biology is not the sole (or often even a major factor) determiner of custody.

“The Judge is a leftwing hack and this decision is a travesty.”

Except in the way it isn’t. If Miller had simply complied to the original custody agreement it wouldn’t have changed.

“This isn’t ‘kidnapping.’”

Actually it is the text book definition of kidnapping. In fact, it is the most common form of kidnapping.

“Its politics of the worst kind and Isabella Miller is a pawn.”

I will agree, this is politics of the wost kind. And people like you are the people making it politics of the worst kind. You are using Isabella Miller as a pawn in your little anti-gay chess game.

“Lisa Miller will hopefully never be found”

Unlikely considering the FBI is going to be looking for her.

“you people are trying to use the government to bully and oppress people of faith.”

Funny, you’ve been trying to use the government to bully and oppress gay people for…ever. In actual demonstrable ways, unlike these hilarious and hyperbolic claims.

“Elane Huguenin”

It wasn’t her personally, it was her business, and businesses (being legal constructs and not people) do not have a level of freedom of expression. Her business violated the law, and there are repercussions for such things.

“The North Coast Women’s Medical Group”

Once again, a business that violated the law.

“he Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.”

Oh, look. Another business that violated the law.

“The list goes on and on.”

Then why do you have only those three? The facts of which I, along with quite a few other people here, know off the tops of our heads?

“Many people were willing to let you practice your behavior choices in private if you so desire.”

No, they just had to shut up about it, as it was no longer a politically viable stance to take.

“However, you people aren’t willing to keep your sexual choices in the bedroom (like most normal people do).”

Oh really now? That’s funny. I was just at an office Christmas party, and at that party I met ten separate spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends of my heterosexual colleagues. Why aren’t you telling them to keep their sex lives in their bedrooms? Ahhh, the hypocrisy.

“You want to redefine society and FORCE others to accept your behavior.”

Please explain, in detail, how anyone can FORCE any other person to accept anything. Be specific and use examples to support your claim.

“People are fed up with a wealthy connected group that makes up less than 3% of the population, dictating to the other 97% how things are going to be.”

Funny, how none of this actually affects the lives of that 97%. As long as they follow the law…

“You vastly underestimate the damage that you people are doing, and where the path leads. We are literally reliving the 1850s right now. People are ready”

Look, more irrational threats of violence. But please, pray tell, explain in detail how, exactly, we are reliving the 1850′s. Be specific and support your statement with examples.

“Sorry. I am not going anywhere. And neither will you force me to accept your behavior. You will not dictate to me, my family, or my friends how we believe or act. Anyone who ever interferes with my life, or the life of my family does so at their own peril.”

Once again, this is all funny and impossible.

“Remember: ‘When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.’”

And more threats of violence. It’s funny, you are with out a doubt sounding like a Southern sympathizer.

Christopher Waldrop
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Riley, if you don’t like being lumped in with “bible-thumpers”, quit talking like them. You make a blanket statement claiming that “You people have insulted opponents, invaded and disrupted church services, you stalked your opposition contributors following the California vote.” You forget that GLBT people and their allies have also been subjected to harassment, threats, and even acts of violence.

Or do you think that it’s acceptable when it happens to people you don’ like?

ZRAinSWVA
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Riley, there’s no smear campaign going on, especially when the postings on this article have referenced actual statements that she’s written. Please put your knife down, now.

nomasfdrqs, I could care less that I have no power over you. I want none. You can think and say what you wish, as that right is protected in this country. I do, though, wish to be legally protected from you taking direct action (as you’ve implied in very thinly veiled ways) that is contrary to the laws of this land. To endorse kidnapping–or worse, as you do, revolution–is unthinkable. Or, as Timothy wrote, “But endorsing kidnap as a tactic in a Culture War, that’s just plain evil.” I totally agree.

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“My, aren’t you full of yourself. Your sympathy is neither desired nor required. I for one could care less what you think or believe about me or anyone else. I hate to break it to you, but you’re just not that important to me.”

Really? Then why attempt to use the government to acheive your agenda?

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. – Matthew 5:10-12″

Sorry, Jesus wasn’t talking about those who practice homosexuality in that verse.

“Bring it. If you think we are going to meekly go back into the closet so bigots like you can resume trying to live out your fantasies of theocracy, you are sadly mistaken. I cherish my 2nd Amendment rights just as much as you probably do.”

Unlike you people, we don’t initiate force. (IE: Attack grandmothers in the street, burn down churches, and send fake anthrax to Mormon Temples.) However, we will gladly exercise a Second Amendment Veto when faced with attempts to force our families into accepting your immorality.

Tommy
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“At least normal heterosexual couples usually have the ability to actually produce children. If they don’t, medical science can and does step in to help out.”

Ahh, my favorite appeal to emotion. “Normal” is a meaningless word that is completely subjective. To use the word “normal” is to concede that you do not have an objective argument, and all you have left are feelings.

“Same Sex couples by their very nature cannot produce children.”

Yes, and? Neither can the infertile, and you just made excuses for them a sentence ago. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

“Furthermore it would seem evolution saw fit to require both Male and Female in procreating the species.”

Actually it didn’t. There are plenty of reproductive schemes out there, and some species have up to five genders. Anyways, gay people fulfill different evolutionary imperatives.

“Which would leave homosexual individuals on the ash heap of genetic advancement as they generally do not pass on their genes.”

One should not discuss evolution when one does not understand it. I’d advise making a hasty exit on this point if I were you.

“And watch it with the smear campaign on Ms. Thurmond, that knife cuts both ways.”

Sorry, but anyone with eyes and a brain can see the decades long smear campaign against gay people is still going strong. So your point is ridiculous.

And moving on…

“I know it angers you to no end that you have no power over people like me. People who will willingly and openly ignore any of your dictates or the dictates of any government that go along with you.”

Funny, I don’t recall anyone here ever wishing for mind control powers. Though that would be awesome. I love Professor X! Oh look, more threats of violence.

“That’s really what this is all about. You want power.”

Actually no. It is demonstrably the opposite. See, gay people are actually weakening the government’s power, in every single case. You, however, are preaching a doctrine of authoritarianism. Yep, more hypocrisy.

“The only thing that your crusade is accomplishing, is to turn more and more people against government in general, and closer to the inevitable tipping point from which there is no return.”

Ahh, more threats of violence. Let me take a look at the numbers, oh look! Polling does not reflect your odd little world view at all.

ZRAinSWVA
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

nomasfdrqs wrote, “Really? Then why attempt to use the government to acheive your agenda?”

Because that is the way our system works, sir. We don’t just take up arms if we’re not getting our way. We lobby, and petition, and speak out, and rally, and…I think both sides on this issue have been pretty vocal about their stance. The LBGQT community has won some battles and lost others; we’ll continue to work within the system to promote positive change. Your side has wons some battles and lost others…and you’re promoting the Second Amendment Veto? Wow. Just wow.

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Tommy” you are a raving lunatic if you think I am Thurman. Frankly, I don’t think she went far enough with her comments. I’ll address your spew below.

“Too bad we aren’t talking about a law. Unless you actually consider all custody law to be unjust. Rather silly position don’t you think?”

The “law” takes more forms than mere Statutes. But of course you probably knew that already. Right?

“Well, the only problem with this is… Lisa Miller isn’t the sole parent, she doesn’t even have primary custody. Oh, and in case you were wondering, the majority of kidnappings are, in fact, one parent trying to take the child from the other parent.”

Wrong. Miller is the sole parent. Filthy deviant Cohen purported to remove custody and transfer it. Considering that Miller still has Isabella, that worked out real well, didn’t it.

(“Cohen has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”)

“Of course not. No one here, that I know of, works for the FBI. But rest assured, the FBI will be looking for her.”

Again, it doesn’t matter if she is in a country with either no extradition treaty. Or with an extradition treaty that operates under Dual Criminality provisions (the majority of which do.)

“Yes. To a place where soon, hopefully, the rights of all people will be recognized.”

The rights of all people of recognized. You people want special rights.

“I’m not sure what this is supposed to be in reference to. If we are talking about all those teabaggers, then they crawl out of the woodwork whenever a Democratic president is elected. You must have been born after the Clinton years because people were behaving just as stupidly during that presidency.”

Wrong. The anger at government now is far worse than it was at any point during the Klintoon years.

“Once again, not talking about a law…”

Again, Law takes many forms.

“WHEW! That makes me glad. Because the government has been dictating the perverse agenda of the religious right for the last eight years. That is who we are talking about, right?”

Wrong. The government has been openly antagonistic toward the “religious right” for some time.

“Wow, it takes a certain amount of testicular fortitude to claim that a parent kidnapping her child is somehow similar to slavery. But I absolutely love the veiled threat of civil war behind this.”

There is no veiled threat. We are hearing people openly talk about States leaving the Union. That sentiment is growing.

“Funny, gay people aren’t bullying anyone, not even close. And this is the perfect example. Miller was given a reasonable custody agreement and threw a hissyfit about it. So the custody agreement had to be changed, and she kidnapped a child. Nope, no bullying. Just someone with an overly developed sense of entitlement. And another group of people with overly developed senses of entitlement protecting her.”

Really? Really? Elane Huguenin might disagree with you.

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Unlikely considering the FBI is going to be looking for her.”

It won’t matter. Extradition is impossible in the overwhelming majority of countries. :)

“Funny, you’ve been trying to use the government to bully and oppress gay people for…ever. In actual demonstrable ways, unlike these hilarious and hyperbolic claims.”

Wrong. The overwhelming majority of people are willing to let you people be. You just aren’t willing to do the same.

“It wasn’t her personally, it was her business, and businesses (being legal constructs and not people) do not have a level of freedom of expression. Her business violated the law, and there are repercussions for such things.”

Absolutely laughable. One that respected law professors like Eugene Volokh utterly rejected. Photography is inherently artistic, thus the First Amendment would protect her freedom to refuse to participate in something that violated her own artistic expression. Not to mention the First Amendment Free Exercise and Freedom of Association Claims. Absent the First Amendment, there is an inherent Natural Law Right to Freedom of Religion and Association that no government or law can abrogate.

To head off any nonsense, I would hold the same position for a homosexual that refused to photograph a heterosexual wedding. Or an atheist that refused to photograph a Christian Wedding.

“Once again, a business that violated the law.”

Wrong. No law can force an individual to violate their deeply held religious convictions. This was an individual doctor who didn’t want to perform a specific elective surgery and referred the patient to others. You people simply can’t have that and want to FORCE others to do what they don’t want to do.

“Oh, look. Another business that violated the law.”

A church is now a business in your world?

“Then why do you have only those three? The facts of which I, along with quite a few other people here, know off the tops of our heads?”

For the sake of space. Your facts were apparently way off base.

“No, they just had to shut up about it, as it was no longer a politically viable stance to take.”

Wrong. People are pretty willing to let people live as they want in private.

“Oh really now? That’s funny. I was just at an office Christmas party, and at that party I met ten separate spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends of my heterosexual colleagues. Why aren’t you telling them to keep their sex lives in their bedrooms? Ahhh, the hypocrisy.”

I wasn’t at your party. I am willing to bet that none of them were openly parading their sexual perversion about. The overwhelming majority of normal individuals are not defined by their sexuality, unlike the majority of homosexuals.

“Please explain, in detail, how anyone can FORCE any other person to accept anything. Be specific and use examples to support your claim.”

K-12 Propaganda. Media Propaganda. The enactment of laws that criminalize freedom of expression and association and the free exercise of religion. You know, the exact things that you advocated above.

“Funny, how none of this actually affects the lives of that 97%. As long as they follow the law…”

Except you don’t get to dicate the law bud.

“Look, more irrational threats of violence. But please, pray tell, explain in detail how, exactly, we are reliving the 1850’s. Be specific and support your statement with examples.”

Overall contempt for government. Open talk of secession. People willing to sign statements declaring their intention to disobey government edicts. Oppression by a small “elite” group of individuals that make the majority feel as if they have no voice.

“Once again, this is all funny and impossible.”

Oh trust me, it’s not impossible at all.

“And more threats of violence. It’s funny, you are with out a doubt sounding like a Southern sympathizer.”

That’s not a threat.

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Funny, I don’t recall anyone here ever wishing for mind control powers. Though that would be awesome. I love Professor X! Oh look, more threats of violence.”

No, you want governmental power.

“Actually no. It is demonstrably the opposite. See, gay people are actually weakening the government’s power, in every single case. You, however, are preaching a doctrine of authoritarianism. Yep, more hypocrisy.”

Absolutely laughable. If you really wanted to limit government power, you’d be up in arms about homosexuals trying to force others to cater to them. You be advocating that the government get out of the marriage business altogether.

(BTW: Did you realize that “appeal to hypocrisy” is a logical fallacy?)

“Ahh, more threats of violence. Let me take a look at the numbers, oh look! Polling does not reflect your odd little world view at all.”

Like in California? Like in Maine? Like in New Jersey? Like in New York?

All DEEP BLUE States. All where everyone was told that a certain result was guaranteed. Yet strangely, the ballot box showed a different result.

For some reason everytime these issues are on the ballot (31 out of 31 times) your side loses, despite what any polls might say.

Why is that?

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Because that is the way our system works, sir. We don’t just take up arms if we’re not getting our way. We lobby, and petition, and speak out, and rally, and…I think both sides on this issue have been pretty vocal about their stance. The LBGQT community has won some battles and lost others; we’ll continue to work within the system to promote positive change. Your side has wons some battles and lost others…and you’re promoting the Second Amendment Veto? Wow. Just wow.”

No, our system does not work to allow a small connected minority to run roughshod over the voice of others.

Any society can only take so much, before it implodes.

“nomasfdrqs, I could care less that I have no power over you. I want none. You can think and say what you wish, as that right is protected in this country. I do, though, wish to be legally protected from you taking direct action (as you’ve implied in very thinly veiled ways) that is contrary to the laws of this land. To endorse kidnapping–or worse, as you do, revolution–is unthinkable. Or, as Timothy wrote, “But endorsing kidnap as a tactic in a Culture War, that’s just plain evil.” I totally agree.”

An unjust law is no law at all and can be ignored with impunity. International extradition treaties work in the favor of Lisa Miller at this point. :)

Tommy
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Tommy, Debbie never asked me for ‘jack.’ She has this thing called ‘class.’”

Yes, so much class she endorsed a kidnapping.

“You people have insulted opponents”

Oh, look! Hypocrisy.

“invaded and disrupted church services”

Sorry, but that was an anti-gay marriage activist group. You should probably know what you are talking about before saying something.

“you stalked your opposition contributors following the California vote”

Remember when Yes on 8 sent out those blackmail letters to contributers to the No on 8 campaign? I’m certain you were protesting that…

“Basically people like me who lean Libertarian and have little use for bible-thumpers are now counted among your detractors.”

I certainly believe that is your political/religious alignment. Much like I believe women patrol the snowy sand dunes of the Canadian/Mexican boarder.

“The earlier post referencing ‘1850′ was pretty much dead on.”

Funny, because I found it stupidly hyperbolic and completely unsupportable. You care to offer concrete examples of how this is like 1850?

“Do you guys REALLY THINK that a biological mom is going to get stripped of her child to fulfill someone’s political agenda and the rest of us are going to stand by and do nothing?”

If you don’t want to run afoul of the FBI… Oh, and once more it bares repeating, had Miller simply complied to the original custody agreement, it wouldn’t have changed. The only person with a political agenda here is Miller and people like you supporting her.

“If that woman is incarcerated and her daughter robbed from her, its going to get very, very ugly.”

More ugly than kidnapping? I find that incredibly hyperbolic.

And moving on…

“Really? Then why attempt to use the government to acheive your agenda?”

Why aren’t you complaining about how the religious right keeps using the government to achieve their agenda? Ahh, hypocrisy. You do know Jesus’s stance on hypocrisy?

“Sorry, Jesus wasn’t talking about those who practice homosexuality in that verse.”

Yes, he was. By the by, one of those 613 Mosaic rules is “Dina D’malchuta Dinah” – “the law of the king is the law”. Loosely explained, where there is a conflict between the Law and the law, the law has to be respected first. Funny how you keep failing to live up to that one.

“Unlike you people, we don’t initiate force.”

Really? You were just threatening it like a post ago.

“IE: Attack grandmothers in the street,”

What about kicking over a disable protester while pushing her way through a peaceful demonstration?

“burn down churches,”

Which, to the best of my recollection, was never tied to anything.

“and send fake anthrax to Mormon Temples.”

Once more, never tied to anything. However, what about all those letters sent to gay bars in Seattle threating to poison their drinks with Ricin? If you are going to claim the moral highground, you should probably make sure you actually have it.

Oh, and treason, does not give you a moral highground.

Christopher Waldrop
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

An unjust law is no law at all and can be ignored with impunity.

How exactly do you decide which laws are just and which are unjust? Are you the sole arbiter of justice? If so it seems you’re the one who’s asking for special rights.

ZRAinSWVA
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

nomasfdrqs wrote, “The overwhelming majority of normal individuals are not defined by their sexuality”. True, I’ll admit: they’re defined by sense of self and their relationships, including the one with whom they live and love. Woven into that mix is sexual identity, though, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals–can we at least agree on that point?

If I bring my same sex spouse to a holiday party, I am not ‘openly parading (my)sexual perversion about’; rather, I am only doing what every other couple at the party is doing. You’re saying that I shouldn’t do such a thing. I disagree. You are lucky to live in a heterocentric world; we are trying to assure our basic rights within that world. I have every right to be here, and I will defend and fight for that right. The difference being that I will strive to work within the legal framework of our government, not threaten others as you do. Or make small children the pawns in your war.

Emily K
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I’m confused. in one comment nomasfdrqs said that 3% (gays) control 97% (non-gays) because they are a “wealthy connected group.” And then in the next comment says that all gays want are power, and they do not have power over people. Which is it, anyway?

Ignore the trolls, guys. Please. Seriously, they will hijack the thread (they kind of already have.) This needs to stay on the topic of Thurman’s endorsement of kidnapping and her declaration that Isabella needs to be “saved” from having to live with a lesbian.

K.
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Debbie Thurman: just own up to your hatred already. You’ll sleep better, though not as well as if you put your irrational loathing of others out of your head entirely.

Not fun when people tell you to rethink things, is it?

Or, try this. Go through that slop you wrote and switch all of the references to sexual orientation to references to race, religion, or other denomination of the religion you persist in misrepresenting.

I bet that was even less fun.

Someday, people will look back on pundits like you in the same way we now look back on defenders of slavery and segregation.

Is that really the legacy you want to leave behind? Is that how you want to be remembered?

As someone who defended the abduction of a child. Your picture. In the textbooks of the future. With that sentiment in the caption.

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Really? Then why attempt to use the government to acheive your agenda?”

Have you forgotten the right to petition government for redress of grievances? The only “agenda” I have is for the government to respect my rights under the Constitution as much as it does yours.

“Sorry, Jesus wasn’t talking about those who practice homosexuality in that verse.”

Since Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, I do believe you are right. Of course, I cited that verse not for what you erroneously claim but for folks like you who whine but forget about what Jesus actually said on the matter of persecution. Instead of “rejoicing” all we get are threats and bitching. Hardly Christ-like, pal.

“Unlike you people, we don’t initiate force.”

Really? Never, eh? How many “faggots” have bigots like you abused, beaten up, killed, etc.? For that matter, how many non-Protestant Christians have folks like you persecuted or butchered over the years?

“However, we will gladly exercise a Second Amendment Veto when faced with attempts to force our families into accepting your immorality.”

I could care less what your family believes or accepts as being moral. Try and force your twisted ‘morality’ on me or in my home and you’ll find that I too cherish my 2nd Amendment rights.

a. mcewen
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

The problem with nomasfdrqs is that he or she has bought into every religious right lie and anecdote about the lgbt community. For example the metion about the Ocean Grove Pavilion. The Pavilion was not a church and the group that owned it was receiving tax breaks as long as the property was open to all. Apparently to the group, it was okay to receive tax breaks but not abide by the rules governing those tax breaks.

And then nomasfdrqs comes with the standard lies about the Jenkins/Miller case. The truth was that they were in a civil union and the courts have recognized Jenkins as Isabella’s parent. This entire mess happened (including Miller losing custody) because Miller would not abide by court ordered visitation. She would not let Jenkins see her (Jenkins’s) own daughter.

And the final hilarity is nomasfdrqs channeling Howard Beale in Network – “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.”

Well from we sit, it’s an old and inaccurate distraction. Please try more credible sources for your lies, nomasfdrqst.

The problem is that you are under the illusion that whtever values and beliefs you have should take precedent over right, wrong, fairness, and in accuracy.

nomasfdrqs
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Actually Tommy, You are wrong yet again. Scripture clearly teaches that when there is a conflict between human law and God’s Law, that we are to “Obey God rather than men.”

I could also point to Daniel, Joseph, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (And several other examples) but that would just be overkill.

I could also point to Augustine, Martin Luther King Jr. and Sir William Blackstone, again that would also be overkill.

I think I’ve proved my point. You people are playing with a hornets nest and that extradition laws (or technically the way that they can be exploited) are a beautiful thing.

I’ll leave you all to swim in your own vomit.

ZRAinSWVA
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Emily K: thank you for the reminder…

One interesting side point relates to Timothy’s comment that Miller “refuses to conform with the visitation and custody ordered by a judge and upheld by the Supreme Courts of Virgina and Vermont and the United States Supreme Court”. Interesting in that the courts are now having to tiptoe through the quagmire that was created when states chose to ignore the consequences of state ‘mini-DOMA’s’ on the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Personally, I think the courts have applied measured reason to a very complicated legal situation and I applaud their decision.

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Since Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, I do believe you are right. Of course, I cited that verse not for what you erroneously claim but for folks like you who whine but forget about what Jesus actually said on the matter of persecution. Instead of “rejoicing” all we get are threats and bitching. Hardly Christ-like, pal.”

Uh, yes he did.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female…”

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Interesting in that the courts are now having to tiptoe through the quagmire that was created when states chose to ignore the consequences of state ‘mini-DOMA’s’ on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”

There is a public policy exception to the FF&C Clause.

There is also United States Supreme Court precedent on point regarding same-sex “marriage.” (Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810).

Baker is still the law, no matter how many people like to take a tantrum and insist otherwise. (See: Wilson v. Ake).

Tommy
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“‘Tommy’ you are a raving lunatic if you think I am Thurman.”

This site publishes multiple articles a day. Most of which people of your ideological persuasion do not comment on. One article about Thurman and not only does she show up but two other people to back her up. Sorry, not a coincidence.

“The ‘law’ takes more forms than mere Statutes. But of course you probably knew that already. Right?”

Yes. I do know this. Too bad we weren’t talking about them either.

“Wrong. Miller is the sole parent.”

Funny, that’s how the law (the actual law in this case) sees it. So you are, wrong.

“Filthy deviant Cohen purported to remove custody and transfer it.”

Ahh, weren’t you just whining about people calling you names earlier? Ahh, hypocrisy. But anyways, Cohen didn’t do anything, Miller broke the custody agreement, so a new one had to be made. And now she’s a kidnapper.

“Considering that Miller still has Isabella, that worked out real well, didn’t it.”

If you consider a life on the lam with the FBI chasing you real well…

“(”Cohen has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”)”

I love the attempt at sounding educated here. Too bad it is such a failed attempt on so many levels. First off you are quoting one of the most reviled instances of government abuse in our nation’s history. Cohen doesn’t have to enforce it, the police and FBI are going to enforce it for him.

“Again, it doesn’t matter if she is in a country with either no extradition treaty. Or with an extradition treaty that operates under Dual Criminality provisions (the majority of which do.)”

Neither of which are likely. Oh, and most places with Dual Criminality, would agree that kidnapping, including this case, falls under it.

“The rights of all people of recognized. You people want special rights.”

Support this. I’ll be waiting.

“Wrong. The anger at government now is far worse than it was at any point during the Klintoon years.”

As someone who lived through the Clinton years, I can tell you people were wondering around Arkansas looking for dead bodies. The right always goes loony tunes when a Democratic president is in office.

“Wrong. The government has been openly antagonistic toward the “religious right” for some time.”

Except in the way it hasn’t. Note the Bush years.

“There is no veiled threat. We are hearing people openly talk about States leaving the Union. That sentiment is growing.”

And those people are rightly considered nutjobs. Not that it will ever happen.

“Really? Really? Elane Huguenin might disagree with you.”

And she’s free to. It doesn’t change the facts of this case, nor her own.

“It won’t matter. Extradition is impossible in the overwhelming majority of countries. :)”

None of which are readily accessible. I would love to see her attempt to flee to China though…

“Wrong. The overwhelming majority of people are willing to let you people be. You just aren’t willing to do the same.”

Except that’s not true. As demonstrated… every single time any gay rights initiative is put forward.

“Absolutely laughable. One that respected law professors like Eugene Volokh utterly rejected.”

There’s decades of caselaw on the subject of anti-discrimination laws. Including Supreme Court decisions holding them up. So, yeah, only an idiot would reject them.

“Photography is inherently artistic,Photography is inherently artistic, thus the First Amendment would protect her freedom to refuse to participate in something that violated her own artistic expression.”

Note the word: “Her.” However the first amendment does not cover her business… which was sued, not her personally.

“Wrong. No law can force an individual to violate their deeply held religious convictions.”

Of course not. Too bad we aren’t, in any of these cases, talking about individuals. We’re talking about businesses. And businesses do not have deeply held religious convictions, they can’t being legal constructs.

“This was an individual doctor who didn’t want to perform a specific elective surgery and referred the patient to others.”

Too bad her HMO only covered that particular fertility clinic.

“You people simply can’t have that and want to FORCE others to do what they don’t want to do.”

Or, rather, force a business to comply with the law.

“A church is now a business in your world?”

Sorry, but that pavilion wasn’t owned by a church.

“For the sake of space. Your facts were apparently way off base.”

No, sadly(for you) they were not.

“Wrong. People are pretty willing to let people live as they want in private.”

Then how do you explain the existence of sodomy laws in this century?

“I wasn’t at your party. I am willing to bet that none of them were openly parading their sexual perversion about.”

Ahh, the hypocrisy.

“The overwhelming majority of normal individuals are not defined by their sexuality, unlike the majority of homosexuals.”

Ahh, more hypocrisy.

“K-12 Propaganda.Media Propaganda.”

Propaganda is something you know nothing about. So I would not talk about it. Also, nothing about propaganda constitutes force.

“The enactment of laws that criminalize freedom of expression and association and the free exercise of religion.”

Except these do not constitute acceptance. Which is a belief.

“You know, the exact things that you advocated above.”

Of course, I didn’t. Those things are fine for individuals, but businesses are not individuals.

“Except you don’t get to dicate the law bud.”

No, but I like how you are now so big on the law, when like five paragraphs ago you were foaming at the mouth about it.

“Overall contempt for government.”

Something that has existed from the start of this nation…

“Open talk of secession.”

Once again something existing from the start of this nation. Too bad anyone saying so now is considered a loon.

“People willing to sign statements declaring their intention to disobey government edicts.”

And this is new since when?

“Oppression by a small “elite” group of individuals that make the majority feel as if they have no voice.”

Funny, the majority elected this particular congress and this particular president by a healthy margin.

“That’s not a threat.”

So, now you are saying you are actually engaging in violence?

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“nomasfdrqs”

LOL! I just figured that one out.

R Holmes
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I see the “Christians” are still unable to tell the difference between not being allowed to crap on someone else and being crapped on themselves.

Call me when they’ve mastered basic reasoning skills.

Candace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

The kidnapping mother can’t stay hidden forever. Eventually she’ll get caught and will find herself in prison. Lucky for her that her ex-partner will bring the girl there to visit her.

She has listened to the wrong advice and has made a mess and it’s only going to get worse from here. Allowing the child to see the ex-partner at the beginning would surely have been better than finding herself a fugitive from the law and in danger of arrest and imprisonment with NO access to her child at all.

When she DOES go to prison for kidnapping, I wonder where all the “christians” who advocated “civil disobedience” will be then? Most likely off to the next person they think they can exploit for their cause.

I suggest we get together and fund a private investigator to track the two down before the child is harmed by the danger this foolish woman has put her in.

Tommy
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“No, you want governmental power.”

No, I want the government to have less power.

“Absolutely laughable. If you really wanted to limit government power, you’d be up in arms about homosexuals trying to force others to cater to them.”

I know, your positions are absolutely laughable. Or, it could be, that I’d be up in arms about the government denying protection to a group of people. Power works in a verity of ways…

“You be advocating that the government get out of the marriage business altogether.”

I do. But that’s impossible.

“(BTW: Did you realize that “appeal to hypocrisy” is a logical fallacy?)”

Yes it is. Too bad I’m not actually engaging in an “appeal to hypocrisy.” See, that particular logical fallacy is a form of an Ad Hominem, showing personal conduct and character. No, what I’m doing is showing the intellectual inconsistency of your argument, and the double standards you employ.

“Like in California? Like in Maine? Like in New Jersey? Like in New York?”

Like I said, you should probably know what you are talking about before saying something. See, this whole little diatribe is completely unrelated to the point you were attempting to make. And, in fact, you completely undermine your new point within it.

“No, our system does not work to allow a small connected minority to run roughshod over the voice of others.”

Yes, it does. In fact, that’s one of the major concerns of the framers of the constitution. That majority never rules over minority rights.

Richard W. Fitch
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Wallace – please share. There are all sorts of possibilities with this nom de plume.

Jason D
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“For some reason everytime these issues are on the ballot (31 out of 31 times) your side loses, despite what any polls might say.

Why is that?”

Because people yank out the gay boogeyman hysteria and people eat it up. The lies and information poor over.
and to the other sock puppet
““Oh really now? That’s funny. I was just at an office Christmas party, and at that party I met ten separate spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends of my heterosexual colleagues. Why aren’t you telling them to keep their sex lives in their bedrooms? Ahhh, the hypocrisy.”

I wasn’t at your party. I am willing to bet that none of them were openly parading their sexual perversion about. The overwhelming majority of normal individuals are not defined by their sexuality, unlike the majority of homosexuals. ”

No, you’re missing the point. When straight people talk about their wives, girlfriends and boyfriends they are talking about their sexuality. Somehow that’s okay. But let a gay person talk the same way about their partner and suddenly it’s “flaunting perversion”. Double standards, all around. If you can talk about your wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, then so can we. Fair is fair.

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Uh, yes he did.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female…”

And you gays mentioned in there, where exactly? Oh wait. Like the thousands of Protestant groups that have sprung up over the centuries because each holds to the “true” interpretation of Scripture, you want to divine a special meaning out of this verse. Okay. Rock on with your bad self, but I’ll pass. I’ve heard enough BS from your crowd, all done in the name of God no less. Besides, your religious beliefs mean squat under the Constitution as do mine. You are free to believe as you choose and still enjoy equal protection under the law as well as full rights. Guess what? So am I.

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Baker is still the law, no matter how many people like to take a tantrum and insist otherwise. (See: Wilson v. Ake).

Indeed. So was Bower until being struck down by Lawrence. Comfort yourself with Baker all you wish, it’s days are numbered. It should prove to be interesting to hear you change your tune when that happens…

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Neither of which are likely. Oh, and most places with Dual Criminality, would agree that kidnapping, including this case, falls under it.”

Sorry Tommy, but you are wrong.

You make two fundamental mistakes, first you attempt to equate 18 USC 1201 with 18 USC 1204. You can’t. They are not the same thing.

Second, experience has shown that it is extremely difficult to extradite someone for what the United States calls “parental kidnapping.” The overwhelming majority of nations do not recognize a parent as capable of kidnapping their own child. Thus, under dual criminality, the offense wouldn’t be a crime in the harboring nation, and thus not an offense that could be extraditable.

“nomasfdrqs” (LOL) forgot another aspect. Many of the extradition treaties are “list” treaties. If the offense is not actually listed in the extradition treaty itself, then there simply is no way to be extradited for the offense. I am not aware of a single treaty which lists “parental kidnapping.”

That said, the Hague Abduction Convention Treaty would work in some cases, but the main problem with that is there are many, many countries that are not a party with the United States.

Frankly, if Miller is in another Country with Isabella, it would be virtually impossible to get her back here.

The Canadian Foreign Affairs and International Trade Office has an excellent brochure on this very topic avaliable online if you are interested in exploring this topic further.

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Indeed. So was Bower until being struck down by Lawrence. Comfort yourself with Baker all you wish, it’s days are numbered. It should prove to be interesting to hear you change your tune when that happens…

Not with the Current Supreme Court. Considering that it is very unlikely that Obama will get to Replace Kennedy or Scalia, Baker will be around for the foreseeable future.

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

And you gays mentioned in there, where exactly? Oh wait. Like the thousands of Protestant groups that have sprung up over the centuries because each holds to the “true” interpretation of Scripture, you want to divine a special meaning out of this verse. Okay. Rock on with your bad self, but I’ll pass. I’ve heard enough BS from your crowd, all done in the name of God no less. Besides, your religious beliefs mean squat under the Constitution as do mine. You are free to believe as you choose and still enjoy equal protection under the law as well as full rights. Guess what? So am I.

That interpretation is pretty straightforward my friend. It doesn’t take a lot of reading between the lines to get there.

Ben in Oakland
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Jason– you are so mistaken. Fair isn’t fair. It’s only fair when it’s fair to me and not fair to you.

It is waste of time to try ot ocnvince these people of anything. They’ve got their persecution complexes ramped up full bore– pun intended.

To our two trolls– you don’t have to accept a thing. I’m not interested in what you tihnk. I’m interested in how my government treats me.

I’ll make you a deal. I’ll vote to get rid of the laws protecting gay people from releigious discirmination, if you will vote to get rid of the laws protecting EVERYONE from discirmination, especially fundamentalists. That way, the next time a fundamentalist couple asks me to photograph their wedding, I can legally tell them that I find their religious beliefs repugnant and tell them to take a flying intercourse at the nearest celestial body.

AdrianT
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Great to see this thread has brought out the fanatics. The Constitution of the United States was written with people like ‘nomasfdrqs’ to keep one religious opinion from imposing itself on everyone else. I don’t understand why he hysterically foams at the mouth about having beliefs imposed upon him…. Nobody is being told what to believe, Nomas. You can believe that the Earth is flat for all I care. But so long as your beliefs don’t inform public opinion, that is fine.

Because: just like we know Evolution is fact, and that the Earth revolves around the sun, we also know homosexuality is natural and harmless condition (there are many plausible Evolutionary explanations, the evidence that homosexuality is genetically and biologically determined is extremely strong now. Mind you, why bother telling you this? Since Nomas is a Creationist, the term ‘genetics’ goes over his head somewhat).

You can whine and holler and scream on street corners all you like – go ahead Nomas. But no one is forced to take crackpots like you remotely seriously.

Finally, does Mrs Thurman seriously think Mission:America, the wingnut group seeking to plunge the USA into the Dark Ages with an Iranian-style theocracy, is a useful ‘resource’ on her ludicrous website?

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Wallace – please share. There are all sorts of possibilities with this nom de plume.

Break the words apart, it will quickly become obvious.

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Because people yank out the gay boogeyman hysteria and people eat it up. The lies and information poor over.
20 years ago Prop 8 would have passed with 70+ percent of the vote, while Maine’s SSM law would have been rejected by a similiar margin. Yet the other side won by with only 52-53%. The margin is getting closer and as shrill as they get they cannot stop it. If it takes 10 more years that will be displeasing, but eventually SSM will pass in both states and more. That’s what has them upset more than anything else because they know it and are powerless to prevent it. Hence the secessionist talk. Sorry guys, it didn’t work in trying to stop abolition and won’t work in this case either.

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I’ll make you a deal. I’ll vote to get rid of the laws protecting gay people from releigious discirmination, if you will vote to get rid of the laws protecting EVERYONE from discirmination, especially fundamentalists. That way, the next time a fundamentalist couple asks me to photograph their wedding, I can legally tell them that I find their religious beliefs repugnant and tell them to take a flying intercourse at the nearest celestial body.

That’s actually a sensible position. Private business owners should be able to decide who they will and will not provide service to. The free market should decide.

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

That interpretation is pretty straightforward my friend. It doesn’t take a lot of reading between the lines to get there.

Uh-huh. Sure. As clear as say, usury? Sorry, but I’m not impressed with the allusion to Protestant doctrines of the so-called perspescuity of Scripture. We’ve seen the chaos this has caused in Christianity. It doesn’t matter what I say you’ll impose your preconceived notions on the text regardless. And again, this matters nothing when speaking about the Constitution and civil society, as much as your crowd would like to have it otherwise.

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

20 years ago Prop 8 would have passed with 70+ percent of the vote, while Maine’s SSM law would have been rejected by a similiar margin. Yet the other side won by with only 52-53%. The margin is getting closer and as shrill as they get they cannot stop it. If it takes 10 more years that will be displeasing, but eventually SSM will pass in both states and more. That’s what has them upset more than anything else because they know it and are powerless to prevent it. Hence the secessionist talk. Sorry guys, it didn’t work in trying to stop abolition and won’t work in this case either.

That’s actually too simplistic a position to take. By all accounts, Maine should have been a victory for same-sex marriage advocates. The anti-SSM campaign was disorganized and highly underfunded. All of the polls showed that the SSM campaign was winning.

In fact, the SSM campaign did an excellent job in turning out their people in Portland and the other urban areas. They were just overwhelmed by rural turnout.

With the SSM folks unable to win in Maine under those conditions, it shows that the “inevitable” meme that people keep screaming is actually not the case.

Nothing in life is inevitable, except death. It is foolish to insist otherwise.

I also find it somewhat amusing that people will say that 52.8% is a landslide when it involves the margin of victory for Obama. Yet 53% is a “narrow victory” when it comes to SSM losing at the ballot.

Why?

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Not with the Current Supreme Court. Considering that it is very unlikely that Obama will get to Replace Kennedy or Scalia, Baker will be around for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, I never otherwise. Of course with Kennedy I wouldn’t be so certain because he seems to enjoy being unpredictable at times. I’m looking at the long term. Plessy wasn’t overturned for at least half a century and Bowers wasn’t struck down for nearly 20 years. Baker looks like it follow Plessy in length of time. Pity really, but that’s unfortunately how change happens in this country sometimes. Regardless, if you are pinning all your hopes on Baker remaining the law of the land you are in for a rude shock when it is eventually struck down.

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Uh-huh. Sure. As clear as say, usury? Sorry, but I’m not impressed with the allusion to Protestant doctrines of the so-called perspescuity of Scripture. We’ve seen the chaos this has caused in Christianity. It doesn’t matter what I say you’ll impose your preconceived notions on the text regardless. And again, this matters nothing when speaking about the Constitution and civil society, as much as your crowd would like to have it otherwise.

My crowd? What crowd is that?

Jason D
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Thurman’s characterization of Miller’s action as “Civil Disobedience” is laughable.

Martin Luther King, and others practiced civil disobedience. This means defying the law in full view of the public and police. Someone who is practicing Civil Disobedience does so in front of the police, accepts arrest, and proudly walks into their jail cell with a clear conscious.

Miller is a coward.

She made a legally binding agreement with Jenkins and then decided not to honor it. Had she fulfilled the agreement, there would be no case, and she certainly would not have lost custody. But no, like so many others, she feels her religion somehow trumps law, somehow trumps her legally binding agreement that she entered into of her own free will. There is no point in having contracts if people are allowed to violate them at will. She ran to another state, like a coward, and hoped that would end her legal obligations. It didn’t.

Now she’s on the run. What a great Mom, she’s dragging her daughter through hell just because she wants to pretend her past doesn’t exist. How mature, how responsible.
There is nothing Brave about running from your responsibilities.

homer
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

It is so interesting that Debbie Thurman and like-minded people think it is alright to break laws if they don’t agree with them. These are the same set of people who push for the passage of constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriage.

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

That’s actually too simplistic a position to take. By all accounts, Maine should have been a victory for same-sex marriage advocates.

Indeed. Win some, lose some. It will obviously take a little more time than anticipated. Pity. Yet 53% isn’t an insurmountable obstacle, especially with SSM/civil unions becoming more accepted.

I also find it somewhat amusing that people will say that 52.8% is a landslide when it involves the margin of victory for Obama. Yet 53% is a “narrow victory” when it comes to SSM losing at the ballot. Why?

Since I voted against the man, I couldn’t say. You’ll have to ask those who did.

Wallace
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Indeed, I never otherwise. Of course with Kennedy I wouldn’t be so certain because he seems to enjoy being unpredictable at times. I’m looking at the long term. Plessy wasn’t overturned for at least half a century and Bowers wasn’t struck down for nearly 20 years. Baker looks like it follow Plessy in length of time. Pity really, but that’s unfortunately how change happens in this country sometimes. Regardless, if you are pinning all your hopes on Baker remaining the law of the land you are in for a rude shock when it is eventually struck down.

Kennedy went to extraordinary lengths in Lawrence to exclude marriage from the holding. He had no reason to do that unless he wanted to draw the line somewhere. He appears to have drawn that line quite clearly.

There is no doubt where Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas Stand. With Kennedy that’s 5.

I’d be willing to bet that there are at most 3 votes for overturning Baker on the current Court. (And one of those votes is likely to be the next to retire.)

If Stevens gets replaced with Sunstein (as many suspect is likely) that would make only 2 votes, as Sunstein is on record as opposing the judicial imposition of SSM.

Baker still has plenty of life left in it. You have to remember that the Courts are loathe to overturn laws unless a consensus develops in society. When Loving was decided, the overwhelming majority of States had repealed laws against Interracial marriage. So the Court merely continued the trend.

In the current case, the trend is exactly the opposite, with an increasing number of States enacting legislation and Constitutional Amendments to prohibit it.

Don’t think the Court doesn’t recognize that fact.

Priya Lynn
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Noma said “Many people were willing to let you practice your behavior choices in private if you so desire.”.

LOL, you rant about gays being bullies and forcing people to do stuff but it is you who thinks gays need your permission to do as they wish in the privacy of their own bedrooms. You see yourself as the ultimate dictator when it comes to LGBTs.

Noma said “However, you people aren’t willing to keep your sexual choices in the bedroom (like most normal people do). You want to redefine society and FORCE others to accept your behavior.”

You don’t keep your sexual choices in the bedroom, you hold hands in public, talk about your opposite sex spouses at work, openly display your opposite sex partners and place their pictures on your desk at work. According to you, that sort of thing is forcing others to accept your behavior, if its okay for you, its okay for LGBTs.
Noma said “Neither will you force me to accept your behavior. You will not dictate to me, my family, or my friends how we believe or act. Anyone who ever interferes with my life, or the life of my family does so at their own peril.”.

And yet you think you have the right to force gays to accept your behavior and dictate to them how they may act. Doesn’t work that way Bigot. Whatever you think is acceptable for heterosexuals is acceptable for LGBTs.

“I was just at an office Christmas party, and at that party I met ten separate spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends of my heterosexual colleagues. Why aren’t you telling them to keep their sex lives in their bedrooms? Ahhh, the hypocrisy.””

Noma said “I wasn’t at your party. I am willing to bet that none of them were openly parading their sexual perversion about.”.

That’s where you’re a hypocrite. According to bigots like you the mere act of an LGBT appearing in public with their spouse is “parading their sexual perversion about”, yet somehow when heterosexuals do the same thing its not. You want one set of rules for gays (stay in the closet) and a different set for heterosexuals (flaunt your sexuality). In an equal and just society that’s just not on.

Noma said “The rights of all people of recognized. You people want special rights.”.

BS. We want the same rights you have, the right to marry the one we love, the right not to be fired from our job or evicted from our home for reasons unrelated to our ability to be good employees or tenants. And before you come up with that farcical claim that everyone has the same right to marry somoene of the opposite sex, that is not by any stretch of the imagination equal rights. In that scenario John has the right to marry Alice, but Debbie does not have the same right he has to marry Alice, Debbie does not have the same rights as John. That is sex discrimination, that is not equal rights.

Noma said “No law can force an individual to violate their deeply held religious convictions.”.

LOL, laws most certainly can, it happens all the time and rightly so. Many Christians believe gays should be put to death as your bible commands. The law forces them to violate their deeply held religious convictions and the vast majority of people have no problem with that.

Noma said “You people simply can’t have that and want to FORCE others to do what they don’t want to do.”.

You use force all the time against gays. You force them to stop working for Chrisitians or to leave their homes, you forcibly prevent them from marrying the person of their choice. You have no problem using force when its to get what you want so stop pretending your unconditionally opposed to using force against people, you obviously aren’t.

Just because the government forces someone to do something doesn’t automatically mean its wrong. The government forces people to walk if they’v been drinking and driving, the government forces people to meet health and safety standards when they produce products for the public, the government forces serial killers to stop their actions and the government rightfully forces people who make their living off the goodwill of the public to serve ALL of the public.

Noma said “No, our system does not work to allow a small connected minority to run roughshod over the voice of others… For some reason everytime these issues are on the ballot (31 out of 31 times) your side loses”.

LOL, in one breath you’re whining about how LGBTs are running roughshod over you and bullying you and forcing you to do stuff and in the next breath you’re bragging about how you’re running roughshod over LGBTs, bullying us and forcing us to do stuff. Your schizophrenic rants aren’t adding to your credibility.

Noma said “An unjust law is no law at all and can be ignored with impunity”.

LOL, like hell it can. Miller has just uprooted her entire life, she’s giving up the vast majority of her possessions, she’ll be living constantly looking over her shoulder, she’s forcing Isabella to live an unstable life in fear and hiding and if she does get caught she’ll go to jail. That’s hardly ignoring a law with impunity.

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Kennedy went to extraordinary lengths in Lawrence to exclude marriage from the holding. He had no reason to do that unless he wanted to draw the line somewhere. He appears to have drawn that line quite clearly.

Indeed. Yet Baker wasn’t really a factor he had to fully consider in Lawrence, while Olson/Boies are bringing this directly to the Court head-on.

There is no doubt where Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas Stand. With Kennedy that’s 5.

I have no doubts about 4 of the 5 you mention. You may be right about Kennedy too, difficult to say. We shall see. Yet I wouldn’t get cocky about Kennedy supposedly being in the bag for your side because as I said he likes to surprise folks. Remember Kelo? A horrid decision IMO, but one of many instances he defied predictions.

I’d be willing to bet that there are at most 3 votes for overturning Baker on the current Court. (And one of those votes is likely to be the next to retire.)

Naaah, I’d say you have 4-4 with Kennedy being the wild card.

If Stevens gets replaced with Sunstein (as many suspect is likely) that would make only 2 votes, as Sunstein is on record as opposing the judicial imposition of SSM.

Sunstein will never make it.

Baker still has plenty of life left in it. You have to remember that the Courts are loathe to overturn laws unless a consensus develops in society. When Loving was decided, the overwhelming majority of States had repealed laws against Interracial marriage. So the Court merely continued the trend.

Agreed on all counts. Again, I never said this was something that would happen overnight or without years of struggle.

Regan DuCasse
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Debbie,
You and I have had some exchanges in the past, and I say to you now: your support of Lisa Miller’s actions is wrong headed, despicable and should come back to bite you and your duplicity on this issue.

Lisa Miller is ONLY supported because she renounced being a lesbian and nothing more. When her back was up against it when Jenkins challenged her on child visitation and custody, Miller chose to exploit anti gay sentiment and used the typical tool to win favor to her side: the belief that gay people are sexually irresponsible and predatory.

That Miller had NO proof, nor could substantiate that in court, and in no other area of law, she lost her case and rightfully should have.

Miller is using YOU and everyone LIKE YOU because it’s so easy for you to believe that Jenkins is a bad influence on her daughter (the only one SHE has as well) and you have no other reason to think that other than Jenkin’s homosexuality.

Were YOU a good mother BEFORE or AFTER you were a lesbian and considering all the hetero women out there who are BAD mothers and all the lesbians out there who are GOOD ones, evidently sexual orientation has nothing to do with good parenting.

ONLY criminal neglect and abuse should be the deciding factor on whether that child should be a shared responsibility, or taken from the co-parent.
Not the sexual orientation of the parent. Period.
Apparently Miller also wanted child support, but didn’t want Jenkins to have any contact with their little girl.

If Jenkins had been a man, would we even be having this conversation?
Or is it being a step, non biological parent you have an issue with?

Jenkins tenacity in wanting a relationships with HER only child speaks volumes to her interests in BEING a parent and a good one.
Considering how many children out there don’t have even biological parents at all this interested, we should be supporting Jenkins.

Gays and lesbians are not in such a unique, unprecedented position because one or neither of them can be the biological parent.
Step parenting and adoption are co parent situations among heterosexuals.
What makes this unique is not having the MARITAL protective clauses in parenting.
That’s all.

So what YOU are doing, as do so many people whose anti gay stance is couched in non biological parent discrimination, and yes, it shows specific animus against gay people, not heteros with the same status.

Children’s needs are not something lost on gay folks, especially gay parents. At the time Jenkins and Miller CHOSE to be parents, the commitment was part of that choice that Jenkins hasn’t relinquished, and no parent should be FORCED to do either against their will for reasons other than criminal ones.
And in fact, no other parents ARE.

And this behavior against ONLY gay parents is reprehensible, and something our nation hasn’t seen legally since SLAVERY.
THAT is how bad what you support is.

Remember, I work for the second biggest police agency in the country, if not the world, and I can attest this situation is made much worse by what you believe in and support and is doing nothing to help Isabelle.
No child is helped when one of their parents is separated from them for no reason good enough by legal, justice and criminal standards.

And because of your response to this website, I can no longer think of you in terms or care to address you in any civil way.
We have names in law enforcement for people like you. It’s not flattering nor nice. And I’m not feeling like being that way towards you ever again.
Why SHOULD I be?

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Oh and Wallace: we have 6 states/Federal District with SSM marriage now, and a handful of otherws with some form of civil union/domestic parnership. You keep believing the anti-SSM amendments will hold up all you wish. I see progress and momentum, which will have setbacks to be sure but is getting far, far better than it was 20 years ago.

How long do you think it will be before California and Maine are flipped? 52-53% isn’t that big of a margin to overcome. Just a few more years, perhaps sooner than either one of us thinks.

Priya Lynn
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

“Since Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, I do believe you are right. Of course, I cited that verse not for what you erroneously claim but for folks like you who whine but forget about what Jesus actually said on the matter of persecution. Instead of “rejoicing” all we get are threats and bitching. Hardly Christ-like, pal.”

Wallace said “Uh, yes he did. “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female…””.

And gays and lesbians are males and females – no mention of gays there.

Wallace said “My crowd? What crowd is that?”.

Irrational, hateful, anti-gay bigots.

Ben in Oakland
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Actually, wallace, I was just kidding. I think anti discirmination laws are a good thing. They level the playing field and insure that the government does not use the coercive power of the stae to enforce people’s private hatreds. The ending (and I use that word loosely, since it still exists) of anti-catholic prejudice in the the 1800s was a good thing. the ending of anti-semitism was a good thing. the ending of sexism was a good thing. and the ending of prejudice against gay people for no other reason than ooh-icky or my-2000-year-old-book-might-be-incorrect-yet-again or I-scare-myself will also be a good thing.

One thing i think is absolutely amazing about the california and maine votes– a 35% and a 50% voter turnout. In other words, the bulk of the people didn’t actually care.

but let’s use the 31 losses meme for a moment. Had the religious right foregone the use of lies, stereotypes, and gays-are-gonna-get-your-children fear mongering, your-freedom-is-at-risk, and all the rest of their hate-filled and lying arsenal, had they just left it at “We believe homsoexuality is a sin’– they probably would have lost. But that they did not and could not is a good indication of how very weak the arguments are.

moreover, if indeed the same-sex marriage issue led to the disaster known as the re-election of George Bush– well, there is a disaster that even the Republicans understand was a disaster. A disaster for finance, the economy, our international standing, our treasury, the lives of our soldiers, world peace, the rise of islamic fundamentalism with access to atomic weapons, old people, health care, teen preganancy, and the principles which our nation– yours and mine– was founded upon.

Lindoro Almaviva
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Damn, she did call for reinforcements. Anyone but me thinking that her retraction reeks of opportunism? Anybody but me thinking this whole retraction is just a way for her to divert attention from her and find a way to claim that she is not involved when her other words and actions claim the contrary?

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Why would anyone think that this case, if it ever made its way to the SCOTUS, would have anything to do with same sex marriage?

As long as Virginia courts continue to rule that they do not have jurisdiction over this case, the SCOTUS won’t touch it. If the Virginia courts decided that they did have jurisdiction, then the SCOTUS would take the case, ignore the same sex relationship, and rule on the narrow grounds that this custody case started in Vermont and will remain with the Vermont court.

The Justices would understand that this case is a custody case, pure and simple. They are not silly enough to destroy our entire nation’s Family Court system by injecting issues into a case like this that are not germane to the narrow legal question that is being raised.

Ephilei
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I’m surprised no one has remarked on Debbie’s clarification blog post that she linked to above. Per my comments on her blog, she wants to claim Miller as “the most courageous and God-fearing woman I know” and imply that everything she does is godly but insists that because Debbie’s being coy, shouldn’t be criticized.

Timothy Kincaid
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

In response to my commentary exposing ex-gay leader Debbie Thurman’s endorsement of the kidnapping of Isabella Jenkins-Miller, she has written a piece entitled “Some Needed Clarification“. In in Debbie attempts to suggest that she does not, in fact, endorse kidnapping.

I want to make it clear it is not flouting of the law or of justice I am supporting when I stand with Lisa.

But is that what Debbie makes clear?

The rest of the piece is a recitation of all of the reasons why she does, in fact, support the flouting of the law and of justice – or, at least, in this circumstance:

We must agree that an act of civil disobedience is an extreme step and something only to be considered after the most careful scrutiny of the circumstances and much agonizing prayer.

She then goes on to explain the agonizing prayer and careful scrutiny that justifies this act of kidnapping (what Thurman calls an act of civil disobedience).

It is through this long and considerable thought process, I am certain, that she came to the decision she did. Was it the only way? For her, it clearly was.

Has Debbie clairified? Yes. She does indeed endorse Lisa Miller’s behavior; it was her only way. Debbie Thurman does endorse kidnapping – at least in this instance.

I find that evil.

Priya Lynn
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Ephilei I think no one has commented on Debbie’s “clarification” because she made it clear in her previous post she supports this kidnapping by her praising Miller saying “If the tyrannical minority wants to push against that, it can and will be met with civil disobedience. There is no other way.”.

Once you’ve said “There is no other way”, your claims that you weren’t endorsing kidnapping fall on deaf ears.

Christopher Waldrop
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Thurman claims to have offered a “clarification”, but it all it appears to be is a repetition of her earlier dishonesty. I find it extremely disturbing that Thurman believes her religious beliefs will apparently forgive anything she approves of: kidnapping, lying, flouting the law. I hope that’s as far as she’s willing to go.

Timothy Kincaid
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Debbie Thurman ended her “Clarification” as follows:

I would also call on all those who are praying people to go to your knees and seek wisdom for all parties in this case and that God’s will be done.

But I think that those praying people who have wisdom can already see God’s will being done. (let me address this comment to the praying people, not the atheists)

I see God’s will in the decisions of the legislature to enact civil unions.

I see God’s will in Miller’s choice to file a civil union.

I see God’s will in the selection of Judge Cohen.

I see God’s will in Miller’s arbitrary selection of a lesbian attorney to initially represent her (what are the odds in Virginia?)

I see God’s will in the upholding of Cohen’s decision by the Vermont Supreme Court.

I see God’s will in the upholding of Cohen’s decision by the Virginia Supreme Court.

I see God’s will in the decision of the US Supreme Court to let the decision stand (considering the SCOTUS’ makeup, this is nothing short of a miracle).

I find it odd that considering all that could have gone another way, God’s will cannot be seen by Debbie.

Either God’s will has and is being done, God is amazingly incompetent, or Debbie is confusing God’s will for her own.

Ben in Oakland
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I’ve been waiting for a chance to quote ambrose bierce.

Moral: Conforming to a local and mutable stantard of right. What is expedient.

Immoral: Inexpedient. Whatever in the long run with regard to the greater number of instances men find to be inexpedient comes to be considered wrong, wicked, immoral. If man’s notions of irght and wrong have any other basis than trhis of expediency; if they originated, or oculd have origbinated, in any other way;if actions have in themselves a moral character apart from, and in nowise dependent upon, their consequences– the all philosophy is a lie and reason a disorder of the mind.

I find bierce’s immoderate use of semicolons and em-dashes highly immoral, though it is a sin I tend to commit myself.

Lindoro Almaviva
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I said it here, i said it in her blog and I am going to repeat it again:

This is just opportunism. She was called and told that her words would be understood to be a celebration and endorsement of a felony and that it would bring attention to her and everything she knows on the case. Chances are the call ended with this advise:You better post a clarification if you do not want the police at your doorstep looking for any indication that you might have had knowledge of what was going to happen or that you know where that child is.

Problem is that she is too elated to know the difference and too wrapped up in making the world believe that she is a victim. So she posted a half-assed “clarification” that only goes deeper into bringing the suspicion that she does indeed know something.

Not content with that, and still in victim mode, she makes half-assed attempts into bullying people into leaving her alone with calls for “libel suits” and the big bad hairy ugly boogie man coming to get you. Apparently she has not learned that gay people actually AREallowed an education and that we no longer will sit quietly while the likes of her spew lies, innuendo and hatred like a spitting cobra spits venom.

Burr
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

We won at the ballot box in Washington, so really that “streak” has already been snapped in two.

Gay adoption is legal in the vast majority of states and attempts to overturn it in most cases as failed (Arkansas the only exception). So by their own logic, anti-gays have no claim to whine about it.

Priya Lynn
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

I tried to leave a comment on Thurman’s site, but wordpress wouldn’t give me an account. What I wanted to say was:

Debbie, the only way you can make it clear you don’t support this kidnapping is to post on your blog a message to Lisa Miller saying “Lisa your actions are wrong and against the law, return at once and surrender Isablella to Janet Jenkins as the law requires”.

Anything less and all her praise and encouragement merely amounts to support for this kidnapping.

celtic dragon chick
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

nomasfdrqs says:

Sorry. I am not going anywhere. And neither will you force me to accept your behavior. You will not dictate to me, my family, or my friends how we believe or act. Anyone who ever interferes with my life, or the life of my family does so at their own peril.

Remember: “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Apparently, you are just fine using the coercive power of the law to force your religious views down our throats, as it were. Additionally, you seem to be in favor of treasonous threats against the government and threats of violence against people who somehow interfere with your life by, uh, being gay.

News for you: An awful lot of us in the GLBT community are military vets, and we can handle weapons. I have been directly threatened by idiots like you before, and I keep a Chinese PLA modified SKS assault rifle in my house loaded with Russian 55 grain hollowpoints. Even “tranny” chicks like me can still shoot straight. If you want to take your blowhard tea party rhetoric to the next level and start an insurrection, I will be waiting.

celtic dragon chick
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Hmm. I didn’t mean for the last two paragraphs top be italic.

Quo
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Debbis Thurman is a consverative Christian, and as such of course she wouldn’t see “gay people as equal to herself or, indeed, much other than an enemy to conquer and vanquish.” No sensible person would expect her to.

Jason D
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

in reference to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association,
Tommy said: “Oh, look. Another business that violated the law.”

nomasfdrqs said: A church is now a business in your world?

LIAR.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is NOT a church. In their own words they are:

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church, Inc. (OGCMA) is a non-profit corporation chartered by the State of New Jersey in 1870 to” provide and maintain for the members and friends of the United Methodist Church a proper, convenient, and desirable permanent camp-meeting ground and Christian seaside resort as provided in the Statute of Incorporation.”

Though they are connected to a church, they are not a church themselves. That’s why they use the word “ASSOCIATION”. It’s intellectual slight-of-hand to say that this group is actually a church when they clearly are NOT. I know the words “Methodist Church” appears in the title, but that doesn’t mean it is a church.

And to clarify, much like Miller, they didn’t break the law so much as they breached a contract they entered into voluntarily. They agreed to open their pavillion to the GENERAL PUBLIC in exchange for a special, extra tax break on the pavilion. All kinds of non-methodist activities occured on this property, but it wasn’t until a specific kind of non-methodist activity ( a civil union) was to take place did they say anything at all. Then suddenly, they have to stand up for their religious rights. Well, then they shouldn’t have accepted a tax break based on the property being open to the general public. Gay people are part of the general public. Ignoring or pretending that isn’t true was their own fault. The agreement didn’t have a “gay people don’t count” clause. This is what we call entitlement. Groups like the OGCMA think they’re special, that they get a special exemption from their responsibilities and agreements if they have “sincerely held beliefs”. Well, if they’re so sincere, they shouldn’t have applied for the extra special tax break. The same would be true if a Vegan Society had a pavilion and decided not to allow “The Meat Convention 2010″ on their property.

Miller also thinks she’s special. She thinks she gets to shirk her responsibilities and violate an agreement she voluntarily entered into just because she’s changed her mind.

John
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

celtic: I’m not a violent man myself but being raised in the South myself do not shy away from standing up for myself. Besides many of us being vets ourselves, some of us also come from accepting families with plenty of well-armed vets that do not take kindly to threats being made against one of their own. I take this secessionist talk for the BS bluster it is by deranged blowhards, but if these folks think that this is Jamaica or Uganda or that the clock is going to be rolled back here in the USA so that it’s open season on gays again, they are in for a VERY nasty shock.

Priya Lynn
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Quo said “Debbis Thurman is a consverative Christian, and as such of course she wouldn’t see “gay people as equal to herself or, indeed, much other than an enemy to conquer and vanquish.” No sensible person would expect her to.”.

Hmmm, so sensible people should expect conservative christians to be violent psychopaths. I think a lot of sensible people would disagree with that.

celtic dragon chick
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

John:

Agreed. I’m happy that you have family and friends who can be counted on in a sticky situation. :)

I like to think that the bluster and threats are just so much hot air, but the body count in the civil rights struggles of the fifties and sixties was real. We saw with the death of Dr Tillman this year that religious fanatics are still willing to use gunfire to advance “the will of God”. Being a transgendered woman, the Day of Remembrance brings home to me the fact that there is still an open season for murder on people like me. All it takes is one person who really, really means it when they make a threat…

That is why I am armed, and why I encourage other GLBT people to learn how best to defend themselves. Learn about your local Pink Pistols, or start a chapter. I will not be another statistic bleeding out on a sidewalk if nomasfdrqs or one of his ilk decide that I am “interfering with his beliefs” by having the temerity to be alive.

Emily K
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Here is a comment on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog which is most likely Debbie’s, posted as “DT”:

Jail? Doubtful… Depending on the hiding spot, sure. Quiet, Isabella goes to school, Lisa goes on with her life. No loony protesters or ‘ex-partners’ demanding her child. Yes, I think life may end being pretty good for Lisa away from this circus. I wish her well.

“ex-partner” and “her child.” Nice. Stay classy, Deb.

Lindoro Almaviva
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

For those who might be wondering why have I spewed so much hatred towards this woman, you might want to know that my former sister in law attempted to do the same thing to my brother. She cut all contact between him and his daughter for a year and went as far as insinuating that both my brother and my father were sexually abusing my niece. Not content with doing it once and failing, she is apparently at it again, except this time she has not dared cut contact because the courts told her if she did she would loose custody.

For me this is personal. I watch in horror how a woman would dare rejoyce in the face of another parent’s suffering and that just doesn’t sit well with me.

Cory Sampson
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Is there anywhere where supporters of Jenkins can leave donations, or even just words of encouragement?

Regan DuCasse
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

NOMAS…
You keep bringing up those FEW incidents of litigation by gay couples as if this was a trend.
Now I ask you: if a PUBLICLY ACCESSED building is being used openly by all kinds of people, just HOW is a gay couple supposed to know they are excluded for RELIGIOUS reasons?
And what other choice DO they have if they know there are OTHER exclusions that can meet a religious criteria, but it’s ONLY utilized against THEM, and no other persons?

We live in such a poly glot society, someone’s religion will be offended by something someone does legally and freely.

However, there are no signs on said business that say “heterosexuals only”.

Or how about “no divorcees” or “no adulterers” on signs so a person approaching the business can avoid trying to use it?

The point is nomas, it IS impossible to suddenly have all these religious grounds for discrimination, when you’re not doing it CONSISTENT with those beliefs.
Especially if the law requires said business to operate under non discrimination laws.
One can choose to have a business, one can’t choose to be gay and we don’t live in a country that ENFORCES any kind of religious belief.

Think: if you really believed in your own faith and it’s directives, then you would be ashamed of your victim mentality in this forum.

Further, you’d remember just how much abuse there has been based on religious belief, and how much progress this country has made by rejecting it.
The reason being, you DO have a choice WHAT religion you want to believe, and to what degree.
The government doesn’t care about that, nor can require anyone else to believe what you do.

THAT is why, equal treatment under the law, and protections of minorities FROM tyrannical majority was written into two very precious documents.

Your beliefs reconcile with a LOT of things unacceptable to it.
That’s true for all kinds of people in this country.
For example: Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot accept blood and organ donations. It’s considered foul and a poisoning of the body.
Yet, JW’s can’t tell YOU or ME that WE can’t accept such medical intervention, even though it’s risky sometimes.
But the benefits have outweighed the risks and our society accepts this routinely.

Whatever you think of homosexuality, it’s been an indigenous and universal part of all mankind and mankind’s history.
One thing is clear, our nation encourages and celebrates SELF RELIANCE, and it’s STILL a long time coming that people like you accept that in gay people.

YOU don’t and shouldn’t impose your will to control gay people for ANY reason, ESPECIALLY not religious ones because such a thing would ALSO exclude a LOT of heterosexuals, who would tell you where to stuff it if you tried on them what you think you’re entitled to get away with against gay people.

The ONLY thing that will work, and has, is equal treatment. I have faith in equality and the mission statements of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If YOU don’t, then maybe you shouldn’t live here.
Evidently you want to own those documents the way you think you own God and the Bible.

AND, I’m sick of people like you invoking the ‘gay people don’t procreate’ meme all day and night.

As IF that’s a rational reason to discriminate against ANYBODY.
And our laws in fact DON’T for that reason.
And you invoke that as if non procreating non parent adults don’t make IMMEASURABLE contributions to the health, safety and welfare of society in OTHER ways beyond making babies.
Newsflash: animals can make babies, but all kinds of people can make a good society.

When you talk about ‘the perpetuation of the species’ let’s get real about THAT loaded piece of crap.

Why don’t you just come out and say ‘perpetuation’ of MY exclusive, narrow and inbred tribe.’?

It’s diversification that makes a society strong, and just because those who make contributions to it are UNDER APPRECIATED doesn’t mean that contribution didn’t and doesn’t happen.

You ARE ignorant, and not only prejudiced in this way, but you insult more than just gay people.

Your condescending attitudes and addressing this group as if they are children, reminds me of EXACTLY how segregationists addressed people of color.
And Jim Crow was enacted based on the demonized SEXUALITY of black men, color was just a means of sorting.

The demonized sexuality of gay people is having the same effect and that’s why similar Jim Crow like laws are still in place for gay people.
The history speaks for itself.

When churches are raided and it’s inhabitants assaulted and arrested for socializing together THEN you can complain.
When two Christian eleven year olds are bullied until they commit suicide happens THEN you might want to express outrage.

If a gay kid comes up to another in their classroom and puts TWO bullets in the head of someone THAT gay kid bullied and threatened beforehand,or when gay parents kick their hetero child into the street while he’s an adolescent, THEN your complaints might have weight.

And even when all these horrible things have happened to innocent children. Gay children executed in class, or even abuse by THEIR OWN PARENTS: gay people STILL use DUE PROCESS OF LAW to have these SERIOUS grievances dealt with.

And as I said, having their children and property taken away hasn’t been seen since slavery.
So if you want to make comparisons, it’s gay people who have more similar experiences than a Christian like you.

And it’s MILLER who took the child away, not JENKINS.

So YOU are FOS, Debbie T is FOS and invoking a civil rights icon insults their memory where civil disobedience is concerned. This isn’t civil disobedience, it’s COWARDICE and a criminal act.

SicSemperTyrannis
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Hey Celtic and John. I hate to break it to you, but there are more of us than there are of you.

Not to mention, unlike the fake “officer” that likes to post here, the majority of people in the military and law enforcement aren’t exactly sympathetic with you sodomite perverts.

Keep up the threats.

Lynn David
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Thurman at her blog:

She is, frankly, the most courageous and God-fearing woman I know. She is not given to flights of fancy, but rather to deep, serious prayer and a faith in God that says, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.”

If that were true she would have stood and fought.

Ben in Oakland
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

It is hard for me to understand how people can live with so much hate in their hearts, but i guess you can.

Regan, btw, is quite heterosexual. but as a black woman, she understands the insidious nature of hate, and how it can bend and twist and yes, pervert, people. It also tends to stupidify them.

Here’s two things I would like you to do. you made this statement:

“Tell that to the homosexual terrorists who mailed anthrax to mormon temples, assaulted people in the Street, pushed down old ladies, vandalized buildings, threatened people, and burned down churches.”

Please provide a documented instance where anthrax, not just a miscellaneous white powder, was mailed to a mormon temple, and that the mailer was proved to be a gay person.

Provide the same documented instance of a church being burned down because of its anti-gay stance, where the arsonist was proven to be a gay person. (This is opposed to the 17 instances where a Meteropolitan Community Church was burned down by arson). i just want one.

Wingnut Daily Reports don’t count.

And if you can’t do that, which according to the FBI and to the best of my knowledge you can’t, then maybe you could consider just how much YOU have been perverted by hate.

Personally, I prefer my kind of “perversion”.

Jim Burroway
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Re “sodomite perverts”

SicSemperTyrannis is banned due to violations of our Comments Policy

Jason D
December 31st, 2009 | LINK

Can I just stop and say I love Regan DuCasse about as much as a 100% gay man ever possibly can?

Keep on it, Regan.

Eric in Oakland
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

I wonder if the same people who are cheering Lisa Miller’s contempt for the law based on her supposed religious convictions would also support parallel situations like those below?

A) A Mormon mother who refused visitation on the grounds that her ex is a Catholic.

B) A Baptist mother who refused visitation on the grounds that her ex is a Jew.

C) A Muslim mother who refused visitation on the grounds that her ex is an atheist.

Debbie Thurman
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

I don’t think I have the energy to read all the recent comments here, but I will comment on a few.

Timothy, you cited milestones in the case so far as evidence of God’s will. But it’s not over till it’s over, and a whole new avenue of appeals has just begun, for those who aren’t aware of it.

Lindoro, you are just continuing to go down the wrong rabbit trail.

Emily, I am not the “DT” who commented at the WSJ blog (or whichever one it was), although I did read the story.

Lynn David, you make a valid point that others certainly agree with: If Lisa trusted God enough, why didn’t she continue to stand and fight or even submit to the Vermont court rulings with the belief that God would protect Isabella? I don’t have an answer as I am not inside her head, nor do I know everything she knows. But it is a reasonable position to hold from our viewpoint.

There has been some additional discussion at my blog that may provide a bit more insight or at least food for though, FYI.

Lindoro Almaviva
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Truly Ms. Thurman, I couldn’t care less what your opinion is of me or what I am doing. The fact still is that you deserve to be investigated because your comments scream of aiding and abating. All your protestations and threats of libel only make it more suspicious that you might not be telling the whole truth.

Then there is the little fact of you gloating over another mother’s suffering. If you claim to be a Christian (which I have made it clear i do not believe you are) you would know that Jesus called us to compassion towards the ones who suffer. You have completely ignored that and has gloated over the fact that a mother might never see her child again.

You gloated over the fact that a mother will never know whether her child is alive, sick, healthy, in danger, loved… You gloated over the fact that there will be holidays, birthdays, occasions when a mother will be thinking of her daughter and not know where she is. You gloated over the fact that there will be gifts bought, cards bought, calls waited and nothing.

If you are a mother, you know that is the worse nightmare a mother can have: not knowing where their child is so they can help if they are in danger. You gloated over a mother living through that nightmare. You might as well gloat over a mother crying over her child’s dead body. Not only have you proved to be heartless, you have proved to be a complete insensitive human being.

Before you even attempt to say well, you are not being compassionate with me I will tell you that i know that and not only do i know, I do not care because you do not deserve respect or compassion. I am a firm believe r of You reap what you sow. You do not deserve one ounce of what you have proved you are impossible to give. After all, I am not the one claiming to have been purified by a God.

As far as I am concerned, what you deserve is suffering the same way Janet Jenkins is suffering right now. You deserve to shed the same tears mothers and fathers all over the world shed on a daily basis because they do not know the fate of their children because one parent took off. You deserve to shed the same tears my brother, mother, father and sister she for a year when my former sister in law attempted to do the same. If there is a God, justice will be done on you in the same measure that you are inflicting pain in another human being, moreover a fellow woman and mother.

Richard Rush
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

In order to get the new year off to a nice start, here is a graph showing changes in US attitudes toward homosexuality from 1973 to 2008. I invite Debbie Thurman and her frothing-at-the-mouth homo-loathing friends to check it out. While we still have a long way to go, the trend is clear: our side is winning. While the Christian Controlatives (CCs) often win individual battles, we are obviously winning the war in the long run.

And the best part is that while the hysteria level of CCs has been running at maximum intensity for a number of years, we are the ones winning. It’s a major irony that the harder the CCs try, the more we win. As someone who came out gay in 1969, I’ve seen the subject of homosexuality go from being virtually unspeakable to being widely discussed, and seen us go from being deeply closeted to where many of us live openly honest lives. So, every attack by the CCs, including their ballot initiatives, assures that gay people are closer to the forefront of public consciousness. And when reasonable people are compelled to face the issue, greater numbers begin to understand that it is normal for a certain percentage of people to be gay, and that it harms no one. And furthermore, those with any depth of knowledge begin to understand that full social acceptance of gays actually benefits all of society in tangible ways. The CC’s arguments begin to be understood for what they are: learned prejudices and visceral emotions backed by religion-based nonsense. So I say to the CCs: Become louder, more shrill, hysterical, hyperbolic, and waste more money from your gullible supporters — and then watch us win.

I wish everyone, including Debbie and her friends, a very Happy New Year.

wister
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Well said, Richard.

Burr
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Yep. These are just the hysterical throes of a dying beast. I just laugh and smile knowing victory is imminent.

Ben in Oakland
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Richard: I’ve often said on These Very Pages that the enemy isn’t the religious right, the enemy is and always has been the closet. I welcome their initiatives and attacks, because it gets people to talk about it, which they weren’t doing before. Remember always the “crime against nature, not to be named among Christians.” Funny how you can talk about the torture and murder of the man god– DEICIDE in their own terms– you can talk about dad-on-daughter incest, but you can’t tlak aobut THAT!

Jim: I think I would have let our name-caller off with a warning. He’s just like anyone else who mis-posts or drives drunk– he’s entitled to a mistake– once. Besides, you’ve given him another chit on his I’m-the-Victim wish list. Personally, I consider it a badge of honor to be called a sodomitical pervert by one who is so filled with hate, fear, and basic stupidification. (I always have to wonder why so much vehemence, if you know what I mean, and i think you do). sort of like being called a truly evil person by Old Scratch. One can always appreciate the opinion of a connoisseur.

And to the DT lady: someday you may even believe, possibly even follow, your founder’s admonitions to get your own life completely straightened out before you mind other poeple’s business, to render unto Caesar instead of congratulating one who seized her, and to add to the peace in the world rather than the world in pieces.

And to SST: it must suck to be filled with so much anger and fear. I couldn’t live my life that way. Just be careful the SST isn’t really a cover for SSA, becuase ya know, you might end up liking SSM.

have a wonderful new year, all.

Regan DuCasse
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Backatcha Jason D. and all the other well informed, sensible and FAR more compassionate folks who are posting at this site.

Debbie, if you are coming here, MAKE the time to read all the posts. They are far more informed, morally sound and intelligent than you’re coming up with.
LEARN something from folks who KNOW better than you do the facts of law and civil responsibility.

And, although I’m not a uniformed officer, I AM a first responder and have born witness to the terrible things that parents have done to their children.
Lisa Miller is in THAT league, contrary to what you think you know.

I also have tremendous gay colleagues in law enforcement, as well as gay couples and singles who I know that are parents, as apparently YOU DON’T and each and every one of them regardless of being excellent parents, has to be put at risk of losing their children because of the likes of crusaders like you.

This isn’t about the sake of children, this is about PUNISHING gay people, and punishing gay parents in particular.

As a mother who has turned on another, you have broken a VERY fundamental Christian directive, you’re not treating Jenkins the way YOU’D want to be treated as a mother.
She deserves it as much as Miller did. That directive didn’t explicitly say ‘except for lesbian mothers’, nor does the Constitution.

So evidently there is NO LAW that you’re willing to really abide by, if it’s too inconvenient for you or even if it isn’t.

wister
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

BTW, this person’s blog and site are now closed. I’d never heard of her before and went to look at The Formers and there’s nothing there except a notice that she can’t maintain it for some reason. It would seem that the closing was abrupt to judge by her comments here and those of her followers.

Of course, the elephant in the room with most of these people is that the anti-gay industry makes a lot of money for a lot of people. I don’t know about her personally – as before stated, I’d never heard of her – but I wonder how much income it provides for Maggie Gallagher or Richard (is it?) Cohen of the famous hug therapy? Without the financial incentive I doubt that most of them would waste their time – and our lives – on such foolishness.

Lindoro Almaviva
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Oh, it IS down? I just thought she had banned me from it because I kept posting that I thought she was lying about all this and how she kept protesting her lack of knowledge and it kept looking more and more like she was lying.

Apparently it is hard to spew that much hatred and not nice when it comes back at you.

Burr
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

God has told me to “go home” and serve my family. What greater ministry is there?

If only all haters would take this message to heart and focus all their efforts on this instead trying to sabotage everyone else’s duties.

John
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Burr,

Where is this quote coming from? I don’t see it anywhere on this page.

Regan DuCasse
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

There is something seriously perverted about Debbie T and her supporters that believes they can dish it all day long, but aren’t supposed to TAKE it.

A mother’s relationship with THEIR only child is at stake, and the chest pounding from NOMAS as if the intents of gay people threatens him or his freedoms would otherwise be laughable.

“There are more of us than you…” says he.
Well,that has nothing to do with being good, fair or even right.

I’d like to challenge our usual detractors to come up with more than abstractions about gay people and to explain how KEEPING an adult FROM their parental…or even spousal duties, can be justified in a Constitutional amendment?

We live in a society when these duties are abandoned at will, with little the Debbie T’s and NOMAS of the country can do to MAKE someone adhere to them.
But along come gay folks who DO want and DO have that willingness and responsibility, and THESE people want to render gay adults more and more helpless and less secure in that endeavor.

Is that STUPID or what?

And I’m correct: black slaves were not legally able to marry, or keep their own children. If their master was the biological father of the child, the slave co parent had no rights nor ability to take responsibility for that child. Even if that parent became free, the child could not.

This social status, and serious inability to legally secure a child or spouse through marriage is a contemporary scenario played out among gay parents and life partners all over America.
It is as heartless towards gay people as it was towards blacks. It is a shameful chapter of American history that should be rejected outright because of it’s repetition of it’s cruelty and ANTI American and un Constitutional aspects.

There is no caring, patriotic or person of faith for that matter, that would support any laws like this towards non criminal, contributing members of a free society. Period.

Arguing, as NOMAS and Debbie do, to DEFEND such outrageous laws against a target like gay people is as despicable as supporting Jim Crow.
Indeed, what’s the difference in their respective opinions?

Arguing that a majority of people believe as they do, reminds us of the powerful majority that white Christian males have held in this country, but who didn’t necessarily let their sentiments be known while irreparable damage was done to vulnerable lives.
Our country has yet to live down it’s racist legacies and the isolation it’s caused.
Misogyny is still evident in policies on medical care for women,criminal justice and family structure.
And there are many families no longer whole and neither are the lives of many gay young people because of what NOMAS and Debbie support.

They disgust me for their arrogance and ignorance of what they are repeating in history. They are cowering behind public policy against people who are NOT their enemy and never have been.
How easy it is to be cruel to people who cannot and don’t act in kind.

Forgive my rant, but I have to say it. Especially because they injected civil rights history into this issue, but so WRONGLY.
And SO SELFISHLY.

And for all the reasons I mentioned in an aforementioned post.

If you knew anything about several generations of my family, Debbie and NOMAS, you REALLY don’t want to go toe to toe with ME about this and in THAT historical context.

You’ve been WRONG from jump, and too much of a jello spined individual to even get the history you invoked right.

DON’T. EVEN.

Elise
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

“If only all haters would take this message to heart and focus all their efforts on this instead trying to sabotage everyone else’s duties.”

Don’t get too hopeful. The Protect Isabella site is still up and running.

Burr
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Burr,

Where is this quote coming from? I don’t see it anywhere on this page.

From theformers.com

Richard W. Fitch
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

from — http://www.theformers.com/

Happy New Year to all. The beginning of a new year and a new decade is the perfect time for reflecting on life’s blessings and for reassessing where one is headed. I am most blessed to have a family that loves me and to have had the privilege of walking out my life’s witness in service to God through church and in other capacities for many years. It’s been a grand journey so far.
After much prayer and reflection, I believe God is urging me to take a leave of absence from my ministry via the Formers. I am content to let Him determine how long that will be and what the future will look like for me. It’s not the first time God has told me to “go home” and serve my family. What greater ministry is there?

Because I will not be available to administrate the main site and the blog until further notice, I feel it is best to make both inactive.

God bless you in the new year.

In Christ,

Debbie Thurman

Richard W. Fitch
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

….and might it be that the Thurman family has suddenly been increased by two……..?

David C.
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

[And] might it be that the Thurman family has suddenly been increased by two?—Richard W. Fitch

Dare I hope that just perhaps this little dialogue and the elegant words of commenters such as Regan DuCasse, Lindoro Almaviva, Ben in Oakland, Richard Rush, and others here and elsewhere have given her pause to reflect. If Debbie Thurman has any contact whatsoever with Lisa Miller and Isabelle, she would be very wise to counsel a return to following the laws of our country.

John
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Debbie seems erratic and given to extremes, so I would think that suddenly leaving her work or whatever current cause she is championing is probably well within her normal modus operandi.

Ray
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

I hope the FBI follows you, Deb Thurman, on your leave of absence. A wiretap on your phones and a search of your computer would be a nice idea, too.

Richard W. Fitch
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

This whole case points out how important it is to enforce DOMA and continue the drive for a Constitutional amendment preventing two men or two women from marrying and adopting children, where one or neither is the natural parent. And while the terms of such control are being debated, it would be well to include stipulations that any marriage can only be between persons of the same religious practices. None of this RC and Episcopalian couples, a Jew and a Jehovah Witness, a Pentecostal and a Muslim. If the marriage fails how can the proper upbringing of the children every be adjudicated?

grantdale
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

@Debbie Thurman of The Former Formers

It’s not the first time God has told me to “go home”

Debbie: that wasn’t God. It was me. And they weren’t my exact words.

Actually… we kind of guess any “ex-gay ministry” would consider having to close up shop if one of their “flock” has absconded from the law in such circumstances. Lisa Miller was involved with your ministry, wasn’t she?

No, seriously. Was she?

Lindoro Almaviva
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

If I had anything to do with the demolition of that site, then the last 2 days I have had were all worth it.

One less site where troubled gay people will go to hear that they are not loved by The Great One (whomever (S)He/It is). One less site where people will go and get brained washed with a corrupted version of a message that was from the very beginning about tolerance and respect.

If i had anything to do with it, I will have a glass of wine and celebrate that the world might be a better place for 5 minutes.

David
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

“Wrong. Miller is the sole parent. Filthy deviant Cohen purported to remove custody and transfer it. Considering that Miller still has Isabella, that worked out real well, didn’t it.”

There has been no reported sighting of Isabella and Lisa Miller together. Though it is a reasonable presumption that Lisa may be responsible for Isabella’s disappearance, it is not yet an established fact. Any of Lisa’s supporters could be hiding Isabella. Yet we are presented with a declaration of fact: “Miller still has Isabella”.

I think there is a very good chance that “nomasfdrqs” is Lisa Miller.

Any IT information available – IP address, associated physical location, etc. should be forwarded to the FBI, just in case.

All leads should be followed.

Sol Invictus
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

Interesting. Ms. Thurman had some thoughts. Once again the anti Miller faction does not have their facts straight.

Here is one to start by Ducasse;

“Lisa Miller is ONLY supported because she renounced being a lesbian and nothing more.”

What happened to the born that way and can not change meme? Ducasse has claimed gays cannot change, now she starts right off with a contrary claim, what is it, born that way or not?

Women in family matters have always held an advantage in society. Laws abound in the workplace and other areas that offer pregnant women special rights that men do not have.

Same sex marriage will invalidate those laws. You can’t offer special priviliges (pregnancy laws) to one marriage (hetero) and different to another. (SSM)

Women will, and are going to lose a ton of rights and privileges in the workplace, and legal civil areas because of the demands by SSM activists for EQUALITY. Women cannot be favored over men, now can they??? And surely not a bunch of heteros, why should THEY be given special rights over non children couples?

Miller is the biological mother, the other ex partner Jenkins is nothing more than the same as any step parent, or for that fact grandparent.

It will be really ugly if the other half of the conception decides HE wants the child. Jenkins will have NO standing for anything.

This has been turned into another equality war by Jenkins with the child as a pawn.

Now that is truly ugly.

Sol Invictus
January 1st, 2010 | LINK

I don’t think Ms. Miller has any problems staying in Virginia if the following is correct:

“Though Virginia’s state law and constitution expressly ban enforcement of any right or order arising from same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, a Vermont judge last month ordered Lisa Miller of Virginia to transfer custody of her 7-year-old daughter, Isabella, to her former partner, Janet Jenkins of Vermont, by Jan. 1, 2010.”

Ms. Miller is the biological parent, and if the Virginia law stands Ms. Miller has some safety.

The real QUESTION is, why does Jenkins want custody of a child that is not hers?

She is biologically capable of having a child. Why take Millers?

This has politics written all over it, and not very smart politics at that.

MirrorMan
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Sol Invictus, I have to say, in my opinion, you are an idiot.

Allow me to illustrate:

“Sol Invictus
January 1st, 2010 | LINK
Interesting. Ms. Thurman had some thoughts. Once again the anti Miller faction does not have their facts straight.

Here is one to start by Ducasse;

“Lisa Miller is ONLY supported because she renounced being a lesbian and nothing more.”

What happened to the born that way and can not change meme? Ducasse has claimed gays cannot change, now she starts right off with a contrary claim, what is it, born that way or not?”

So, Mr. S. Invictus, are you saying that you know, for a certainty, that there are only the two poles for sexual orientation? Are you positive, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Lisa Miller is not lying? That she is now, and indeed, always was, a heterosexual? Are saying that you know, beyond what all others know, that you are correct and we are wrong?

Please show your work. Thank you.

“Women in family matters have always held an advantage in society.”

I am sorry, but what? It wasn’t until 1920…
1920!!!! That the 19th Amendment was passed permitting women full voting rights! What Freaking planet are you from?!?!

“Laws abound in the workplace and other areas that offer pregnant women special rights that men do not have.”

Trust me, if Men could get pregnant, those laws would have been mandatory Centuries ago!

“Same sex marriage will invalidate those laws.”

How? What proof do you have? What argument to you have to offer?

“You can’t offer special priviliges (pregnancy laws) to one marriage (hetero) and different to another. (SSM)”

Again, Why? If you are raising a child, what does it matter if it is a biological birth or an adoption? Companies already allow time off for an adoption so that the parents can bond with a child, be they Hetero or Homo. I know, because I work for one of those companies, and the situation already occurred with a heterosexual couple adopting a child, so what is the DAMN difference? Your prejudice, perhaps?

“Women will, and are going to lose a ton of rights and privileges in the workplace, and legal civil areas because of the demands by SSM activists for EQUALITY.”

I LOVE this one!!! OK, lets assume you are right. Care to help us all out here and tell us EXACTLY how this will happen? And what rights they will lose? Again, don’t forget to show your work. Good examples ARE essential!

“Women cannot be favored over men, now can they???”

How about we treat everyone equally for awhile and we see how that works out, ‘K?

“And surely not a bunch of heteros, why should THEY be given special rights over non children couples?”

The denseness of this statement makes me want to reach through the computer screen and slap everyone who had anything to do with your education. Because they f-upped BIG TIME!

“Miller is the biological mother, the other ex partner Jenkins is nothing more than the same as any step parent, or for that fact grandparent.”

Does that somehow make her any less a better parent than the biological parent? You read the papers? Did you read about the biological father who shoved needles into his son at the urging of his new girlfriend to get back at his ex-wife? If biological was better, than you should be a fan of that man.

“It will be really ugly if the other half of the conception decides HE wants the child. Jenkins will have NO standing for anything.”

Man, clueless isn’t just a description for you, is it. It’s a destination! Artificial insemination. Look it up. Try to educate yourself, please.

“This has been turned into another equality war by Jenkins with the child as a pawn.”

No. Miller did this, and if you would pull your head out of your latest religious tract and spoon-fed right-wing diatribe and look at the situation for what it is (as opposed to what you’ve been told to think!) you might realize that! But compassion, and more importantly, the best interests of the child, seem top be beyond your comprehension.

“Now that is truly ugly.”

So was your post. Now hie thee to an educational institution and learn what the hell your are talking about, before you embarrass yourself any more in a public forum.

Oh, one last thing.

Your entire post was wrong.

Elise
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

“I think there is a very good chance that “nomasfdrqs” is Lisa Miller.”

I don’t know, man. That seems like a bit of a stretch. Do we really have any evidence for that?

I’d imagine that both Miller and Thompson, if she were harboring Miller, would have more sense than to go crowing all over the internet about the kidnapping and drawing attention to themselves. But maybe I’m wrong.

I will note, though, that there’s been no report of Miller having a job that she hasn’t shown up for, making me assume she is not employed. Which means that unless she is independently wealthy, she’s relying on the financial assistance of someone else to make her flight from the law. I really won’t guess who, since I think it could be a number of anti-gay ally or ministry, but it does seem pretty likely there’s some accomplice out there.

grantdale
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Dear Sol Noncomprehendo,

You need to start masturbating again.

I cannot promise it will resolve your obvious affliction, but at least it will help keep you pre-occupied.

If, and when, you ever disengage from your red-raw plonker … you will discover that both the Supreme Court of Vermont AND the Supreme Court of Virginia have already answered your fevered mind.

Janet Jenkins is a legal parent.

Lisa Miller is too.

One parent has abused the other, over many years.

The Court, with all patience, has finally ruled.

The loser has absconded.

It really is that simple.

Burr
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Okay, casting aside the completely non-sensical rant about maternity/paternity leave..

Though Virginia’s state law and constitution expressly ban enforcement of any right or order arising from same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, a Vermont judge last month ordered Lisa Miller of Virginia to transfer custody of her 7-year-old daughter, Isabella, to her former partner, Janet Jenkins of Vermont, by Jan. 1, 2010.

Note that the Full Faith and Credit clause in the U.S. Constitution supercedes any of Virginia’s laws about the matter, and the SCOTUS full heartedly agrees by not stepping into this. So the Virginia law does NOT stand and she’s in flagrant violation of the laws that apply.

This has politics written all over it, and not very smart politics at that.

At least you’re right about one thing.

ZRAinSWVA
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Sol Invictus wrote, “The real QUESTION is, why does Jenkins want custody of a child that is not hers?”

Your question underscores your ignorance of relationships and love and parenting. The couple made a deliberate DECISION to have a child–it wasn’t some arbitrary ‘oops’ of failed birth control or church decree on the use of same. They both COMMITTED to raising the child in a loving household. They BOTH invested their LOVE in rearing the child. It does not matter that one was not biologically related to the child; the intentional bond of LOVE that was formed is no different than that formed when:

- any couple decides to adopt
- a heterosexual (or homosexual) couple decides to have a child via donation of egg or sperm or the use of a surrogate parent
- a grandparent or god parent or other takes guardianship of a child because the parent(s) is/are unsuitable or unwilling to raise the child in a loving and safe household.

Ben in Oakland
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

ZRA– you really just don’t understand, do you? Gay people are absolutely INCAPABLE of loving a child, wanting a child, raising a child. we have no normal human emotions, because according to the anti gay industry, we’re not really humans, and we were recruited into the lifestyle from being normal people, so we are totally preoccupied with having sex with as many people as we can. Unfortunately, we are limited to marrying only one at a time. We don’t have to normal cravings for children and family life, because we only want to have sex with them.

Or something.

Have I explained it to you now?

ZRAinSWVA
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Ben in Oakland, I bend my head in humble shame. I should have realized the errors of my ways. I’m now off to find some random coupling…probably with some closeted married man!

Ben in Oakland
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

apology and shame accepted. Please send me a check for $1000, payable to I can Fix You on God’s Behalf.*

*if you don’t define fix.**

**if you don’t define God.***

***no warrantees are made, expressly or implied, about the efficacy of this product.****

****your personal results may vary considerably.

Regan DuCasse
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Sol Invictius, so quick to attack without reading the full of my posts.
Miller is supported by the anti gay factions because she renounced being a lesbian.
As I POSTED, had she been a MAN, step father or hetero adoptive parent, this conversation wouldn’t have started.

And I’m not the one who claims that gay people can’t change, it’s a fact of life.
Being the biological parent doesn’t imbue a person suddenly with the moral, emotional or material means for a child to have a secure and caring home.
As I ALSO said earlier, these women decided to have this only child TOGETHER and so this little one doesn’t have any other parents.
Jenkins was doing the RIGHT thing by fighting for the SHARED responsibility of that child.

Miller didn’t have any rational reason to KEEP Jenkins from seeing their child. None at all.
Being the biological parent isn’t reason enough.

John
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Where Miller’s financial support comes from is an interesting question. I am sure that it will be pursued as soon as a bench warrant has been issued. Bank accounts, credit cards, cash withdrawls, ATM use are all very useful in tracking someone down.

If Miller recieved all of her support from a particular source prior to going on the lam, authorities could probably get warrants for monitoring the financials of those groups to look for suspicious money transfers or other activity.

It isn’t as easy these days to just disappear. I would hope that the passport for those involved (particularly the child) was confiscated long ago (a reasonable precaution in contentious custody cases).

Bill S
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

“The real QUESTION is, why does Jenkins want custody of a child that is not hers?
She is biologically capable of having a child. Why take Miller’s?”

Sol, you are an ass.
In the first place, the child IS hers, legally. I assume you meant why does she want custody of a child that’s not BIOLOGICALLY hers, and that’s a rather stupid question, since there are a lot of step- and adoptive parents who feel a bond towards a child they helped raise in a relationship with another person.
In the second place, what kind of person tells another, “Oh, you can just have another kid to replace the one you lost!” That’s an incredibly sick thing to say. What’s more-how do you know she’s biologically capable of having a child. While it’s certainly possible for a 45 year old woman to bear a child, it can be medically risky. And you certainly don’t know what her fertility status is.

TJMcFisty
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

“In the second place, what kind of person tells another, ‘Oh, you can just have another kid to replace the one you lost!’”

Funny since you mentioned it, my partner’s sister was told by her outlaws she needed to have another child just in case something happened to the first one. Just as they had done by having two children–you know, always have a backup for emergencies!

As a follow on to that, since nothing ever bad happened to the first child, they treated the backup child like garbage and told her she’d never amount to anything.

Ben in Oakland
January 2nd, 2010 | LINK

“As a follow on to that, since nothing ever bad happened to the first child, they treated the backup child like garbage and told her she’d never amount to anything.”

but at least she hasn’t been intentionally deprived of a mother and a father like she owuld with those dirty homos.I’m sure that makes up for it significantly.

Jason D
January 3rd, 2010 | LINK

the amount of selfishness on the part of Miller and Thurman is rather staggering and unChristian.

Two people agreed to have a baby, and when they decided that their love wasn’t meant to be, they agreed to share custody, until one of them decides she wants to throw away the past, her commitments, and even her daughter’s relationship to her other mother.

Miller wasn’t so righteous that she couldn’t take child support from Jenkins.

It doesn’t matter if Jenkins isn’t the birth mother, she’s still Isabella’s mother. The ONLY reason she doesn’t have a stronger relationship with Isabella is because Miller selfishly and illegally denied her one. That’s like somebody putting a fence around your new home to keep you out, moving in and living there and saying “well, Gee, I deserve this house because I spent more time here”

When two people agree to bring a child into this world, one of them doesn’t just get to cut the other one out because she’s embarassed or wants to move on with her life. Parenting doesn’t end just because the relationship that fostered it ends.

If Jenkins were the birth mother, would Miller be okay with being denied a relationship with her daughter? I highly doubt that.

Thurman is selfish, Miller is selfish, and now Isabella is the victim of all this selfishness.

Jenkins only wanted what was fair, what would be fair to any other parent in the same situation, biological or not.

But Thurman, Miller, and her supporters have their “Anything to Stop The Gay” cards out and are playing them left and right.

LisaEqualityTalmadge
January 3rd, 2010 | LINK

Hello all
Wow, what a comment thread, it’s about time Box turtle boys (I love you) got it going on. Now, widen out your format so we can read easier, ok?
So, I read most all of this and just scanned the last section.

Why it the constant refrain that Miller is the only legal/biological mother in this broken family?
I live in vermont, we HAVE LAWS!

One law we passed ten years ago is called CIVIL UNIONS, that law made Janet Jenkins the LEGAL OTHER PARENT of Isabella. On Vermont birth certificates, there are a spaces for parent_______ and parent________.

In the early days of civil unions the Dept of Vital records would xx out the gender specific term and type in “other parent” for civil union couples.

Now, Debbie Thurman may balk at the “horrible mess of legal paperwork” creadted by “civil unionizing” but our state is small and when you go to the dept of vital records, typically you are the only people there and the clerks are excited to have something to do.

In our experience the clerks are happy as can be to celebrate the birth of another Vermonter regardless of the gender of the parents and changing a few forms to celebrate advancing civil rights in the first state to abolish slavery is something we all love to do here.

Recently, we needed additionally sealed copies of our sons birth certificate. The clerk told us that the forms have been changed to spouse and spouse and she was very proud of the enlightened, fair, humanity of our legislature and population that we now have legal marriage equality.

The idea that an “activist judge” in vermont granted a”legal stranger” custody is absurd. The judge followed the laws of the state of Vermont.

Jenkins is a legal parent, Miller is a legal parent. The law of Vermont makes no distinction between the two. They are equally the child’s mothers.

Now, Miller defied the law and refused to cooperate with custody, the judge followed the law and after years of fighting Jenkins was awarded custody.
Again, Miller defied the law and kidnappped the child.

In all your wranglings about this case, please do not ignore the laws of my beloved state that all of us Vermonters worked very hard TOGETHER for years and years to agree to enact.

And please refrain Debbie Thurman from pretending that my family does not exist because you do not “believe” in laws.

Thank you.

Ben in Oakland
January 4th, 2010 | LINK

next you’re going to utter somme utter nonsense about rendering unto caesar that hwich is caesar’s.

Generation Y
January 12th, 2010 | LINK

Hey anti-gay people.

I have a message from the younger generation.

We do not care.
I repeat we do not care the slightest about gays.

You have already lost and you don’t even know it.

Philip King
May 4th, 2011 | LINK

Thank you, LisaEqualityTalmage, for explaining the part about Janet Jenkins being a legal parent of Isabella under Vermont law. That accounts for why she refers to her as “my daughter” even though no adoption ever took place.
I still have a lot of questions as to how this civil union thing works. Is it illegal, for example, to enter a civil union while married in another state?

This case has shown the ability of a Vermont judge to take jurisdiction in a federal matter, and I can foresee a lot of similar cases erupting–for example, what if Lisa had changed her mind before the birth and refused to list Janet as a parent on the certificate–could Janet sue to have the certificate changed after the fact?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.