Liberty Counsel Finally Breaks Its Silence On Lisa Miller, Loses Similar Fight In California

For the first time since Lisa Miller disappeared with her daughter rather than transfer custody to her former partner due to her own refusal to abide by custody/visitation arrangement, a representative of Liberty Counsel has finally acknowledged her disappearance on the record:

Mathew Staver, Miller’s attorney from Lynchburg-based law firm Liberty Counsel, said neither he nor his office has had contact with Miller since last fall.

“We don’t know where she is and we don’t know anybody who does know her whereabouts,“ Staver said in a phone interview Tuesday.

...

Staver said efforts are currently under way to track down Miller through a locator service.

Staver also said that arrest warrant issued for Miller in Vermont will not have jurisdiction in Virginia, Miller's last known place of residence, unless it is recognized by a VA court, which just last week refused to hold Miller in contempt on the grounds that she had not been notified to appear in court due to the fact that nobody can find her.

Amazingly, even while this saga was unfolding, Liberty Counsel was waging the same fight in a similar case out of California ... and losing

In a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, a Bay Area woman has won the right to parental status and visits with the daughter of her former lesbian partner, who moved out when the girl was 3 months old.

The high court denied review Monday of an appeal by the birth mother, identified only as Kristina S., who challenged her former partner's right to be considered a parent. Kristina's lawyers, from the religious conservative group Liberty Counsel, argued that recognizing parental status after a few months of care violated a mother's right to control her child's upbringing.

The court left intact a June 2009 ruling by a state appeals court in San Francisco that said Kristina's partner, identified as Charisma R., had been fully involved in conceiving and taking care of the child and was legally her co-parent.

...

Liberty Counsel representatives were unavailable for comment. The group's chairman, attorney Mathew Staver, told the Supreme Court that the California appellate court had "ordered the breakup of the autonomous, natural family comprised of Kristina and her daughter ... in favor of a new, judicially created 'family.' "

PFAW

Lisa Miller Given Another Month to Run

Lisa Miller has already been missing for at least three weeks with her daughter, having disappeared before being required to transfer custody to her former partner due to her consistent refusal to abide by court-ordered custody arrangements.

Today, a hearing was held in Vermont on whether Miller should be held in contempt of court for going missing with her daughter and for some reason the judge decided to give her another 30 days to show up:

A judge is giving a Virginia woman at the center of a lesbian custody dispute 30 days to appear in court with her 7-year-old child or face a contempt of court finding and possible arrest.

Vermont Family Court Judge William Cohen made that ruling Friday in the long-running custody dispute between two women who were once joined in a civil union.

Janet Jenkins, of Fair Haven, had asked Cohen to hold in contempt Lisa Miller, of Forest, Va., her former partner, for not turning over the child, Isabella, to her on Jan. 1, as she had been ordered.

The couple broke up in 2003, and Miller moved to Virginia, renounced homosexuality and became an evangelical Christian.

Miller's lawyer says she doesn't know where Miller and Isabella are.

PFAW
Filed under:

Where Is Lisa Miller?

We've written a few posts in the past about the custody battle being waged between Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, a Vermont couple who had a daughter together in 2002 but eventually separated and soon became locked in a custody fight after Miller moved to Virginia, became a Christian active in Jerry Falwell's church, and sought sole custody of their daughter, Isabella, with the representation of the Falwell-founded Liberty Counsel.

The fight has dragged on for years and earlier this month, a Vermont judge ordered Miller to transfer custody to Jenkins due to the fact that Miller had repeatedly refused to abide by court-ordered custody arrangements.

Miller was ordered to do so by Jan. 1, 2010, but it looks like that might not happen because nobody seems to know where Miller and Isabella are

A Rutland Family Court judge has refused to delay an order that transfers custody of a child from a Virginia mother to her former lesbian partner in Fair Haven.

But with the whereabouts of Lisa Miller and 7-year-old Isabella Miller presently "unknown," it remains to be seen whether the first of its kind parent custody switch takes place when the court order takes effect on New Year's Day.

Miller, who renounced homosexuality, and her former partner Janet Jenkins have been battling over visitation rights since they ended their civil union in Vermont in 2003. After the pair split, Miller returned to her home state of Virginia while Jenkins remained in Fair Haven.

After finding Miller in contempt of court earlier this year for denying Jenkins access to Isabella, Judge William Cohen said he decided the only way to ensure the child equal access to both parents was to switch custody and he issued an order requiring the transfer be made by Jan. 1, 2010.

Miller's attorneys filed a motion earlier this month asking Cohen to delay his order until an appeal in the Virginia court system — regarding whether that state needed to enforce the Vermont order — was decided.

But in a two-page decision issued by Cohen, the judge said Miller failed to meet the legal burden required to delay the order in part because she has not appeared in court nor spoken with her attorneys about the case for more than a month.

"Ms. Miller has not demonstrated that she is entitled to a stay….Instead, it appears that Ms. Miller has ceased contact with her attorneys and disappeared with (Isabella)….Such conduct does not show that a stay is warranted," Cohen wrote.

The whereabouts of Miller couldn't be determined on Monday.

Jenkins' attorney, Middlebury lawyer Sarah Star, said she didn't know where Miller was, but hoped she was still at her home in Virginia and was simply not communicating with her attorneys.

PFAW

If It Is Not Hyperbole, What Is It?

Today seems to be one of those days where right-wing activists and commentators are just letting loose over their fears of seeing America destroyed by the gay marriage gains in Iowa and Vermont - how else do you explain pieces like this one from Eric Schumacher, pastor of Northbrook Baptist Church in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which showed up on Baptist Press?

The Flood of 2008 is arguably the most destructive disaster that the state of Iowa has seen -- at least, that is, until last Friday.

On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a state law limiting marriage to one man and one woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Licenses will be issued to homosexual couples April 27.

It is not hyperbole to say that this ruling has the potential to be the worst disaster to strike the state of Iowa.

Flood waters destroy houses, ruin offices buildings and displace families. Yet, recovery happens. Houses are rebuilt. Businesses relocate. Families eventually find housing.

Legalized "homosexual marriage," on the other hand, does far more pervasive and irrecoverable damage. Civilization itself is eroded as marriage, the central building block of culture and society, is redefined. Soon, our sons and daughters are confused about what it means to be male and female, as "homosexual marriage" gains both legal status and visibility in neighborhoods and the classroom.

Far worse, the Gospel message is confused. Marriage is established by God to be a living picture of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the husband representing Christ and the wife representing his church. "Homosexual marriage" presents a distorted picture, a false Gospel, promoting a blasphemous message.

Flood waters erode the soil. "Gay marriage" erodes the soul. A flood impacts for a decade. "Same-sex marriage" destroys generations. A flood draws a community together. "Homosexual marriage" tears the family apart. Communities recover from floods. The promotion of un-natural unions has an eternal consequence.

The Religious Right really is in a full-blown panic at the moment.  If you need more proof, head over to Good as You and listen to the audio posted of Mat Staver responding to the Vermont vote in which he declares that "it is a sad day in America when elected officials are absolutely clueless about the definition of marriage [and] if they can't understand this basic human relationship between a man and a woman, then they absolutely are not competent for public office." He goes on to call upon the people of Vermont to "rise up in revolt" and says that "what we are seeing in America is literally the beginnings of another revolution" from the "silent majority" who will draw a line in the sand, leading to "another American Revolution."

PFAW

The "Only One Vote" Talking Point

Yesterday, I wondered how the Right would respond to the Vermont marriage veto override vote now that their standard talking points "activist judges” wouldn’t work and noted that their new tactic seemed to be to try and lessen its legitimacy by suggesting that that it had passed by “only one vote.”

It was a point that the National Organization for Marriage made in its press release and repeated again in this column from NOM President Maggie Gallagher.  And now it is likewise being echoed by Mike Huckabee:

Today the Vermont legislature attacked traditional marriage by voting (by only one vote) to override Governor Douglas' veto.  Vermont becomes the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage.  The other three states, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa did so by judicial rulings.  Now the Vermont legislature has joined in the assault on the most critical foundation in our society - the American family.

Governor Douglas, when he vetoed the original legislation on Monday, said "I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman."    I agree with Governor Douglas.  We must not continue to undermine the traditional American family.  Once again, the right to decide an issue of such importance has been taken out of the hands of the voter.

The actions of the Vermont Legislature, coming on the heels of the judicial ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, should make it apparent to each of us that conservative values and conservative principles are under attack as never before.  We must take action now.

It is up to each of us who believe in traditional marriage to increase our efforts to protect the foundation of our society.  I continue to support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  It is now an absolute necessity.  We must stop the liberal legislatures and activist judges from undermining the moral fabric of our society.  Fighting for passage of a constitutional amendment is critical to conservative principles.

Join me in waging the battle for the protection of the family - help rally support for a constitutional amendment.

I realize that they are struggling to figure out how to address this significant development to which their standard responses no longer apply, but the idea that marriage equality was enacted in Vermont by “only one vote” is absurd.

When the Vermont Legislature passed the bill, the votes were 26-4 in the Senate and 95-52 in the House.  By my count, that means the vote was 121-56, a 65 vote margin in favor of marriage equality.  

After Republican Governor Jim Douglas vetoed it, it meant the legislature needed the votes of two-thirds of the members present to override it, which they then did yesterday by votes of 23-5 in the Senate and 100-49 in the House, giving it a vote total of 123-54, a 69 vote margin in favor of equality.  

In both cases, the votes in favor of marriage equality outnumbered the votes against by a margin of more than 2 to 1.

By its nature, the veto override vote required the support of two-thirds of the legislators in both houses, and that is what it received.

But those who militantly oppose marriage equality seem intent on dismissing the overwhelming votes in favor of granting equality to gay couples in Vermont by claiming that it was enacted by “only one vote.”

PFAW

Vermont: Right Wing Reactions

Reactions from the Religious Right to the Vermont marriage vote are starting to roll in and I am going to post them here and will keep adding them to this post as I find them:

Family Research Council:

"Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage," said Perkins.

"The vote today by the D.C. City Council was a direct affront to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The radical Left wants to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman across the country and they will not rest until they do so.

"The marriage amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex 'marriage' movement," Perkins said. "FRC will continue to stand with those states which are seeking to pass marriage protection amendments and other measures in order to protect our most fundamental and essential social institution."

Liberty Counsel:

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "It is a sad day in America when elected officials are clueless about the definition of marriage. If they cannot understand this basic human relationship between a man and a woman, then they are not competent to for public office. Marriage laws regulate a social institution upon which society has been built and the future of society rests. By redefining marriage, the Vermont legislature removed the cornerstone of society and the foundation of government. The consequences will rest on their shoulders and upon those passive objectors who know what to do but lack the courage to stand against this form of tyranny."

Concerned Women for America:

"Vermont was the first state to create civil unions, an arrangement allowing same-sex couples all the government-bestowed benefits of marriage. But as pro-family leaders warned, and despite claims by homosexual activists, this debate is not about benefits. That was merely the wedge to demand more, to require that everyone in society accept what cannot -- by nature -- be, that marriage can be something other than one man and one woman.

"Marriage is the unique relationship between a man and a woman who together provide children with the benefits of the two sexes, male and female. A marriage cannot be complete without both sexes. While government officials may change definitions, they cannot change nature. The first human relationship was between one man and one woman, and it became the foundation of all society. Vermont legislators' futile attempt to replace God by vainly redefining marriage eerily follows how that first man and woman acted on the first temptation -- and the root of all temptations -- to act as if they were gods. That one decision by Adam and Eve to believe that they could 'be like God' separated them from God, destroyed the peace that they had experienced, and ushered in what some would call 'unintended consequences' of pain and destruction.

"The decision by Vermont legislators to attempt to redefine marriage creates an urgency for other states and officials to protect marriage."

Catholic League (from an email):

Which state has less religious men and women than any other? Vermont.
Which is the only state to have a socialist senator? Vermont.
Which state has the second lowest birth rate in the nation? Vermont
Which state has the second highest proportion of whites? Vermont.
Which state legislature was the first to legalize gay marriage? Vermont.

In other words, Vermont is a lily-white state populated by left-wingers who are anti-traditional marriage and anti-family. Exactly what we would expect of a population where more people believe in nothing than anywhere else in the nation.

Alliance Defense Fund:

"With its enactment, the Vermont legislature made a profound social policy statement that mothers and fathers are not necessary for the family, and that the sex of a parent doesn't matter" Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, told Baptist Press. The religious liberty organization opposed the bill. "It's unfortunate any time you see a court or a legislature say that children are not entitled to both a mother and a father. And it should never be the intent of any policy or law to intentionally deprive children of what they need, and that's both a mom and a dad."

...

"Just because the legislature makes an enactment doesn't make it true," Nimmocks, the attorney, said of the legislature's passage of the "gay marriage" bill. "If the Vermont legislature passed a resolution that the earth was flat, does that make it true? Of course not. And the simple fact is that marriage predated the Vermont legislature -- just like my mother predated me. I don't get to redefine who my mother is. It's just a simple fact of common sense. The institution of marriage has predated the legislature and government and the United States, and it's not the prerogative of anybody to redefine it. It is the prerogative of every state and U.S. citizen to uphold the institution as it has always been defined, as one man and one woman."

Nimmocks also said he does not think "gay marriage" legalization nationwide is imminent.

"I don't believe for a second that same-sex marriage is going to become the policy of the United States or a majority of states," he said. "And the fact that there are 30 constitutional amendments amongst our 50 states upholding marriage as the union of one man and one woman -- plus several other constitutional amendment efforts in other states -- only bolsters that fact."

Focus on the Family:

"The vote change reflects the triumph of a short-term view of political persuasion and correctness over a long-term view of the needs of future generations of Vermont's children," said Jenny Tyree, marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action.

"Marriage is larger than any judge or legislator. It's the only social institution with the purpose of giving a mother and a father to every child, and lawmakers ignore that purpose to the detriment of society."

PFAW

By Just One Vote Or By a Landslide, the Result is the Same

In my last post, I wondered why it was taking the Right so long to weigh in on the Vermont marriage vote, speculating that they were having a hard time trying to work out talking points now that they couldn't blame it on "activist judges."

Well, some responses are starting to roll and guess what?  They are still blaming it on activist judges, as Matthew Franck does at Bench Memos:

[L]et's not forget that the history of Vermont's struggle over this issue goes back ten years, to the state supreme court's decision in Baker v. Vermont, when the judges illegitimately instructed the legislature to choose between full-fledged marriage or civil unions with all the essential privileges of marriage. The legislature back then chose the latter, people in Vermont got used to the phenomenon of gay couples "all but married," and with that as the new starting point, the argument became compelling to enough Vermonters (or at least to enough of their legislators) that the final step to marriage seemed only just.

Would same-sex marriage have arrived in Vermont in 2009 without the state supreme court forcing the issue in 1999? It's impossible to be certain, but I think probably not. So this is still, in part, a story of the leverage that judicial usurpation can produce in generating social change that legitimate representation of the people would continue to resist.

Old habits die hard, I guess.  But I can see why Franck would rely on this tired trope, especially when the only alternative is to try and come up with new talking points about why this vote was undemocratic and an affront to the will of the people leads to inane statements such as this from the National Organization for Marriage (via Tips-Q):

By only one vote, the Vermont House just voted to override Governor Douglas's veto, overturning the common sense definition of marriage shared by people of diverse faiths, backgrounds, nations, and political parties. Today is truly a sad day for Vermont and this nation.

But we take heart in knowing that this vote was not representative of what Vermonters understand marriage to be. We know that the Vermont Legislature did everything in its power to avoid allowing Vermonters to vote directly on the future of marriage.

In the wake of the Iowa Supreme Court decision and Vermont Legislature's action, the National Organization for Marriage will tomorrow launch a new national ad campaign that highlights how same-sex marriage undermines the core civil rights of those who believe in the simple truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Today is indeed a sad day, but let all of us who understand that marriage is the union of a husband and wife redouble our commitment to ensuring that same-sex marriage does not spread throughout our nation, that religious liberty is protected, and ultimately that marriage is restored in these states as well for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

By just one vote?  When the Vermont Senate and House passed the bill, the votes were 26-4 and 95-52, respectively. Unfortunately, Republican Governor Jim Douglas vetoed it, meaning that the legislature needed the votes of two-thirds of the members present to override it, which they did today by votes of 23-5 and 100-49.

Granted, the 100 votes in the House was just enough to override the veto - but, by my count, the votes cast in favor of marriage equality while passing the legislation and overriding the veto both outweighed the votes cast against it by a margin of more than two to one.

And isn't it amazing that even when the elected representatives of Vermont vote to grant marriage equality to all its citizens, it still, according to NOM, is "not representative of what Vermonters understand marriage to be."

PFAW

States Reject Federal REAL ID Law

Montana bill would ignore national ID requirements, Maine urges Congress to overturn it. Also: Hawaii, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vermont and Washington.

PFAW
Syndicate content