Traditional values!

The Lisa Miller/Janet Jenkins saga continues, as the case was argued before the Vermont Supreme Court, with Lisa Miller and Isabella, of course, still likely out of the country:

(Dillon) This is the second time that the Supreme Court has heard arguments in a bitter child custody battle between two women who were former partners.
But the case took a new turn in January, when Lisa Miller – who now lives in Virginia – failed to appear to hand over the child in a court-ordered custody swap.
Miller’s lawyer is Rena Lindevaldsen. She says she hasn’t heard from her client in months and doesn’t know where she is. And she told the state Supreme Court that a Vermont trial judge was wrong to award custody to Miller’s former partner.
(Lindevaldsen) You’re switching from the first time anywhere in this nation from a fit biological parent that individual’s child and switching to somebody who has been declared to be a parent who is not that child’s biological or adoptive parent.
(Dillon) But associate Justice John Dooley challenged the lawyer on a number of points. First, Dooley asked: what about men whose children were conceived through reproductive technologies.”
(Dooley) “So I take it your position would be the same to a father, to a husband, for whose spouse was impregnated by artificial insemination – he could not ask for custody in a proceeding if they went through a divorce? Is that right?”
(Lindevaldsen) “Unless of course he adopted the child in the meantime.”

(Dillon) But Dooley said because the couple had been joined in a Vermont civil union the child did not have to be adopted in order for Jenkins to be considered a legal parent.
Then Chief Justice Paul Reiber weighed in. Reiber brought up the issue of Lisa Miller’s contempt of court citations. The Virginia woman faces arrest because she defied a court order and disappeared with the child.
(Reiber) “You said a few moments ago that your client, your referred to her as a “fit parent.” Hasn’t she had seven or eight contempt orders issued against her?”

That’s the trouble with anti-gay fundamentalists trying to be heard in courts of law. Since everything they believe is preposterous nonsense, it doesn’t tend to go well for them.

(h/t Kyle)