July 2, 2008 by Stacy McDonald
And it only gets worse…
“You’ve probably heard the relativist line that goes something like this: “Gay marriage won’t hurt anyone. Live and let live, already!” Well, don’t buy it for a minute.”
Yep. We’ve even heard it here in the comments section. And too many around our country are echoing similar sentiments. Yet, there are numerous consequences to legalizing and legitimizing what God calls an abomination. The following example is a sickening wake up call…
“Virginia resident Lisa Miller, mother of six-year-old Isabella Miller, was involved in homosexuality for a short time. Thankfully, she found freedom from the destructive “gay” lifestyle – as so many others have done – through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and, along with Isabella, is now a Christian.
For the past five years or so, Lisa and Isabella have been trying to live their lives in peace at home in Virginia. But unfortunately, they’ve been unable to do so, as Lisa’s dark past has come back to haunt them. They’ve been the target of a vicious legal attack by militant homosexual activists that places Vermont’s civil union laws (“gay marriage” by another name) directly at odds with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Virginia’s Marriage Affirmation Act, and the Virginia Constitution.
Outrageously, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in March that Lisa must share custody of her own daughter with Janet Jenkins, a woman who was, for a brief time, Lisa’s lesbian “civil partner.” Jenkins is entirely unrelated to Isabella and, for the most part, is a total stranger to the little girl.
Although Jenkins is neither a biological parent nor an adoptive parent, Vermont’s highest court determined that – because of a brief “civil union” from a weekend jaunt to Vermont back in 2000 – Jenkins, who hadn’t seen Isabella since she was little over a year old, must be granted “parental” rights and visitation.”
And it only gets worse. Click HERE to read the whole story.
Similar Posts:
23 Responses to “And it only gets worse…”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
All that I can really say is that I am speechless. How very sad for our country to turn to this evil. The poor family! The horror that little girl is going through! God is an awesome God, I know this… but prayer “feels” so inadequate in such an instance. I wish I could sweep up this family and hold them in my arms! And defend them against this unjust evil. I will be praying that the courts see the error of their ways, and bar this “other woman” from this sweet child, and protect that little girl!
Perhaps then, like any heterosexual couple, all couples who can be legally wed or civilly joined should give serious thought to what they are doing before they do it. How is this different then any heterosexual couple who is wracked by divorce?
Oh, this is so scary!!! We need to fall on our knees for our country- may God save us!
Reading this article was quite scary for me. It’s frightening to me that such events are actually happening in this country. I agree with Brandy Lynn when she said that prayer “feels so inadequate” in this circumstance. I just pray that custody is granted to the mother so that her child can grow-up in a loving home.
How sad, does she at least get child support? Disgusting!
How utterly frightening. I wish that I could say that I’m surprised that something like this could happen, though. One has to ask the question why? Why would this woman want a child she isn’t related to and doesn’t know? It seems her activist lawyers are pulling the strings to further their cause. They’re trying to set a precedent. I pray that justice prevails in the end to protect that little girl. This story and others like it should be a “call to arms” for everyone who values the traditional family.
Matt Barber’s column smells of ideological bias, to the point where I couldn’t trust any of his claims. Instead, I sought out something a little more even-handed before passing judgment; and I found it in the form of a detailed story which appeared in the Washington Post last year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001316.html
Barber wrote, “Vermont’s highest court determined that – because of a brief ‘civil union’ from a weekend jaunt to Vermont back in 2000 – Jenkins…must be granted ‘parental’ rights and visitation.”
Not quite.
Lisa Miller sought the company of another woman after her first marriage, to a man, fell apart. She met Janet Jenkins at an AA meeting and allowed her to move in several months later.
Jenkins and Miller eventually attended fertility treatments together in an effort to produce a child – Isabella. Miller was the biological mother.
Jenkins – who, according to Barber, is “for the most part, [a] total stranger to the little girl”– actually helped raise that child for 2 ½ years.
When the couple split, Jenkins sent Miller child support payments, which the latter accepted. Jenkins’ parents often visited Isabella, whom they considered a grandchild.
When Miller was filling out the court papers to secure a formal dissolution of the Miller-Jenkins civil union, she claimed Isabella was a child of that union. She checked another box saying the court could award supervised contact to Jenkins.
(Even if Miller checked those boxes and filled those blanks purely by mistake, as she now claims, her acceptance of child support money was surely no accident.)
From the WaPo article: “Lisa was happy, at that point, for Janet to visit with Isabella, she recalled; but she expected, as Isabella’s biological mother, to maintain ultimate parental authority over who saw her daughter and under what circumstances.”
It’s a sad case with no winners, but this mess wasn’t the result of legalizing homosexual marriage. The same sort of back-and-forth nonsense also exists when heterosexual marriages dissolve.
I think it’s only a distortion of the law that is brought to the extreme.
What worries me much is the condition of the child, that must cope with all the tensions that separations and trials cause.
Stories like this one illustrate how perverted life can become when we stray from God’s plan for His children and their families. Unfortunately, this is not simply a “story”. This poor woman and her child could be faced with devastating consequences. Perhaps this will serve as another wake-up call for our nation.
I just think that if those awful polygamists have the right to see their children, this woman does too.
As for not having a biological link to the child – as someone raised by my widowed mother’s second husband, whom I love as a father – that shouldn’t matter. If you care for them as a mother, you’re their mother.
Those poor grandparents, I feel sorriest for. How they must miss that child.
Its all legalized sin.
The murder of innocent beautiful babies.
Legal.
Hate speech against God and blaspheme in the worst way.
Legal.
Pornogrpahy and sexual ‘freedom’.
Legal.
Making a homosexual relationship a government recognized union.
Legal.
Its disgusting for the fallen world…
but maybe just a little exciting for those that know Christ. Could it be that these are the worst of times? Could it be that we will be going Home soon?
Great post-
God bless
Amanda
Do we have all the facts?
This article is definitely shows the slippery slide of evil and wrong.
IF, as I have read elsewhere on this story, it is true that this child was born by artificial insemination (I have not read all the details so I do not know how much of all of these articles are true) to a homosexual “couple” and that the birth mother sought “child support” from the “other woman” in the past than that surely adds a whole bunch of yarn to the tangled mess, though it does not alter the fact that EVERYTHING associated with the homosexuality and marriage issues are blatantly wrong (i.e. SIN), according to God’s standards. Sin (a.k.a. mistakes, accidents, wrongs, etc.) does indeed make a convoluted mess of things and we do reap what we sow (though thankfully not everything we sow), even in the midst of forgiveness from our merciful God and walking as new creatures in the light of His love. The ramifications of our sinful choices often hurt others, that’s the way sin is. But, God IS good and He can take the worst things and use them for His own glory, can’t He? May His will be done in this frightening situation.
evy
Hello A. Martin,
Thank you for a more complete picture of the case. If anyone is interested in reading the article Martin sent in, be sure to note that there are 5 pages to click on.
I skimmed through the article this morning and it seems there is a lot of bickering back and forth about whether or not Lisa ever considered Janet to be Isabella’s parent in the first place. Not that it really matters what Lisa thought – Lisa was deceived by her perverted lifestyle and looking for love wherever she could get it. Even if she considered Janet to be Isabella’s “father” or “second mother,” she was wrong. Believing something doesn’t make it so.
You said: “It’s a sad case with no winners, but this mess wasn’t the result of legalizing homosexual marriage. The same sort of back-and-forth nonsense also exists when heterosexual marriages dissolve.”
Yes, it is a sad case for everyone involved. And there is certainly a lot of horrendous arguing and bickering when a “real marriage” is sinfully dissolved. But there’s a difference. You’re talking about a man and a woman who are truly mother and father to the child. It is impossible for a child to have more than one mother, no matter what the Vermont courts think. God’s law trumps man’s law.
The reason this case has everything to do with legalizing homosexual marriage is that is what will determine whether or not the courts think Janet has any right to Isabella at all. God’s law says she doesn’t.
According to the article, they are arguing over things like whether or not Janet was present at the doctor’s office the day Lisa was inseminated by an anonymous male donor and conceived Isabella.
Lisa says Janet wasn’t there. Janet insists that she was there, holding Lisa’s arm and thigh as she was medically inseminated (as if that makes her more of a parent). It’s a silly and distracting argument. It doesn’t really matter if Janet was there or not. Janet could have stood there all day long holding Lisa’s arm and thigh and, last I checked, Lisa would have been as likely to conceive a child as she would a chicken. Janet is neither father nor mother.
Semen is needed to conceive a child because God decreed that a father was needed. One man, one woman.
For reasons we don’t understand, God allowed for Lisa to conceive a child in the midst of her sinful relationship. God opened Lisa’s womb and blessed her with a child. Now she has a responsibility to do the right thing.
I can relate to living with the consequences of a sinful past, just as Lisa is doing now. As a new Christian, Lisa has a responsibility to raise her child to glorify God. To hand Isabella over to a woman who is neither mother nor father (there can’t be two mothers) and expose her to a perverted lifestyle would be sin on Lisa’s part. If the court does it for her, I shudder to consider the consequences.
So again, it has everything to do with legalizing and recognizing homosexual unions, because if Vermont didn’t recognize Janet and Lisa as having been “married,” there wouldn’t be anything to argue about. Room mates don’t win custody of children.
It is interesting to me that the wisdom of our forefathers echoing to us from so long ago bears such a marked application for today – applying to atrocities they never dreamed would defile our beautiful country. Here follow the words of President George Washington.
“The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience,is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights.”
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
Amen!
~ Diana
Stacey, respectfully, I don’t agree that we only get one mother and that’s it. And it’s the person who bore us in their womb.
I have two fathers. The man who loved me, cared for me, changed my diapers, and died when I was four, and the man who I called ‘Dad’, who walked me down the aisle, who taught me to ride a bike. I love them both and honor them both.
If my mother had died, my stepfather would have had custody of me and raised me. Isn’t that the way it should be?
Imagine if this couple were an unmarried man and woman. If the relationship dissolved, and the woman deeply regretted her former sin, the man would still have the right to see the child. So I don’t think the ‘marriage’ issue is a fault for this.
At the end of the day, if those polygamy people get to keep their children, how can we deny the same rights to homosexuals? Their sin is just as great. I fear that banning homosexuals from seeing their children sets us on a slippery slope.
Cate wrote: “I don’t agree that we only get one mother and that’s it. And it’s the person who bore us in their womb.”
I think you’re missing the point. I’m adopted, so I certainly understand that motherhood is more than just a biological function. But the fact remains that only one woman at a time can bear a child. If God opens the womb of a mother, then she is called to love, nurture, and train that child in God’s ways.
And unless she gives up her right of motherhood, either by sinful neglect/abuse, or by signing over custody to another, then she is the only mother.
Cate said: “Imagine if this couple were an unmarried man and woman. If the relationship dissolved, and the woman deeply regretted her former sin, the man would still have the right to see the child.”
Only if the man were truly the child’s father. If he was just a live-in room mate, then what right would he have? That’s the point. Two women living together do not equal marriage (regardless of what Vermont says) – it does not equal “mother and father.” At best, it equals “mother and her sinful sexual partner.” The sexual partner is not a parent – no matter how much she loves the child.
Cate said: “At the end of the day, if those polygamy people get to keep their children, how can we deny the same rights to homosexuals? Their sin is just as great. I fear that banning homosexuals from seeing their children sets us on a slippery slope.”
Cate, if you’re referring to the FLDS cult, there is a huge difference. This was a case where children were taken away from their “actual” parents because of the parents’ beliefs. No children were being harmed.
I would not condone the state breaking into the homes of homosexual women with guns and tanks (which is what happened to the FLDS) and stealing their actual children. But this is a case of an unrelated woman trying to “steal” a woman’s child because of their past sexual relationship. It cannot be called a marriage; she cannot be called a man; so she cannot be called a father. And you can’t have two mothers on a legitimate birth certificate. As a Christian it can only be called an abominable relationship – not a marriage.
Lisa has repented of her sin and turned to Christ. Janet needs to do the same. If she did that, and if she really loves Isabella as she claims, she would leave her alone to be raised by a mother who loves her and is attempting to train her up in God’s ways.
This IS sad for the child, of course, but it is also (and HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME) sad that this is happening all the time with same sex partners as well.
I think that God is just as grieved over the immorality of same sex fornicators as He is with two women or two men having ‘relations’. It is sad in our culture how, through movies and tv and whatnot, that we have come to almost ACCEPT the repurcussions of divorce and hooking up and all that goes on for millions of children in those scenarios. It was a slippery slope from the start and, like ancient Rome, will just get worse and worse.
Our country needs the gospel, the Good News that Jesus saves us from our sin/selfishness/pride.
Oh Father, Bring Your WORD to our culture and cause many hearts to repent and see the light. Forgive us for not being outraged enough over the sins of our land…the killing of innocent children daily (!) and the immorality that runs rampant…even in the visible church. Your Body, or those who call themselves yours.
I read a wonderful chapter this morning in Piper’s wonderful little book called BATTLING UNBELIEF on Battling Lust. ( i found it at the library!) Just excellent. We must make ourselves pure and purify the Body.
“Be Holy as I am Holy.”
All of 1 Peter 1 just so fitting!
His patience and graciousness with us thus far makes me love Him even more today.
For His Name’s sake.
Amen.
Mrs. RBC
Stacey, I think we may be coming at this from different angles. I just can’t agree that one can only have one ‘actual’ mother or father at a time. I have two fathers, though one is dead. I am sure that there are many children of divorce out there who can tell you that both their biological father and their stepfather are their fathers. The biological parents does not have to be awful or anything else.
I disagree that a non-biological parent living in the same house is not a real parent. The law, I think, does too. For example, grandparents can now request visitation rights. Isn’t that a good thing? Similarly, if my mother had died, my stepfather would have been given custody of my siblings and me – because he was our father.
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be so emotional, but it is somewhat difficult to read how biological children are ‘actual’ children. Thank you so much for listening, your blog is such a blessing!
Hi Cate,
I think you’re right. I’m sorry if it seems like I’m trying to exclude certain legitimate ties. That’s not what I mean at all. We’re talking about two totally different circumstances. I wholeheartedly agree that both your father who died and your father who God provided through marriage to your mother are both true and legitimate fathers to you. Praise God for his provision and for the faithfulness of both your daddies.
When I met my husband, I was the struggling single parent of one little daughter. He became her “daddy” the day we married (and eventually adopted her). I too have children who are fully my children, but who I didn’t give birth to. Also, I am adopted, and my parents are fully my parents, out of God’s providential working in my life. Though only one set of parents had rights to my parenting while I was growing up. The two who signed over custody did not have rights to me.
So as you can see, I’m not saying that it is only possible to be a real mother if you give birth to a child. God providentially works in all situations. Neither is only the man who provides sperm a real father simply because he exists. There are plenty of “sperm donors” who have never lived one moment as a “real father.”
What I am saying is that two women cannot both have equal legal parental status to a child. (“Heather has Two Mommies” as opposed to a mother and father).
Two women cannot both give birth to a child and if one woman marries the child’s legitimate father, then she is (legally) a stepmother, not a mother (unless she gives up her rights through sinful neglect or abandonment, or if she were to die).
Imagine if there were three men who were room mates (the movie Three Men and a Baby comes to mind) who took care of a little girl and provided everything for her that a father would – though only one of them was her father.
Then imagine if one of the men moved to another state and then claimed that he was filing for custody because he had helped this man nurture and care for his child. Though he’s not the father, but was in fact a room mate, he was in every other sense a “good daddy.”
Do you think joint custody would be a reasonable demand? Should all 3 men have rights to this child? Can they all 3 be daddies? Why not 6 or 7 men and women at once? Why does it have to be just two? Because they are trying to model (and pervert) the one woman and one man relationship that God ordained.
The real issue here is not what makes someone a mother or father; it is the fact that a homosexual union is not a marriage – no matter what the state says.
So if God gives a woman a child (there’s no way around that fact since He in fact opened her womb and allowed conception), the woman’s room mate should not have legal rights to her child simply because she’s been playing house with the mother.
If we don’t recognize their union as a “marriage,” then we can’t recognize the non-birthing mother as an additional parent. That’s why this case is so important.
To hand Isabella over to a woman who is neither mother nor father (there can’t be two mothers) and expose her to a perverted lifestyle would be sin on Lisa’s part. If the court does it for her, I shudder to consider the consequences.
I’m very confused. I don’t get why it’s ungodly to take children away from a polygamous compound, but godly to keep them away from a lesbian co-mother.
I would love to listen to an explanation, because I truly don’t understand how the standards for measurement can be so different. This is not meant to be disrespectful but is an honest question. I truly don’t understand.
Hi Molly,
I agree; you do seem to be confused.
The 400+ FLDS children who were wrongly removed from their homes, by the sate, were literally stolen (at gunpoint) from their biological mothers and placed in the homes of strangers.
I’m not sure how you can compare this to rightfully denying custody to a lesbian woman who happened to be in a sexual liason with the child’s biological mother.
I appreciate your concern for God’s Law, but I’m of the opinion that church and state should remain separate: civil and criminal law should not be guided by the concerns of a particular faith community, but by the secular application of reason to public problems.
If you and your family wish to go a step further, ordering your lives as according to a Biblical standard, then no one should be able to stop you. Home-school your children. Use non-abusive corporal punishment on them. Guide their choice of marriage partner.
Within your faith community, refuse to sanction homosexual marriage; and put aside anything else you consider unclean.
But not all of us are Christian. Not all of us believe as you do. Not all of us think laws should be crafted “because God said so” as opposed to because certain ordinances are reasonable and respectful of individual rights.
Lisa invited Janet to participate in child rearing, such that both of them contributed resources – in Lisa’s case, blood and time; and in Janet’s case, money and time – to the creation of another human being. The argument from biology – i.e., that Janet has no right to visitation or joint custody merely because she’s not kin to the child – is weak given that adoptive and step-parents don’t have kin relationships either.
The argument that a child can’t have two mothers is kind of weak as well, since blended families who share custody manage to do it all the time.
Just because Lisa later changed her mind about wanting this person in her life doesn’t mean she can escape the consequences of her decision to involve not only Janet, but also Janet’s grandparents, in early child-rearing decisions. She doesn’t just get to change her mind on a whim, after signing legal documents and accepting child support, merely because she’s had a conversion experience.
Besides that – and I’m asking this in earnest, not to start a fight – I thought Calvinists believed in predestination. Even if Isabella is exposed to Janet, won’t she end up Christian if she were called to it?
A. Martin wrote: “I appreciate your concern for God’s Law, but I’m of the opinion that church and state should remain separate: civil and criminal law should not be guided by the concerns of a particular faith community, but by the secular application of reason to public problems.”
I am glad your opinion was not shared by the Founding Fathers of this nation. How timely you chose to post this today. Time and again they looked to the Law of the Bible to guide them in forming our nation. You post reflects the great challenge of our day – the postmodern belief that there is no ultimate truth. The “secular application of reason to public problems” led to the holocaust in Germany, Stalin’s reign of terror, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Law that is not based on ultimate truth is subject to pragmatism and situational ethics. Our nation is in a moral tailspin because we are striving to achieve what you promote.
In the end, we either have anarchy or totalitarianism. Which would you select?