Yea..good luck with that. I have a feeling "States Rights" is going to take on a whole new ferver in our Nation. Which is a good thing overall.

GaryPDX: Yea..good luck with that. I have a feeling "States Rights" is going to take on a whole new ferver in our Nation. Which is a good thing overall.

I'm a family law attorney practicing in Virginia, and I've been following this case for years, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

The court got it absolutely 100% right at both appellate levels.

Also, it's Commonwealth of Virginia, jerkface.

Oh, and I would point out that the Supreme Court of Virginia did not reach the substantive legal issue in this most recent appeal, as the appellant failed to argue that issue at the intermediate appellate level, and, as such, it was deemed to have been waived. Consequently, this most recent decision is not a substantive affirmation of the Court of Appeals's ruling, but merely a declination to review the same.

kronicfeld: Also, it's Commonwealth of Virginia, jerkface.

You calling me a jerkface? I didn't submit this.

GaryPDX: You calling me a jerkface? I didn't submit this.

No, not you, the submitter. Sorry, should have been clearer.

kronicfeld: GaryPDX: You calling me a jerkface? I didn't submit this.

No, not you, the submitter. Sorry, should have been clearer.

lol..I didn't think so. lol..it's cool.

kronicfeld: Also, it's Commonwealth of Virginia

So, since it's a Commonwealth, does that mean it shouldn't have state's rights? Cool.

Well, good on the Commonwealth of Virginia on getting it right.

kronicfeld: jerkface

Don't call him a jerkface you LAWYER!

kronicfeld: GaryPDX: You calling me a jerkface? I didn't submit this.

No, not you, the submitter. Sorry, should have been clearer.

Oh yeah? Well the Lawyer Store called, and they're running out of you!

/got nuthin

kronicfeld: GaryPDX: Yea..good luck with that. I have a feeling "States Rights" is going to take on a whole new ferver in our Nation. Which is a good thing overall.

I'm a family law attorney practicing in Virginia, and I've been following this case for years, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

The court got it absolutely 100% right at both appellate levels.

Also, it's Commonwealth of Virginia, jerkface.

Call me stupid, but in light of the jurisprudence on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, was there any substantive legal argument other than "eeew Gays are icky!" (first advanced in Ex Rel. Hahmaseckuals scare and entice me v. Virgina)?

GaryPDX: Yea..good luck with that. I have a feeling "States Rights" is going to take on a whole new ferver in our Nation. Which is a good thing overall.

I, for one, think it would be great if Jews and Catholics are considered people in some states, but sub-human in others. State's rights for the win!

Activist judge says that the state of Virginia has to obey the law

I LOL'd

LocalCynic: GaryPDX: Yea..good luck with that. I have a feeling "States Rights" is going to take on a whole new ferver in our Nation. Which is a good thing overall.

I, for one, think it would be great if Jews and Catholics are considered people in some states, but sub-human in others. State's rights for the win!

People can not and will not fit into one mold...EVER. No matter how much you want them too.

GaryPDX: People can not and will not fit into one mold...EVER. No matter how much you want them too.

I take it that means you are opposed to English as a national language?

GaryPDX: LocalCynic: GaryPDX: Yea..good luck with that. I have a feeling "States Rights" is going to take on a whole new ferver in our Nation. Which is a good thing overall.

I, for one, think it would be great if Jews and Catholics are considered people in some states, but sub-human in others. State's rights for the win!

People can not and will not fit into one mold...EVER. No matter how much you want them too.

Yay! Let's protect every friggin personality and physical characteristic under the Sun! Damn the cost! Federal rights for the win.

The danger of unmitigated federal power far outweighs the danger of overwhelming State power.

GaryPDX: People can not and will not fit into one mold...EVER. No matter how much you want them too.

Hitler started by calling the Jews sub-human.

monster87: Yay! Let's protect every friggin personality and physical characteristic under the Sun! Damn the cost! Federal rights for the win.

The danger of unmitigated federal power far outweighs the danger of overwhelming State power.

I disagree, and would advise you to do some research on the colonies prior to the passage of the Constitution. Several of them had passed religious discrimination laws that not only outlawed certain religious practices, but allowed corporal punishment for the violation of such laws.

"State's rights" advocates always make the argument that state violations will be limited in scope. Historically, that's not the case. In fact, the entire premise of federalism argues against your position. If a particular type of oppression was generally popular, a state's rights mindset would encourage modelling.

LocalCynic: GaryPDX: People can not and will not fit into one mold...EVER. No matter how much you want them too.

I take it that means you are opposed to English as a national language?

lol..nevermind. I don't have the time to play silly buggers with you, comrade.

"Miller renounced homosexuality"

Oh look, next year's pink elephant in the closet.

What is an "activist" judge?

Renounced Homosexuality? Who can change there mind on flannel that quickly?

ExJerseyGirl: What is an "activist" judge?

One that does something a person doesn't like.

kronicfeld: Oh, and I would point out that the Supreme Court of Virginia did not reach the substantive legal issue in this most recent appeal, as the appellant failed to argue that issue at the intermediate appellate level, and, as such, it was deemed to have been waived. Consequently, this most recent decision is not a substantive affirmation of the Court of Appeals's ruling, but merely a declination to review the same.

Could you translate this a bit for me? Maybe the coffee isn't working, but I am not following your post very well.

ExJerseyGirl: What is an "activist" judge?

One who makes a ruling that pisses off Republicans.

kronicfeld

Commonwealth of Virginia

I also line in a commonwealth, better known as the state of Pennsylvania. So suck it.

/subby

Magorn: Call me stupid, but in light of the jurisprudence on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, was there any substantive legal argument other than "eeew Gays are icky!" (first advanced in Ex Rel. Hahmaseckuals scare and entice me v. Virgina)?

The decision of the Court of Appeals rested on the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, the intent of which was the ensure that FF&C was extended to custody determinations. Basically, under that act, Virginia courts had NO jurisdiction to modify the existing Vermont child custody order.

ExJerseyGirl: What is an "activist" judge?

One that makes decisions that you personally don't like. Just ask SkinnyHead.

ExJerseyGirl: Could you translate this a bit for me? Maybe the coffee isn't working, but I am not following your post very well.

Well, long story short, this latest appeal is one that sort of ran concurrent with the earlier proceedings. The real, substantive decision that this article discusses was truly made in November 2006. Everything since then has been procedural or predicated on that earlier ruling, which is now the "law of the case" as to these parties and these issues.

kronicfeld: Magorn: Call me stupid, but in light of the jurisprudence on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, was there any substantive legal argument other than "eeew Gays are icky!" (first advanced in Ex Rel. Hahmaseckuals scare and entice me v. Virgina)?

The decision of the Court of Appeals rested on the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, the intent of which was the ensure that FF&C was extended to custody determinations. Basically, under that act, Virginia courts had NO jurisdiction to modify the existing Vermont child custody order.


That act used to be my very best friend when I helped run to Family Division down in PG county. That and the Uniform Child Support Enforcement acts. Taken together they more or less annihilate the "family law is special and unique to each state" argument for a domestic exception to the FF&C clause

kronicfeld: The decision of the Court of Appeals rested on the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, the intent of which was the ensure that FF&C was extended to custody determinations. Basically, under that act, Virginia courts had NO jurisdiction to modify the existing Vermont child custody order.

I haven't read any other sources and am too lazy this morning, but it looks like the defendant had at least appeared at the Vermont child custody hearing. This seems like a pretty cut and dry full faith and credit case. I'd take a guess that a collateral attack in Virginia would have been a better strategy if one wanted to have a ruling on substance.

kronicfeld:

Well, long story short, this latest appeal is one that sort of ran concurrent with the earlier proceedings. The real, substantive decision that this article discusses was truly made in November 2006. Everything since then has been procedural or predicated on that earlier ruling, which is now the "law of the case" as to these parties and these issues.

Thanks. Next question -- what does FF&C stand for?

ExJerseyGirl: Thanks. Next question -- what does FF&C stand for?

Full Faith and Credit.

LocalCynic: I haven't read any other sources and am too lazy this morning, but it looks like the defendant had at least appeared at the Vermont child custody hearing. This seems like a pretty cut and dry full faith and credit case. I'd take a guess that a collateral attack in Virginia would have been a better strategy if one wanted to have a ruling on substance.

The biological mother, who was the one who was trying to get Virginia to modify the child support order and deny the other "mother" her parental rights, was actually the one who originally initiated the Vermont proceedings. She voluntarily subjected herself and the child to Vermont's jurisdiction. I think that the Virginia Court of Appeals even took specific note of this, although I don't think that it was particularly important in the decision.

Oh, incidentally, these are the assholes who represented the biological mother.

From the bottom of their press release about Friday's ruling: "Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk"

Outside of the most unfortunate of reasons, what kind of parent - gay or straight - takes a child away from the other parent?

This is precisely the type of hypocrisy that I truly despise. You're gay. You get married. You have a child. Then you wake up and all of a sudden are not gay?

Make up your farking mind before you have kids.

License to drive, fish blah blah blah...

kronicfeld: Oh, incidentally, these are the assholes who represented the biological mother.

Granted, IANAL, I don't see how they have an argument here. This woman went to the Vermont court and lost. The other party sued in Virginia to enforce the out of state decision. The full faith and credit issue seems to be the Vermont decision, not the same sex marriage. They're really asking the courts to carve out exceptions not for same sex marriages, but for the enforcement of judicial decisions involving same sex marriage. That's probably going to cause chaos in the courts.

LocalCynic: Granted, IANAL, I don't see how they have an argument here. This woman went to the Vermont court and lost. The other party sued in Virginia to enforce the out of state decision. The full faith and credit issue seems to be the Vermont decision, not the same sex marriage. They're really asking the courts to carve out exceptions not for same sex marriages, but for the enforcement of judicial decisions involving same sex marriage. That's probably going to cause chaos in the courts.

All of their arguments essentially begged the courts to rewrite federal and state statutes and extend prohibitions against same-sex marriage to prohibitions against...well, I'm not sure what, precisely. Against homosexuals having parental rights? Against homosexuals having children? Not sure.

Wait this sounds like Florida to me. Sea level rising swallowing everything and fires burning in the forest because some Farker lighted up and threw it into dry grass.

ExJerseyGirl: What is an "activist" judge?

That's where a judge does something that makes conservatives angry, usually in social and civil rights cases where they rule that something is unconstitutional. You know, allowing blacks to vote, marry white people, and allowing women to have jobs. Basically, anything that upholds good American social justice and ethics.

Virginia is for GAY Lovers!!

Yea!!

/what was the article about?

clancifer: Oh yeah? Well the Lawyer Store called, and they're running out of you!

This statement is making me laugh uncontrollably.

Ace Frehley's Ghost: ExJerseyGirl: What is an "activist" judge?

One that makes decisions that you personally don't like. Just ask SkinnyHead.

Heh. I still remember that "Legislating from the bench LOL!" threadshiatting of his.

/I wish that fellow would just ged the hell offa my Fark

ExJerseyGirl: What is an "activist" judge?

A strict constructionist who votes Democrat.

frizzle65: Virginia is for GAY Lovers!!

Yea!!

/what was the article about?

Sic Semper Buttsecks.

bwesb: Outside of the most unfortunate of reasons, what kind of parent - gay or straight - takes a child away from the other parent?

This is precisely the type of hypocrisy that I truly despise. You're gay. You get married. You have a child. Then you wake up and all of a sudden are not gay?

From what I can tell (and I'm not as well read as the other posters) Virginia Mom basically was Born Again.

So now homosexuality is an abomination, regardless of her remaining gay attractions or not, she's not supposed to succumb to them, and she doesn't want to raise her daughter up thinking that same sex couples (or blurring of gender roles at all) is okay. This is for the good of the kid, etc etc ETC.

She changed cultures, and wants to make a clean break but you can't do that when you have a kid with ties to your old life.

And, the new group she's joined, there are tremendous cultural pressures there to conform. But her kid will continually be exposed to the old life, via visits from Vermont Mom. She can't be properly sheltered.

This article doesn't say (unless I missed it), but is the Vermont Mom listed on the birth certificate or did she legally adopt the child?

If not, how would they consider her a parent? It would be like considering the non-biological father boyfriend of a straight woman the parent.

Dododado: If not, how would they consider her a parent?

Well, first, there are all kinds of situations in which a non-biological parent can acquire parental rights over a child. I have not read them, but most likely, the Vermont Civil Union laws permit (if not mandate) the court's granting of parental rights to the "partner" of the biological parent.

kronicfeld: Well, first, there are all kinds of situations in which a non-biological parent can acquire parental rights over a child. I have not read them, but most likely, the Vermont Civil Union laws permit (if not mandate) the court's granting of parental rights to the "partner" of the biological parent.


Interesting... would the same hold true for a straight married couple who had children from previous relationships?

Dododado: Interesting... would the same hold true for a straight married couple who had children from previous relationships?

I knew my phrasing was problematic. I meant that I presume that if one is living in a civil union with one's partner when one gives birth to a child, then the partner has or can have parental rights over that child. I didn't mean that you can enter into a civil union and automatically gain parental rights over a child that pre-dates such a union.

But as I said, my answer is all speculation anyway, since I haven't read the Vermont laws and the same aren't discussed with detail in the Virginia opinions.