The problem with arguing the specifics of the case is that it will just cause more and more parents to worry about gay marriage.
That's a nonsequitur.
The first warning flag in most married people's minds is that a parent who moves several states over to get away from an ex often indicates a very profound problem with the ex's behavior.
And that's the reason the first sentence is a nonsequitur. (You specialize in that don't you?) The reason it's a nonsequitur is twofold:
1. The birth mother's problem with the behavior of her other legal mother is due to her feelings about homosexuality viz a viz her religious convictions.
So, your first statement is a nonsequitur precisely because (as you often due I've noticed), glossed over that important detail. By the way, when they obtained their civil union, they went to VT, but they spent most of their time living in Virginia - so this picture you want to paint of a child being ripped from her home in VT to a place several states away, really doesn't hold that much water. The birth mother merely went to her primary state of residence; that's hardly unusual. I know this - because my adopted family is from NC, DE, and IA. I've seen this happen three times in my family, in which no less than 3 members, one of them a Marine Master Sgt at that, has children living with them outside of IA and in NC, and in others in IA and DE, and in another case, in NC not IA. The reasons vary. All you've done is present us with an invidious reason and use weasel words like "most parents" and "red flag" to prop up your intuition.
2. Apropos 1, she also joined an Anabaptist group. It's not as if she joined an actual Protestant qua Protestant group. Anabaptists have historically flouted the civil law.
3. If anything it would give heterosexuals a reason to be suspect of gay
divorce, not gay marriage.
So the daughter left Jenkin's care at age 17-months, then got infrequent long-distance visits up to perhaps age 3, (very vague memories, if any) and almost nothing after that.
Here's a case of where you gloss over details in your original and add them later on, pretending like they were there all along. No, I had to show you a photo of her in 2009 with her birth mother for you to own up to this part. Here's your original:
The biological mother had been granted custody by Vermont, having seperated when the daughter was only 17-months old. She opposed and stymmied her ex-partner's visitations for years, which pissed off a Vermont judge, so he was going to grant custody to the ex-partner in Vermont who had already married another woman. So the mother and daughter fled.
If Miller has gone to all this elaborate effort, she certainly hates Jenkins or the situation Jenkins has backed her into, and doubtless the daughter likewise hates and fear Jenkins, because kids that young are generally afraid of anything their parent is afraid of, and this girl has grown up being taught to avoid Jenkins, and then the amp got turned up to eleven.
Argument from Silence, as are the next two of your paragraphs. These are intuitions on your part. And they are also irrelevant to the legal situation. One hopes you aren't trying to defend Fischer's stance. That's the issue in this thread. The issue in this thread, per the OP, isn't merely this particular case, it's the wider issue of the stance the AFA itself is taking. Fischer is merely using this particular case to make his point.
And that gets to your continued modus operandi here: When it's CFA on Wednesday in view, your response is "Yeah, but the boycott you guys are calling for - not really worth it. In fact, you're just playing into their hands. And it's fundamentally the same position here: Yeah, well, you guys are okay I guess in opposing it, but really, pick a different case. I mean, really, "you people" need to do a better job of picking your battles."
No, the reason GLAAD has picked this particular case is that it's the one Fischer is using as a springboard for his wider position on kidnapping. We are merely responding to people as they speak. That's it.
By the way, if you're such a brilliant gay rights strategist, why don't you write that up and send it into GLAAD or HRC. Really, quit hiding your brilliance at trekbbs. Start your own grass roots gay rights group. Go for it. After all, you have gay friends, so you're a cool straight person.
Meanwhile, the forces for gay rights are putting the Amish-Mennonite pastor on trial for following his religious convictions and helping a Christian mother keep custody of her daughter, who was going to be ripped away and given to a lesbian couple who weren't related
No, that would be civil authorities of Vermont themselves, not the mythical progay-rights hive mind that's doing that, and, as has been pointed out to you already, the law, you know, that pesky civil law in VT and the Supreme Court of VA it seems, feel differently than you do about the matter of Jenkins relationship to this little girl.
A good defense lawyer (and the legal defense fund keeps growing) would also point out that we used to jail Mennonites for refusing to carry a rifle and kill Germans, and they'll gladly go to jail instead of bowing to our secular whims and demands which conflict with their long-held and deep beliefs.
Mennonite pacificism has a long history. However, in this particular case
, the defense is actually pleading that the pastor was, at the time, not aware he was breaking the law.
No matter how much you talk about this case and emphasize your points, straight parents are still going to hear it the same way - their way.
A. That's just psychobabble.
B. It's also an indictment of straight people, as if there's a heterosexual hive mind like the gay hive mind that does triage on the basis of sexual orientation.
But, hey, you have gay friends, so you're cool.
