Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court: Va. Must Enforce Gay Visitation Rights

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:39 PM
Original message
Supreme Court: Va. Must Enforce Gay Visitation Rights
Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a ruling that Virginia must enforce a Vermont court order awarding child-visitation rights to a mother's former lesbian partner.

The high court Monday declined to hear the case of Lisa Miller, who claimed that the Virginia Supreme Court improperly ignored a state law and constitutional amendment that prohibit same-sex unions and the recognition of such arrangements from other states.

The decision let stand a victory for Janet Jenkins, who has been fighting for visitation rights since the dissolution of the civil union she and Miller obtained in Vermont in 2000. Miller gave birth to the daughter, Isabella, in 2002, and the child was at the center of a legal battle closely watched by national conservative and gay-rights groups.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Read more: http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=9479398



Great news thats going to make a lot of GLBT parents happy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good. k&r for parent's rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It also sounds like the State Amendments and DOMA are in trouble here
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 06:49 PM by FreeState
the losing side argued that the State Constitutional amendment bared the state from recognizing the family... the court said no. DOMA pretty much just declared invalid?... Interesting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. That would be very good. Very very good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. This has less to do with the rights of the two parents as it does the right of the child to stay ...
connected with the two people who have come to be the child's parents.

I'm surprised but happy with the Virginia Supreme Court decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. US Supreme Court Rulling... not state :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. It was the state decision that the US Supreme Court refused to overrule.
Virginia's state decision was unusually correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ksimons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
5.  this is pretty big news, if there were laws on the books as article states

that the state decided in their favor is great - and the the SCOTUS didn't want to get involved is equally important. thanks for posting!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I agree - were going to hear a lot on the right freak out about this
Basically the court let stand a ruling that the state of Virginia had to recognize a gay civil union performed in a different state - this has HUGE implications that are going to be very interesting to see where it takes us...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ksimons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. especially putting 'family' and 'best for the children' above all else

gives power to the domestic partnership in and of itself, not just legally, but as the 'best interest' of a child and that was acknowledged by their lack of intervention

pass the hot potato
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. A win for human rights, and an example gays and lesbian are just like everyone else.
Warts and all, people are people, for good or ill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. Goddamn right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrZeeLit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. Whoa... is the SCOTUS possibly signalling a culture change? This. Could. Be. Big.
I'm just sayin'....

CA and Prop 8 need to head into court... asap.... and start the ball rolling!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scytherius Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. Full Faith and Credit for gay rights? This is HUGE n/t
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atimetocome Donating Member (236 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. great. thanks for the post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
14. Sorry, Folks, this is a Res Judicata case, DOMA was mentioned but NOT a factor
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 10:03 PM by happyslug
Remember the Supreme Court refused to review this case, thus the decision of the Supreme Court is meaningless, but if you want to look at the actual Decision of the Virginia Supreme Court, here it is. The decision has nothing to do with DOMA, but what we lawyers call Res Judicata.

The Virginia Supreme Court Case:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1070933...

If you read it, the holding is quite clear, it is strictly one of Civil Procedure. Janet Miller and Lisa Miller had lived together and agreed to have a child. When Lisa later asked Vermont to dissolved the Civil Union, Vermont did so and gave Custody of the Child to Lisa, the birth mother, while Janet Miller was given Visitation. Lisa then moved to Virginia and filed for sole custody of the Child. The trial court granted her custody but on appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals, that Court reversed the trial court and told it to enforce the Vermont Custody Order for to do otherwise would violate the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act,28 U.S.C. 1738A. Lisa tried to Appeal, but failed to follow the correct procedure to get in front of the Virginia Supreme Court and the appeal was denied do to failing to properly file the appeal (I.e. did not follow the correct procedure to get in front of the Virginia Supreme Court).

Janet then attempted to enter the Vermont Order in Virginia. Lisa objected to the entrance of the Vermont C&V Order do to DOMA. Lisa objected to this, lost at trial court, filed an appeal with the Virginia Court of Appeals, lost on her appeal, then filed for review by the Virginia Supreme Court. The court then ruled that since she had failed to perfect her former appeal, the holding of the case was final and could NOT be brought up again in a similar action between the same parties (What we attorneys call Res Judicata, but Virgina law calls "Law of the case" and cited so by the Virginia Supreme Court).

Yes, the birth mother LOST do to a Civil Procedure ruling, NOT the merit of the Case, in fact one judge wrote a concurring opinion stating that based on the facts of the case, he could have ruled in the Birth Mother's favor had the ORIGINAL case been properly appealed. He then again points out that this case was NOT that case, and the court MUST follow the "Rule of the Case" when it comes to disputes already decided in a previous action between the same parties. An interesting Res Judicata case, with DOMA and Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act bring mentioned, but not discussed. The issue in front of the Court in this case was had this dispute been decided previously and all appeals from that decision been taken or waived? The court ruled it had been, the parties were the same and the subject matter was the same, thus it was Res Judicata, the court MUST follow the previous holding on this same matter between these same parties.

Being a Res Judicata Case, no wonder the Supreme Court did not take up this case. Civil Procedure can be interesting, but in this case the people pushing DOMA as the issue would have been sorely disappointed no matter what the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue of Res Judicata.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progdonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
16. so, let me get this straight...
A lesbian mother was trying to use an anti-gay Virginia statute to keep her lesbian ex-partner from having court-ordered visitation?

Sounds like a lovely woman. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gich Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
17. Easy now..
The US Supreme Court is simply reluctant to intervene in a state law issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 26th 2014, 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC