Connect With Us

FacebookTwitterRSSYoutube

Hand Full Of Lisa Miller Supporters Try Teabagger Tactics On Media Comment Pages

01/05/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Since Friday, a number of news outlets have noticed an increase in a particular type of comment directed at derailing the debate over the Miller/Jenkins custody case. Many of these comments come from the same group of people, and at least one news organization in Virginia has outed some of these posters for posting repeatedly the same distorted information on different names in order to make it seem as if Lisa Miller has greater support than she does. This effort appears to be coming from people following  instructions on Lisa Millers Face Book Page directing that  Millers distorted talking points on this case are put on any news  site covering this story.

The set up at LezGetReal is not conducive to that kind of manipulation; however, a group of roughly three to four individuals have tried to “flood” the comment pages of this newsblog with comments supporting Lisa Miller and spreading allegations which have been proven false by the courts already.

“The flood of protests “by this handful of people often rely upon an interview given by Lisa Miller to the fundamentalist blog Life Site. Unfortunately, Life Site is very unreliable when it comes to the information that it posts as being accurate. A recent case of a woman threatening to kill a anti-abortion rights activist was distorted by Life Site in order to make it seem as if the woman who threatened to kill this young lady was going in for an abortion when it was never proven to be the case.

The allegations leveled by Lisa Miller were, indeed, investigated by the courts, and proven to be a baseless attempt to slander Janet Jenkins and garner sympathy with those helping to prevent Isabella from seeing her mother. By not following the orders of Judge William Cohen, Lisa Miller has lost custody of Isabella, and now faces a very real possibility of jail time. A wide variety of parents’ rights groups have come out in support of Judge Cohen’s orders, and the feeling among many women even in Virginia is that Lisa Miller should hand over custody of Isabella at this point since she has refused to follow the court’s orders.

Support for Jenkins comes from the fact that the law is very much on her side, something that the courts in Virginia and Vermont have stated, and the Federal Courts. Even the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear this case based upon federal law governing custody battles. There exists a very real probability that, should this case continue back to the Federal level, that it will pit the laws governing child custody and custodial abduction against the Defense of Marriage Act. It is likely that, given the importance of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act, backed up by the Constitution, that the Supreme Court would end up striking down the Defense of Marriage act before undermining parental rights and the authority of every judge and court in the country.

“The flood of comments” have had little effect in the debate largely because the news organizations reporting upon this case are reporting on the facts and not the allegations. Those using the comments are trying to bypass the journalistic integrity of the news organizations by posting these unproven and unfounded allegations by Miller in the comments pages. Often times, far more people have come forward to counter the points attempted to be made by those trying to flood the system. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to spot that those flooding the forums of those stories reporting on this custody battle are a small hand full of people who are posting.

Many Fundamentalist sites which have, in the past, supported Lisa Miller have started pulling back on their support because there is now the very real risk that they could be seen as supporting a fugitive, and that supporting Miller could end up undermining their own political and social platforms. In the end, the support of Lisa Miller has, despite a belief that it would hurt the LGBT Community, has undermined many of the Fundamentalist groups which have most vocally supported her.

The tactics being employed are not dissimilar to those used by the Teabag Protesters during the August health care reform debate.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments

comments

Share This Post

137 Responses to Hand Full Of Lisa Miller Supporters Try Teabagger Tactics On Media Comment Pages

  1. grieved

    January 13, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Sei,

    I’m looked for my use of the word “inform”. Can you please locate it for me and then I’ll clarify my intent.
    “But it should be free to instruct in the truth and warn of the dangers otherwise.” I said this.

    What do you call yourself in joint efforts with others to pass legislation that’s against the will of many people? You are trying to impose your “religion” on others. But you should get a pass?

    • Sei

      January 13, 2010 at 8:32 pm

      Grieved,

      There was a time when the religion of this nation stated that those who were Catholic could not be considered full citizens and had to marry in an Anglican Church or not be married at all. There was a time in this nation when the majority of people claimed that those of color were to be denied all their rights, including marriage and education.

      Imposing my religion requires that I require you to marry someone who is the same sex as you. Imposing your religion upon me means denying me my right to marry someone of the same sex as me. You do not grasp that. I am not asking that you marry someone you do not like, love or feel attracted to, but you are demanding that I do so in order to be considered equal to you.

      You said that you were done debating me. You have now gone back on your word. You are trying to back out of your arguments regarding how the laws in this nation should be written. You wish to continue to debate me, but what you want from me is that I submit to your point of view. I, on the other hand, do not care what you believe, only that you keep your word about not coming back.

    • Grieved

      January 13, 2010 at 11:18 pm

      Sei,

      We shall believe God rather than man.

      Take care.

      Paula,

      I’m sure everyone in your camp you completely agree with, but this Robertson guy. I don’t know about that guy. Whenever I have heard his name brought up, I observe “christians” distancing themselves from him.
      And, it is rather you who pervert the Bible. I’m sorry you got jipped in your doctorate. It would be better if you did not try to use the Bible to justify yourself. I cannot do it honestly and neither can you. The Bible justifies no one, except God. You are no better than me.
      I hope the best for you and your daughters. I’m sorry you are so full of hate. You may blame others but you really have mostly yourself to blame. Just like the rest of us.

    • Grieved

      January 14, 2010 at 8:14 am

      “Just like the rest of us.” Have mostly ourselves to blame for that which is wrong in us.
      Generally speaking. Not that all are full of hate necessarily.
      Attempt to clarify before Sei puts her say in.

    • Sei

      January 14, 2010 at 9:05 am

      Grieved,

      You have gone back on your word. You said you were done debating with me. Apparently winning this argument despite having now twice admitted that everything you write here is based upon your beliefs, your opinions, and your interpretation of a text that has been so rewritten and so twisted over the centuries it would be incomprehensible to the people who originally wrote it down is more important to you than realizing that, in admitting that this is nothing more than your opinion of what God supposedly wrote, that you lost this debate a long time ago. Grieved, I have used your words against you, and you have tried to “clarify” your position, as in, you have tried to get the heck out of what you wrote so it didn’t sound like you were losing.

      Incidentally, when I talk about “true Christians”, I mean people who live their lives by the heart of the Bible. They do not judge, they do not hate, they do not preach. They live their life in accordance to the heart and soul of what Jesus Christ said. They even admit that the Bible is not the word of God because humans have messed with it too much. There is an aura of calm around them that comes with true belief, and true practice. Many who claim to be “true” Christians are far from it. Instead, they have an aura of corruption around them. These are the ones, like you, who are so wrapped up in the belief that a book is the word of God and that it is your sacred duty to shove it down every single person’s throat whether they like it or not even if it means getting the legislature to enact Holy Law as Secular Law.

    • grieved

      January 14, 2010 at 1:06 pm

      Sei,

      I never said I was done debating with you. I was recently responding to Paula’s post linking everyone who believes the Bible (not picking and choosing and based on the intent of the writers and the confirmation given by the words of Jesus) to Pat Robertson. You have your own interpretation of “judge” and “hate”. So “true” christians to you are what you have decided they are. You have your own interpretation of “love”. It is by your own authority and what makes you feel good. You are guilty of what you charge others with. The GLBT is who is doing the shoving and you have decided your own “holy” law should prevail.

    • Sei

      January 14, 2010 at 1:17 pm

      Grieved,

      You said you were done debating me two days ago. And, unlike you, I never claimed to be speaking for God as to who was and wasn’t a “true Christian”. You, however, have. You have shown that you believe a “true Christian” is someone who believes just like you. I, however, only claim that it is my opinion, and my experience. I believe that anyone who remains true to the actuality of their faith without fanaticism or dogma, is true to their faith. You, however, believe that you are the arbiter of what is true and what is not. And, before you sit there and type out yet another claim that you are not, your very presence on this blog proselytizing has been based that your interpretation of the Bible is the only “correct” one.

      Two days ago, you said you were done debating me, and yet you continue to try to debate this despite obliterating the basis of your argument several times so far.

  2. Sei

    January 12, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Yankee, I can see that you are upset that we may have made a mistake and deleted some comments that were posted under someone claiming to be you. Unfortunately, by the time we realized that they were not just claiming to be you, but in fact you, those comments were gone. You changed your name at least three, and I think four, times for posting on this site. You have been, so far, some person named Truth, and then Fred, and now Yankee from VA, and those are the three I remember.

    We have not stopped anyone from posting on this forum, other than one person who made some very rude comments, and they were simply deleted. Most mainstream sites have shut down comments or blocked most of the small hit squad from posting any more because they are simply spreading slander and libel. We have countered every single point made by that little hit squad across more than a week and several posts.

  3. grieved

    January 11, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Paula,

    regarding this long comment,

    “and a list of others that goes on almost ad infinitum….. don’t seem to be holding it very sacred themselves, and if anyone would seem be a traditional threat to marriage, it would be the ones who can presently be easily married anyplace in the country, yet traditionally can’t seem to get it figured out, who are truly the ones making a mess of the whole institution of marriage…. I also hope you mentioned the fact that the laws concerning cross state custody battles, like the one currently being discussed in this thread, were originally created because traditional heterosexual married couples can be such shits to each other and routinely tried to dodge their responsibilities and legal obligations with such frequency when those marriages traditionally failed in the numbers they do, that finally congress had to address the issue”

    you make a valid couple of points. It’s a terrible shame and there is high cost involved for the people involved and especially the children. And it obviously has a huge part in the mess we are in as a culture. Sure, it doesn’t help that it’s legal that movies be made that glorify infidelity and selfish desires. It doesn’t help that it’s legal for smut magazines to exist, even those in the checkout aisle at the store. Some good laws might make a difference. Stop telling people that it’s not harmful to tell people lies through pictures that cause discontent with what we’ve been given and should treasure and be thankful for. Still, the problems do come from within us. The Law is to help remind us of the harmful effects of lawlessness.

    That’s why when the law permits unlawful things (according to God’s Law), it tells a lie about God and it lies to the people. It has failed at it’s intent and purpose. God gave his Law as a gift. Will we treasure it or condemn ourselves?

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 11:57 am

      Grieved,

      If you actually knew your history, you would know that the imposition of Christian Sharia does not work. In nations which have tried to impose the theocratic rule that you are pushing on this nation, all that has happened is to drive the behaviors your rail against underground. In fact, many of those nations which have imposed theocratic rule tend to have far worse problems with infidelity, pornography, prostitution, and all the stuff you’re railing against than those societies which shine a light upon it.

      “You are debauched by your worst in the dark while we make love to our best in the light.”- Unnamed Celtic Queen to Queen Iulia of Rome.

      It still does not get to the heart of the fact that even most Christians disagree with your beliefs, and that many Evangelicals are no longer falling lock step behind people like Falwell. In fact, an Evangelical minister came out in support of civil unions last year. Even Christianity is changing around you.

      Christ said that there were two commandments which replaced all others…”love each other as you love yourself, and to love God.”

      God also made a covenant with Noah after the Flood. He said that He would not destroy the world again so long as humanity took over the job of creating laws governing ourselves.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm

      Sei,

      Also, Christ did not “replace” the other commandments with the two.
      He said “Love God with everything (heart, mind, soul, and strength) 1st and greatest
      2nd “Love neighbor as self”. These commandments were a summation of all the law and the prophets.
      So all the commands previously given pointed to what love of God and love of man was. See? It’s really pretty neat when you line everything up.

      And the covenant with Noah was he would not destroy the earth by WATER. It the New Testament, there are texts that show a future destruction by some other means.
      Anyway, it should help us fear God and turn from ourselves. We’re doomed if we keep trusting in ourselves.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 1:06 pm

      Grieved,

      You and I are operating off of two very different versions of the Bible. The covenant mentions nothing of destroying the Earth by water. It says that He will not destroy the Earth period so long as we make our own laws. My version, I suspect, is far older than yours.

      And, Christ said that there were two and only two Commandments. They were not summations. Of course, a lot of what Christ said was removed from the Bible in order to bolster the theocrats in Rome around AD500. They included the writings of “Saint/Apostle” Paul because those bolstered their beliefs, but they removed the writings of Thomas, who was a real Apostle, unlike that pretender Saul. What is more, people like you have done such a wonderful job of trying to remove even more of Christ’s words when they do not match your political beliefs.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:28 pm

      Paula,

      If you really understood the differences between radical (orthodox) Islam, and Biblical Christianity you would not say such things.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 1:33 pm

      Grieved,

      There is no difference. The only difference is the one that people like you claim. After all, how many doctors have been murdered because of your Christian Theocratic Crusade to impose a ban on abortions?

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:53 pm

      Sei,

      I don’t know how many doctors have been murdered. I don’t think all that many though. Do you have a number?

      Have many babies have been butchered for MONEY? MILLIONS!

      How many mothers that killed their babies suffered as a result? We’ll never know.

      Whose more interested in life? Whose more interested in money?

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 1:57 pm

      Grieved,

      Even one murdered doctor no matter what is wrong. Taking a life is wrong, is that not what the Bible says? But a theocrat like yourself doesn’t really mind if a person is murdered in the name of God, now do they. So what if even the innocent are murdered? I know one case of a doctor who was murdered for providing abortions even though he provided no such services. Fanatics like you do not care who dies in the name of your Crusade.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:02 pm

      Sei,

      I did not say what you are saying I said. You brought up the doctors, but you won’t put innocent babies on the level as the doctors.

      You use arguments like you say the “christians do. You put words in peoples mouths and hear only what you want.

      You try to make people look the worst and throw out derogatory terms.

      Well, I should not expect less.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:06 pm

      Grieved,

      The issue of abortion is incredibly complex, and involves a lot of women having to deal with malformed feotuses which usually have no chance to survive passed birth.

      Of course, for a person like you, those deformed feotuses should be born so that their parents can see and feel every last ounce of pain that they can. After all, suffering is good for the soul.

      And, of course, why should I not throw out derogatory terms. After all, terms like gay, lesbian, and transsexual are derogatory in the mouths and fingers of people like you.

      Oh, and you did not say that specifically, you implied it with your word “butchered”. You made a blanket statement regarding a very complex issue.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm

      Sei,

      Statistically, few abortions are done for the cases you mentioned than the many, many more done for convenience and birth control. Your complex issue is the one the money-making abortion industry wants to inflate.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:33 pm

      And who’s statistics are you relying upon? I wouldn’t be too quick to use the ones pushed out by the Christian Crusaders. Given that those are the only statistics available, really, I wouldn’t trust any argument based upon statistics.

      And, given your anti-Capitalist streak, wouldn’t you rather move to China?

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:06 pm

      Paula,

      But they do need comfort.
      You make christians out to be really bad people. it’s not fair, really.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:12 pm

      Actually, Grieved, I’ve met many a real Christian, and I can say that theocrats like you make them look and sound really bad.

      And, Grieved, at this point, we’re battling over who will have the last word in this. Since I have all day, I can just continue to counter your points until the cows come home.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm

      Sei,

      Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state’s supreme civil ruler,[1] or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[2] In Common Greek, “theocracy” means a rule [kra′tos] by God [the.os′]. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[3] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.

      I am not a theocrat.

      Natural Law does not show mothers sacrificing children.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      Actually, Grieved, you are. You have argued that the government should be governed by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. I would like to point out that you are among those who have twisted “natural law” in order to sound like you have a rational argument for imposing your theocracy.

      BTW, thank you for making my point!

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:43 pm

      Sei,

      “that the government should be governed by officials who are regarded as divinely guided”

      I did not say this nor argue for it. You are not a good lawyer.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:47 pm

      Grieved,

      That is what you argued. You argued that our laws should be “informed” by the Church. Well, the Church is regarded as divinely guided, is it not? And, I am not a lawyer.

      And, I thought you were done for the day. You thanked me for the discussion. Of course, if you do want me to end this discussion, I could always ban you or shove you over to spam. I’d rather not though.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 3:16 pm

      Sei,

      I did not mean solely, but that there is a responsibility to remind government of it’s responsibility to protect the people.

      The laws that protect you today (for the most part) are given by a Judeo-Christian ethic.

      And I have wanted to end the conversation, but you keep trying to get one over on me and I guess we both think we need the final say.

      Guess you’ll have to do whatcha gotta do.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:19 pm

      Sei,

      So you are the determiner of “real Christians”?

      Wow.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:21 pm

      Are you not saying that I cannot say who is and is not a “real Christian”? After all, are you not saying that you know who is and is not a “real Christian”? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:42 pm

      Sei,
      God only can say who is a real Christian. He reveals the Truth in His Word that he has graciously preserved for us.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:46 pm

      Grieved,

      You have stated and implied that your version of Christianity is the only version of Christianity and thus that you and yours are the only true Christians. You just admitted that you are wrong, and that only God can say who a real Christian is. Thus, all the religious underpinnings of your arguments are proven false as any other Christian denomination could be the one that God feels is true. It could also be that God sees only Judaism or Islam as being the only true faith. Your arguments are now proven to only be your own and not based upon anything more than your interpretation of the Bible, and not upon what God actually said.

      Thank you for coming back to allow me to wrap this up. You don’t have an argument, and you have now just admitted it.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 3:11 pm

      Sei,

      I think you argue like a bad lawyer.

      Only God knows are “real” christians. He knows their heart.
      We can know His Truth, though. He has given it to all. Whether we embrace it fully or not.
      This is where we get caught in semantics.
      Based on your conclusions and leaning on your own opinions and interpretations, it’s strange that you should say you can tell who real christians are.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 3:39 pm

      Grieved,

      You have destroyed your own arguments. You have stated that your version of Christianity is the only true one. You have talked over and over again about the Truth, and yet, you admit that you do not know what the Truth is since only God knows what the Truth is, and who true Christians are. Thus, your own arguments are based solely upon your beliefs, and not upon the beliefs of God. After all, you said “God only can say who is a real Christian.” This also means that God is the only one who can determine the Truth, and that you do not know if the version of the Bible you have is even the one that God would view as being accurate. In point of fact, your version of Christianity could be completely wrong, and the versions which support the LGBT Community could be absolutely right.

      You have argued for theocracy, since you feel that our laws should be “informed” by churches. Find even one hundred people who can agree on what the law should be, and then tell me how you are not arguing that, by having our laws “informed” by religion, you are not arguing that the churches should have a stronger voice than the people. You cannot even find a hundred different religions that can agree on what the law should be. And now you talk about Judeo-Christian ethic…really? What a made up term. Incidentally, the laws that protect me and you today are not based upon Judeo-Christian ethics or laws. They are based upon Anglo-Saxon common law, which was passed down via the English. Many of our laws, including many regarding trial by jury, date back to pre-Christian Europe. Laws regarding murder, theft, rape, and most physical crimes have existed in our culture longer than the worship of Christ. Only the moralistic laws come from the Bible.

      You quoted from the Bible, of course always leaving out which version of the Bible you were discussing. You also tried to say that version of Christianity understood by my minister aunt is wrong.

      And, this is my site, Grieved, or did you ever notice that. It is not up to me to stop, but it is up to you. I am defending my site from a person trying to impose their religious beliefs upon other religions through my site. Indeed, I have an obligation to defend them from attacks made via my site. I do not like deleting or banning people; however, if you want me to, just tell me to ban you, and you can go ahead and make yet another profile since it seems you had do to that for some reason no related to any actions of this site.

      Grieved, you are trying to get the last word here. This is my- and others’- site. I will continue to defend it from people trying to impose their religious beliefs via this site.

    • grieved

      January 13, 2010 at 1:01 pm

      Sei,

      You have clearly misunderstood what I have presented. I am going to assume you are not trying to intentionally error in your summations of my points.

      God only truly knows who loves Him, according to how He has defined love, not according to public opinion. However, he has given us a conscience and many witnesses (His created order , historical events, among others) to help point us to the Truth. My argument was a rebuttal to your statement that you know who the “real christians” are. Again, semantics (how words are interpreted by those hearing them and how it differs from those presenting it) come into play.

      You have repeatedly reworded what I have said and consider yourself the authority for the conclusions you have come up with. You have the right to your opinion as to interpretation of the evidence, but that in no way makes you an authority. You should give people a little more benefit of the doubt.

      You claim to be interested only in “facts”, yet you have demonstrated that you, as everyone, has a bias and your views are colored by it. Admitting is the first step towards being honest. (in my opinion.)

      I gave a definition of theocracy that you appear to have ignored. I do not agree with establishing a theocracy.
      I have intended to communicate rather the responsibility of the people to say and argue for what is true and reasonable.

      You have used emotion-based arguments to “defend it from people trying to impose their religious beliefs via this site.” rather than sound reasoning.

      I understand the case in point, reasonably well I think. I understand what has led up to the position of certain courts. There are fundamental problems and it’s a result of many different factors, all relating to rebellion against and God and love of self rather than love of others. All which is relevant to this case. I think, as do others.

      You’ll likely write another long post stating your version of what I’ve stated. Hopefully, there are people out there that will not just take your side of things and see that you indeed have restated certain things unfairly at best.

    • Sei

      January 13, 2010 at 3:31 pm

      Grieved,

      I thought you were done with arguing with me? I have not twisted your words, nor your statements. You have made those arguments, and then tried to say that you did not mean them the way you said them. I did not ignore your definition of theocracy, but held your argument to that very definition. You stated that you wanted our laws to be “informed” by religion. What you failed to grasp is that is part of the definition of theocracy. You tried to weasel out of your own arguments. You stated that only God knows who “true Christians” are, but have presented your own arguments as if they were the Word of God, and not your interpretations of the Bible. I did not err in my summation of your arguments, Grieved, you just do not want to come off as a theocrat.

      You will, of course, try to come back and say that I am twisting your words again. I am not. I am taking your arguments to their logical conclusions. Something that you are not.

      Grieved, you lost this argument, and it is useless to try and continue it. If you have not figured this out, I am sorry. The moment that you opened your own argument up to being dismissed as being nothing more than your own opinion, you lost the argument. Even your argument about how this society is turning away from God is erroneous because it is based solely upon your belief of what God should be, and what worship of God should look like. That makes you a theocrat as well, incidentally. That is, if you understood theocracy beyond a dictionary definition.

      I have not been unfair to you. I have been direct, honest, and absolute. You are the one trying to get out of the argument that he has presented as if there was no argument against it.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm

      Paula,

      I was responding to your comment about those that are for the “sanctity of marriage” in word and not in practice. Remember?
      And it’s not passing laws on “views of religion”. It’s about the Truth being reflected in the law of the land so that the people have the maximum benefit to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Not just anyone’s interpretation of what those words mean. But the proper, historical context aligned with the truth.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 12:59 pm

      Which, Grieved, you and your people believe supports a Christian theocracy, and are more than willing to twist the words of Jefferson to make it sound like he supported your vision of the “correct moral people”- i.e. priests, ministers- telling us how the law should be and what the “Truth” is. Which he did not. Even Jefferson would have had problems because of your strict interpretation of religious law.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:11 pm

      Paula,

      I would say you are at least as distorted and self interested as the next person and you’ve made yourself to be an authority. Sorry you don’t like Barton. There’s much history that has been removed from textbooks in the last, well, 60 years? He’s just trying to bring it to light. His agenda is getting out the “facts” (you guys say you are interested in those) that are not commonly seen or presented because of the current bias in the government/culture.

      “historical context aligned with the truth”.

      It’s not who’s.

      Truth is objective, not subjective.

      Historical context is what was agreed at the time in history.

      You’re right. If it came to preference, we would not all agree..completely.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 1:13 pm

      LOL,

      Grieved, Barton is not restoring anything that was removed. He is attempting to replace his opinion for the facts of the past. Thank you, but I’ve spent my life studying history. No, not just history textbooks like you and Mr. Barton, but original documents, the surrounding documents, and just about everything I can. What was agreed upon at the time was that people like you are dangerous to this nation. After all, even the Puritans found it hard to impose religious conformity in this nation. I’ve read many of those textbooks you claim he is trying to restore the understanding of. Many of them were quite clear about the separation of church and state, and that it was intended to make sure that this nation had a secular government. Only in the South, where religious institutions bought the votes of many a politician was it taught that Christian morality had to back up the laws which were being passed by our government. Even our Founders did not want that, and there was a lot of information published about it. They looked to the Enlightenment philosophers for their information and to inform them. They did not look to the Bible.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:27 pm

      LOL,

      Sei, Barton would say a lot of what you say. And yet you come to different conclusions.

      Homosexuality was against the law then. And the people then, the supermajority, would agree that you are more dangerous to our country than someone defending what the Bible says. It’s also a historical document. And people like you twist it and then claim others do the same.
      The church should not run the state. But it should be free to instruct in the truth and warn of the dangers otherwise. I think you should consider studying from a different preconceived idea than what you have.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 1:31 pm

      Grieved,

      Even the Founders admitted that the world would change, and that our understanding of the world would change. That is why the Constitution was written as a flexible document. Remember, at the time they also believed that Blacks were ignorant, smelly savages who were good for nothing more than slaves, and that the Native Americans should be eradicated. Yeah, homosexuality was illegal then, but so was teaching Blacks how to read. Women could not work outside the house, and women had no rights either. Only rich white men were allowed to vote. Instead of enshrining all of those social beliefs into the Constitution, they made a document that would grow with the social attitudes of this nation. What you and this moron Barton are arguing is that the Constitution is a flawed document intended to enshrine a belief set that this nation has long ago moved away from.

      Grieved, you are advocating that the church should instruct the government about how to write its laws. That the priests should tell the politicians how to write the laws. That is Iranian theocracy for you.

      Oh, and Grieved, neither the United States nor the Colonial governments ever sent out a military detachment in order to turn back a wave of gays and lesbians the way that they did to the theocratical Puritans at the border of Maryland. Who do you think they were more afraid of?

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:50 pm

      Sei,

      How many gays and lesbians were there trying to get in?

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 1:51 pm

      And again, a point goes right over your head. Nice try at humor though. But, I’ll humor you. You’d be surprised at the number of gays and lesbians who were known to be thus and were not prosecuted, charged or even punished so long as they kept it quiet. It’s amazing how many lived quietly as “roommates”. Oh, people knew that they were a couple, but so long as they never said it, no one did anything.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm

      wow.

      Sei said it wasn’t a theocracy but you say it was?

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:02 pm

      Iran is a democratic theocracy, incidentally.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:07 pm

      Sei,

      Perhaps you’d prefer the Peoples Republic of China?

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:09 pm

      Nope. But from the sounds of it, you’d much rather be living in Uganda or Iran.

  4. Sei

    January 10, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    After alerting the other news organizations to the small group of people who were misrepresenting themselves and the facts in this case, many either began blocking certain posters or shutting down comments entirely. These people also were commenting on that “left-wing blog” known as the Rutland Herald with the same comments. I have never made the claim that your posts to this site could not be deleted or removed. That is our right. Unfortunately, we have also had some issues with our spam filter in the past being too restrictive, especially if a person is posting from a site or with an email addy that might be considered a business address.

    You see, I do not have a problem with people posting in defense of Ms Miller, but if they want to misrepresent the facts of the case, as established in the court documents, and then pass off those slanders as being true, then I have a problem. In point of fact, the people who we have posted here have done so without us removing them, but they have never been willing to hear the established facts in this case.

    If there was any truth to their accusations as established in the documents that we have, then I would move forward with printing that information. Because those accusations amounted to slander, journalistic integrity bars me from printing them as fact. It is amazing how not reprinting slander and libel is considered to be a Liberal virtue.

    I would like to point out that I had to rescue several of your comments from the spam folder last time you were here.

  5. Olivia Lowe Partridge

    January 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    KS and RMH (and other like-minded enablers):

    Your talk has recently turned to the “best interest of the child” argument. Can you tell me whether or if you have inside information which gives you the knowledge/authority to disagree with the child’s guardian ad litem (GAL)? Where did you get that info? Is it available to the general public — or somehow just to you? Are you publicly stating that the GAL is not properly doing her job? What is your evidence for such slander? Or are you just blowing smoke?

    As for not being a true or legal mother, what is your explanation for Lisa Miller requesting child support from Jenkins at the original court hearing dissolving their civil union? If not a legal mother, why did Miller request child support? In your world, can heterosexuals pick out legal strangers and demand a court order them to pay child support “just cuz”?

    My questions are not rhetorical and I would dearly love to receive a thoughtful response — or at least as thoughtful a response as a good Christian can muster under the circumstances.

    Thanks.

  6. Olivia Lowe Partridge

    January 10, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    Not only CAN you keep your truck, you MUST keep it. But only if you file criminal charges and testify against your lender. Had your lender not violated religious tenents and loaned you the money to begin with, you never would have violated those said tenents. ERGO: your “sin” was caused by the “sin” of your lender.

    Yerwelcome…

  7. Olivia Lowe Partridge

    January 10, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    For ALL parties to this “debate”:

    What does religion/religious belief have to do with any of this? The newly found (or re-found) religious beliefs of Lisa Miller are irrelevant to her refusal to follow lawful court orders.

    True civil disobedience requires that one who disagrees with a lawful (but believed to be unjust)law, to peacefully submit to the penalty for disobeying the law. Thus, Gandhi of India and King of America, spent many months/years in jail for standing up for their rights. They did not run and hide from the consequences of their actions. Not to mention Mandela of South Africa.

    From jail, both of these towering figures of justice, prayed to their respective deities, increased their faith, and wrote about the injustices they were protesting…until their beliefs finally became the norm. Believers and unbelievers alike, countries and kings, disparate political, religious, and social parties all coalesced behind these giants and adopted their moral positions.

    Miller and her minions, on the other hand, have fled.

    Such cowardice does not engender respect. And the outright lies and moral obtuseness of Miller’s handlers is positively astounding. Why anyone would give them or their position the time of day is beyond me — but gratefully, it is not beyond the many courts who have rejected Miller’s position outright.

    Miller is a criminal who has repeatedly violated court orders. Worse, she remains (to the best of our knowledge) at large with her child who is being taught that it is OK to violate lawful court orders.

    • Sei

      January 10, 2010 at 1:12 pm

      Ms Partridge,

      The only reason why religion is part of this debate is because Lisa Miller has argued that the reasoning behind her refusal to obey the custody order centers on her religious beliefs. It is also what many of her supporters have argued. With everything else, you are absolutely right. There is nothing unjust with this order.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 11:17 am

      Paula,

      So, now you are comparing Isabella to a truck? Just something to own and use and pay for?

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 11:24 am

      Boy, Grieved, you did not get the point of that one, did you?

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 12:14 pm

      Sei,

      Sorry..

      what was the point i missed?

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 12:19 pm

      I’m going to let you figure that one out on your own. If I helped you out, I don’t think you’d ever learn anything.

      I’ll give you a quick hint though…which major religion in Europe banned the lending of money for centuries?

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 12:37 pm

      Sei,

      What’s wrong with banning the lending of money? Anyway, who cares?

      Paula seemed to be comparing dissimilar things. If she wants to seem like she cares at all for this little girl and not just “justice being served”, she maybe could refrain from such crass statements.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm

      Grieved,

      Christ threw the money lenders out of the Temple. According to that action, Christianity banned the lending of money up until the 1600′s. Paula is making the point, which you are either ignorant of or ignoring, that you cannot get around the law by claiming a religious exemption since it suits you.

      Of course, calling for the banning of money lending would probably result in you being pilloried.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 1:10 pm

      Well, according to Grieved, you can. Oh, and we should collapse the economy and force people to read his translation of the Bible every day.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:57 pm

      Sei,

      How can you say something I did not say. Because I said what’s wrong with banning the lending of money?
      If this is how you ladies do your history education, I don’t know what to say.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:01 pm

      Grieved,

      That is what you said.

      Money lending is a sin, it should be banned, thus the bank was wrong when they lent her the money for the truck. This means that she should keep her truck because the bank was wrong in lending her the money. Since money lending is wrong, she should not have to repay that money. That’s the logic you’re applying to the Miller/Jenkins case, not me.

      Of course, since you said “I don’t know what to say”, might I suggest that you say nothing? It would free up my afternoon from sitting here correcting you and joking with Paula.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:37 pm

      Sei,

      I did not say money lending is a sin.

      Regarding the bible translation, is that the one the “real Christians” put out? Or maybe Paula’s translation?

      A considered to be liberal text reads in Genesis
      “Ge 9:15 and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

      Mt 22:36 `Teacher, which is the great command in the Law?’
      Mt 22:37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding–
      Mt 22:38 this is a first and great command;
      Mt 22:39 and the second is like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;
      Mt 22:40 on these–the two commands–all the law and the prophets do hang.’

      I can be done for today. Thanks for the discourse.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 2:43 pm

      Or, maybe, the baker’s dozen my father owns, some going back to translations from first century sources. And thank you for making my point yet again. Those two supersede all other laws. Well done! Oh yes, and the bit about the Covenant. I believe I got my information from the Catholic version. Or was it the Oxford. I’ll have to look it up again some time.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm

      Sei,

      All the laws and the prophets hang on them.

      Loving God is loving His Word. Loving what he loves. Loving who He is. Truly.
      Not who we make him out to be. This is idolatry.

      Be careful. Loving your neighbor means warning
      her and pointing to the Truth.

  8. Dan O

    January 8, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Bridgette, thank you for posting this. You are absolutely correct. I’ve seen the same things as I’ve read up on this case. Catholic News is even carrying the rumors in the body of their article. I thought bearing false witness was in the ten commandments, but I guess those are optional to the religious elite. Is it Aravosis who termed this “Lying for the Lord.”

    The irony is this will obviously backfire against Miller in any chance she had to appeal the case. I could see the courts now giving Jenkins full custody with no visitation rights for Miller. In face, Miller could rightfully end up spending some time in jail. Even more disturbing is her years of violation of the court orders seems to be supported by her legal counsel. That sounds like grounds for disbarment.

    And lastly, Ms Maggie Gallagher might not want to continue drawing attention to this case. If I were Ted Olson or David Boies I would be using this case as an example of how Civil Unions in their separate and allegedly equal role do not offer the same protections of marriage.

    Keep up the good work!

    • Sei

      January 8, 2010 at 11:45 am

      Dan O,

      Thank you. After all of these comments, it is wonderful to have someone appreciate what we’re doing here and support us.

      Again, thank you.

  9. Grieved

    January 7, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    Believing a christian and a lesbian can raise a child is ridiculous. It is not in the best interest of the child. The court is giving preference to the lesbian even by giving any visitation of the child. GLBT operates within a false belief (faith). Believing it is okay to depart from God’s design is believing a lie. Just because the law says it’s okay doesn’t make it right. Spreading lies that God will not judge the homosexual and the adulterer and the pornography consumer is wrong. Why should our laws reflect untruth? Only to satisty those who have given themselves to idolotry and bring on themselves a curse. Is it not loving our neighbor to have laws that reflect that which is true? Just as if homosexuality was again illegal (and it is by God’s law whether it is correct in ours or not), you would not tell your friends to go turn themselves in. Some of us are do not have confidence in Vermont to protect and care for Isabella. It’s a horrible situation. But hopefully one that will be used to wake people up to how incredibly selfish they are. It’s everyone who defies God’s law, straight or gay. We are all guilty. But we should not give license to people that believe they should have the right and blessing and privilege to break God’s law. That is not love. Love hurts our over-inflated egos. Love is long-suffering and kind, it does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in the truth. Anything that goes against God is iniquity. Who decides? He does. Will we listen and heed? God is Love. He is long-suffering and kind. He does not strike us down when we deserve to be. Which is every day. Shall we continue to take advantage of His mercy? A christian is not above God’s Law and neither are you. Lisa Miller is accountable to Him. May He have mercy on her and on you, Sei.

    • Sei

      January 7, 2010 at 10:49 pm

      Grieved,

      The bearer of false witness and the hypocrite and liar are much further up the list of sinners than gays and lesbians. In fact, the Bible only bans one form of homosexual intercourse- that of anal sex. My faith is strong enough not to be damaged by you, and I have met many a “Christian” like you. You, on the other hand, do not have the strength of faith to bear being around people like me. You continue to spread lies regarding this case. Just remember, Jesus Christ was adamant about something- “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s.” In other words, obey the law and pay your taxes.

    • Grieved

      January 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm

      Sei,
      You keep talking about lying/bearing false witness. I’ve not said anything untrue. I see that you have spoken falsely by saying I have lied and been a false witness. Yet you have no evidence as such. So I say you are bearing false witness against me.
      The Bible says if you are guilty in one point of the Law you are guilty of all. We are all under condemnation unless we repent in faith and believe in the True God. The Bible says clearly in Romans that sexual relations between females is a demonstration of the condemnation that is just. The design God gave that was good was one man and one woman. To reject this is to lie about God and His Word.
      It is difficult to bear with those that twist the Word of God to serve their flesh, which is blasphemy and idolatry. I don’t understand the faith you have because it gives you a false assurance of peace.
      My contention has been that there are those more concerned with visitation rights of a lesbian than with what is objectively better for a little girl. Many would disagree with what is best for her. This is where our culture has us, one side is concerned about Truth and others are concerned with what they would like instead because they are at war with the Truth. The problems with this case began a long time ago, before Isabella was born actually. I thought maybe Lisa would move next door (or within a block) from Janet and try to see Isabella every day. I did not think she could disappear. I did not advise her. I do not know her. I can see why she would want to protect Isabella, though. That’s what mothers do.
      Yes, mothers should teach their children to obey the law, they should teach them to obey God’s Law as supreme. And Janet Jenkins was not interested in teaching Isabella the truth about God. Because she doesn’t believe it.

    • Sei

      January 8, 2010 at 6:00 pm

      Grieved,

      All that you have lied about, you will never believe you lied about. I know that much of what you have asserted is false, just like the rest of the schmucks attacking us, but you will never accept that you have spoken falsely.

      As for your Biblical assertions, I’ll let the Biblical Scholars in our little circle of writers deal with that if they want.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 11:09 am

      Paula,

      I did not say Janet would not raise Isabella the same way you are raising your daughters.
      It is not honest, however, to tell children there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and God blesses it. It’s a lie. Whether you agree or there are others who have different “opinions” doesn’t make it so. Just like, no matter how many of us disagree with Judge Cohen’s decision, doesn’t mean he didn’t rule as he did.

      Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah. He said he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. He said not any part shall pass away. Do some research and see if at any time God gave a blessing to the Jewish people that gave homosexuality sanction. You will not find it. Homosexuality is condemned. Just as is adultery. It was repeatedly reaffirmed in the New Testament as well. As for your interpretation of Romans, I’ve never heard the temple prostitutes to be lesbians. So, it’s okay for other lesbians just not those? You are trying to see the Miller/Jenkins case “honestly” and “lawfully”..you should apply that same diligence to seeing what the Bible really says, not just what people want to make it mean.

      “Separation of church and state”, once properly understood in the context of the letter written by Jefferson, affirmed that not one denomination would be that which ruled the government (Episcopal, Lutheran, etc..), not that Truth would not be the Law of the Land. And currently, the religion of “Self-Worship” is what is helping to write our laws today and it’s not in the best interest of our fellow countrymen.

      There are many false gods, and you are clearly thanking one of them.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 11:19 am

      Grieved,

      Your understanding of what Thomas Jefferson wrote is wrong. Jefferson was a believer in Natural Law, as expressed in the writings of John Locke. Jefferson also believed that Christianity should not be the law of the land, not just a single denomination of Christianity should not be. Jefferson was an agnostic, incidentally. If the Founders of this nation actually wanted Christianity to be the focus of their laws, they would have banned Judaism, Islam, and other religions. In a treaty written with Tripoli, and unanimously passed by the Senate, they declared that this nation was not a Christian nation.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 12:06 pm

      Sei,

      Do you have an understanding of both sides of your argument? I did not say Jefferson was a Christian.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 12:15 pm

      Grieved,

      I know a whole lot better than you do, and you implied that Jefferson was a Christian and that he supported Christian theocracy.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 12:33 pm

      Sei,

      “Separation of church and state”, once properly understood in the context of the letter written by Jefferson, affirmed that not one denomination would be that which ruled the government (Episcopal, Lutheran, etc..), not that Truth would not be the Law of the Land.

      This is what I said. Again, I don’t think you understand “theocracy”. And no where does it say I said Jefferson was a Christian.

      I don’t think you’ve had enough time to read the link I sent you.

      But, okay.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 12:42 pm

      I know exactly what theocracy is, Grieved. It appears that you do not. I do not think you know what secular government means either. And, by saying that Jefferson affirmed that one denomination would not rule the government, you implied that he supported Christian based theocracy, and by extension, that he was Christian. It is a common bait and switch intended to make people think that your argument is rooted in facts rather than misinterpretations of events and documents.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 12:42 pm

      Paula,I

      Barton does a fairly reasonable job. I’ve never seen something from him saying evangelicals should be running the country. I don’t want that. Do I have a vote? I’d be okay with moralists running the country. I think it’s better than what we have by a LONG shot.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 12:46 pm

      Actually, Grieved, you have been arguing that priests should be running the country. After all, only priests can be the ones to guide the “correct” moral identity of the nation, right? I believe that is what they have in Iran currently, and that is a theocracy.

      And, no, Barton’s stuff is pretty much bunk. It is useful for you, of course, because it supports your world view, but it is very inaccurate.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 12:13 pm

      Paula,

      I did not say the word “lesbian” is in the text. It’s clearly implied.

      This is the more “liberal” translation”. Which word is missing please?

      Ro 1:22 jaskonteV einai sojoi emwranqhsan
      Ro 1:23 kai hllaxan thn doxan tou ajqartou qeou en omoiwmati eikonoV jqartou anqrwpou kai peteinwn kai tetrapodwn kai erpetwn
      Ro 1:24 dio paredwken autouV o qeoV en taiV epiqumiaiV twn kardiwn autwn eiV akaqarsian tou atimazesqai ta swmata autwn en autoiV
      Ro 1:25 oitineV methllaxan thn alhqeian tou qeou en tw yeudei kai esebasqhsan kai elatreusan th ktisei para ton ktisanta oV estin euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV amhn
      Ro 1:26 dia touto paredwken autouV o qeoV eiV paqh atimiaV ai te gar qhleiai autwn methllaxan thn jusikhn crhsin eiV thn para jusin
      Ro 1:27 omoiwV te kai oi arseneV ajenteV thn jusikhn crhsin thV qhleiaV exekauqhsan en th orexei autwn eiV allhlouV arseneV en arsesin thn aschmosunhn katergazomenoi kai thn antimisqian hn edei thV planhV autwn en eautoiV apolambanonteV
      Ro 1:28 kai kaqwV ouk edokimasan ton qeon ecein en epignwsei paredwken autouV o qeoV eiV adokimon noun poiein ta mh kaqhkonta

      Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
      Ro 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
      Ro 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
      Ro 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
      Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
      Ro 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
      Ro 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

      Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
      Ro 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
      Ro 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
      Ro 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
      Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
      Ro 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
      Ro 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 12:19 pm

      Paula,

      I’m sorry you have to use words like “bigot”, “hypocrite” and other such words when you are those same words. Name-calling maybe makes a case for you.

      Sorry if “thumping” the Bible bothers you. Just don’t use it in your arguments. It’s clear it’s you who picks and choose which texts she favors.

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:19 pm

      Paula,

      I do not think “evangelical should be allowed to break laws they don’t like”.

      I never said that. It’s not about “like”.

      If a court ruled you to turn over your daughters to, well, someone else who had a claim on them. (Say the courts said they did.) And you thought they’d be in danger because of brainwashing, influenced by destructive behaviors..you would do it? You will have to say you would do it.
      Well, I think for you to not even blink when you answer, will be a bit alarming. But then you’d say, well..I wouldn’t have kept them from court ordered visits. Even if you thought they were in danger? Wow. Okay. Well, moms think differently from others, I guess.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 1:24 pm

      Grieved,

      Is that not the danger that Janet Jenkins faces by allowing her daughter to be raised by that closed group of people at Liberty University in Lynchburg? Did you not actually think that your own argument would be thrown right back at you? This is about a group of people who do not like this ruling and are determined to break the law. You talk about destructive behaviors, and yet, for a well adjusted gay or lesbian, there is no destructive behavior. The destructive behaviors only occur when we try to deny how God made us and hide who we are. Which is what Lisa Miller did repeatedly. She tried to commit suicide. Heaven knows what kind of mental state she is in now thanks to the brainwashing of people like you who believe that we should deny the way God made us.

      “You are debauched by your worst in the darkness while we make love to our best in the light.”

    • grieved

      January 11, 2010 at 1:44 pm

      Sei,

      I’m not really familiar with Liberty University. What I understand is that no one knows where Miller is.

      Jesus said you must deny yourself. That’s to all, not just the homosexual. We are all born in sin. He doesn’t say “stay as you are”. He desires to save us, from ourselves and the lies we believe. There is an enemy of souls. Because we are self-worshipers and not God worshipers, we may not see the blessings of one man one woman. It is in many ways more self-fulfilling to be gay. It is not unselfish to be gay. It’s more about having ones needs met, than about serving God. The “brainwashers” you call them don’t want people to be apart from God, as he warns all who stay as they are (not just the homosexual)
      Remember, the enemy wants you to stay comfortable where you are, and will make it very difficult if you try to leave his kingdom. And there are continual assaults. That’s the world we live in.

    • Sei

      January 11, 2010 at 1:50 pm

      Grieved,

      Based upon those statements, I would like to point out that the early Church actually debated whether or not to allow marriage rights to exist, and that, had they not allowed marriage, children, etc, Christianity would never have continued to exist. What you are also arguing is that you should not be near a computer, and that you should be living as a hermit denying yourself all worldly goods, or be a monk in a monastery. I presume that you are not, and that means that you are not living according to God’s Will.

  10. Austin

    January 6, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Oh well Sei, since there can be nothing prosperous or even positive concering my conversations with you and since you still place me in the same category as other posters just because of where I come from (even though I came here later) I will close my conversation with you. Although I will say b4 I close that yes I do realize that I have never been persecuted for my faith. Go to parts of the globe where Christians are dragged out of their cars or houses and beaten for sharing the gospel and thats persecution! In Europe I wasn’t persecuted either, I was simply saying that I certainly was introduced to different lifestyles there (I lived for 8 months with a family in which the father was an atheist) and if I ever wanted to give up on the faith that woudl have been the time and place however all I can say is that He loves me with a love that would not let me go, thank God. Enough sweet talk. The End.

    Paula, it’s been nice chatting with you. Thank you for being civil.

    • Sei

      January 6, 2010 at 7:47 pm

      Austin, if you ever come back to read this one.

      After close to five days of this, I’m fed up with all of you coming in here and defending a woman who has broken the law over and over again. It is nice to know you don’t feel persecuted. After living in the South, my faith was very well affirmed. I hit a point quite some time ago where I am not cutting you or anyone else any slack. There are no two sides to this argument anymore. There were not a long time ago, but you will never believe that. Lisa Miller chose over and over again to violate the law and twist her daughter against Jenkins. Oh, you deny that happened, but it did.

  11. Austin

    January 6, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    Well Sei, all I can say is that it seems that you are the one bullying people here threatening to ban people just because they are affiliated with Liberty or or because they disagree with you, also telling people that they deserve to go to jail for freely speaking their mind. Let me remind you that we would have no America unless the signers of the Declaration broke Britians law by declaring Independence. I thought this blog would be a good place for both sides to be heard, maybe I was wrong. I understand that you won’t be backing down but neither will I. I will stand up for what I believe in and if that means jail then so be it.

    Paula, see the issue that I have with your coments is that while you are correct that I am like a 5 minute walk to Liberty’s campus and while it is true that I am a liberty graduate and teach for their academy, I am my own person and no one has brain washed me to believe what I believe. I have certainly gone through my periods of doubt in my life regarding Christianity and God but after leaving my Christian environment and living abroad in Europe my faith was strengthened. I consider myself a very well rounded person able to see both sides. I believe in loving people to the Lord, not judging them. I find it ironic that the same people on this site who don’t like to be judged by Christians find it ok to judge Christians in turn and place us all in a box and write us off as brainwashed, judgemental, hypocrits. Interesting about your “information”. Haha, if it were me aiding her I certainly wouldn’t be on here blogging about all of this.

    • Sei

      January 6, 2010 at 6:42 pm

      Austin,

      Once you and the Liberty University/Council/Academy cadre began the little bully fest, that was the end of any pleasant conversations here. If they and you had intended to have a decent, balanced conversation, then the attempts over the last four days to silence this blog on this issue would not have happened. I would have been more than willing to hear non-slanderous information regarding Ms Miller, but it seems to me that you and yours have never had that intention. You will not woo me with pleasantries anymore. After seeing the same comments posted in a number of different places by the same people, we knew exactly what was going on. It was an attempt to manipulate the conversation and make Miller look sympathetic.

      Oh, I did not threaten to ban you from the site, I would like to point out. I was making a very good point. You are here by our invitation, and we have the right to pull that invitation at any time.

      I do not place all Christians in a box and write them off. I only place those who I know are not Christians in the true sense within that box. I have met many a true Christian. Falwell and the rest of you are as far from those people as Pluto is from the center of the galaxy. I have even had many a nice conversation with people who are Fundamentalist in their views; however, when they come to this site and try to manipulate the message to make a kidnapper and law breaker into a sympathetic figure and martyr for their twisted agenda, I draw the line.

      You talk about standing up for what you believe in, and going to jail for what you believe in. You equate yourself with the Founding Fathers. You do not know what it is to suffer for your faith. You do not know what it means to be persecuted. You can claim that you do, and that you will be persecuted for your faith even if I ban you from this site. What you do not grasp is this, you are not persecuted. You were not persecuted in Europe, and you were not persecuted in the United State. All you are is part of a cadre of zealots more interested in forcing this nation to conform to your twisted version of Christianity. You will deny it, I know you will. Then again, all people who are part of that kind of movement deny that reality.

  12. Austin

    January 6, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    Haha, I am not on the payroll at Liberty University. I teach at Liberty Christian Academy and am blogging during my time away from teaching if you must know. Lisa taught here last school year as did I. For me though, my own personal experiences with Lisa and my own opinion have nothing to do with Liberty. I am speaking completely apart from them. Paula, I believe all parents raise their children to believe what they do for the most part. For instance, I can only imagine that if Janet were the primary parent of Isabella she would teach her that homosexuality was acceptable morally as well as teach her other personal beliefs that she held to. So this is a difficult issue.

    Sei, even though I happen to be a friend of Lisa’s I am still an American citizen and have the freedom to believe whatever I want to and say whetaver I want to protected by freedom of speech! I can vocally support Lisa if I choose to and they can not throw me in jail for that. Put me on a lie detector test. I never once aided Lisa in running and in fact I have no idea where she is! I haven’t heard from her since September. She simply disapeared with no trace. Believe me, she was too smart to get any of us involved.

    • Sei

      January 6, 2010 at 3:53 pm

      Austin,

      This is not a difficult issue. Lisa Miller was given a court order and failed to uphold it. She fled. She will be caught, and a mother will spend the rest of her life never getting to see her daughter grow up. And, by admitting that you are a teacher at Liberty Christian Academy, you admit to being part of the whole Liberty cadre. You are part of this whole thing, and I believe that you should be in jail for encouraging a felon kidnapper.

      Freedom of Speech is assured by the Constitution, but there are some caveats. This includes actively encouraging a crime, or did you not know that. It also means that I can ban you from these forums at any time. You see, the caveats are usually what get people like you.

      Lisa Miller has lied. She has obfuscated, and she has broken the law. You talk about a difficult issue, and I see someone who is teaching her child than illegal behavior is just fine so long as you do not consider it immoral.

      You and the rest of the Liberty University/Council/Academy hit squad had better learn that we aren’t backing down on this. It doesn’t matter if you want to bully us, or try to sweet talk us. We are not backing down. Just remember, it is you not us who are actively and vocally supporting a kidnapper.

  13. KS

    January 6, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Ok, I am going to jump in the middle of this and will start by saying I am not on either side of any religious or political agenda. I am completely on the outside.

    Please read the WHOLE comment before you jump to react.

    I do not think custody should have been given to Jenkins for two reasons:

    First, biological mothers break court orders against biological fathers all the time and rarely is anything done about it. Even more rare is a judge stripping custody from the biological mother.

    Second, for whatever reason Jenkins has not had very much time with Isabella. Honestly, Isabella probably has little or no recollection of her. It would be traumatic for Isabella to be taken away from the mother she knows and put with Jenkins who will inevitably expect Isabella to think of her as her mommy now.

    Now that Miller has run from the law, it does put a different twist on the situation. Because of her unwillingness to follow court orders and the judge’s orders to strip her custody she is now a fugitive. If she is caught, she will be arrested and then Isabella will have no mother. At this point, Jenkins could at least step in and try and be her mom.

    The whole situation is sad really. Two grown people who can’t learn to come to some sort of agreement for the best interest of Isabella have now instead done the one thing they both say they didn’t want to happen – hurt Isabella.

    I honestly feel this story had generated into what it is because it is a gay issue and people have used that to inflate it – facts, fiction, the whole nine yards.

    If it is truly about Isabella – none of this is in her best interest!

    Regardless of the outcome – they all really need to seek professional help so they can put the focus back on the innocent little girl.

    • Sei

      January 6, 2010 at 3:29 pm

      KS,

      The reason why Janet Jenkins has not had much contact with Isabella is because of Lisa Miller. So you want to reward a law breaking citizen by saying ‘it’s alright for you to break the law and keep this girl from knowing her other mother.” Please, that is a lame excuse, isn’t it? The reason why Isabella should and WAS given to the custody of Janet Jenkins was because she did not have much contact with Janet Jenkins due to the obstinate decision by Lisa Miller to prevent this girl from seeing Jenkins.

      As for the biological mother argument, that one is just as much cow pies as the other argument. Janet Jenkins is as much the parent of Isabella as Lisa Miller is. If a man and a woman conceive a child using a sperm donor, is he any less the father of that child if they get divorced? Legally, no.

      You talk about Jenkins trying to be Isabella’s mother- that is blatantly false as well. Jenkins IS Isabella’s mother.

      KS, you talk as if Janet Jenkins could not agree to anything, and as if Ms Jenkins is as responsible for this situation as Lisa Miller. Jenkins was awarded unsupervised visitation. Lisa Miller dug in and said no. She FLED to Virginia in hopes that they would not uphold Vermont and Federal law. In the end, they upheld Vermont law. The only people to blame for this are Lisa Miller and the cadre of people who have been pushing and manipulating her all along.

  14. Austin

    January 6, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Ok Sei, you have the right to believe whatever you want to. I am sorry that you doubt whether or not I am a personal friend of Lisa Miller but I am not here to convince you of that. In fact I am a teacher in Lynchburg VA where Lisa taught for one year. Believe it or don’t, I really don’t care but no one has sent me here I can assure you of that. To set the record right…none of us have helped Lisa break the law. She was smart enough not to tell us that she was leaving or where she would go if she ever did. As far as being able to tell if Isabella was upset…it doesn’t take someone with a doctorate in Psychology to tell when someone is upset at something or that they don’t want to do something. No I was not with them all of the time or every time this was brought up. Furthuremore… how do you know that Lisa did not tell her lawyers Isabella was unhappy or upset at the mention of visiting Janet? Have you seen the court documents? I haven’t but I doubt you have either. Also how do you know that Lisa didn’t have Izzy in counseling? Ahh thats what I thought…you don’t. I am trying to be polite here but it is hard when you feel passionately about something. I also realize that the other side is passionate as well and I respect you even though I disagree with you.

    • Sei

      January 6, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      Austin,

      Really? You knew Lisa Miller for a year? Which year was that? This passed year? The year before? You were there every second of the day in order to know that Lisa Miller did not convince Isabella to hate Janet Jenkins? And, Paula is right, we have seen most of the documents in this case. Children usually are reluctant and even upset to have to go halfway up the East Coast in order to see someone.

      And you are helping her break the law by coming out here and trying to drum up sympathy for her. You talk about passionate. All I care about is that Lisa Miller has, as even you admit, broken the law. She faces jail time now. You came here spreading the same maliciousness about Janet Jenkins all in the name of a “friend”. I am fed up with the fact that you and the other members of this little hit squad feel that it is alright to encourage someone to break the law. I’m sorry, but personally, I feel that the lot of you should be rounded up and jailed for this little propaganda fest.

      Is Isabella going to be upset about the move- sure. After how many years of hearing how evil Janet Jenkins is, you bloody well bet she’s going to be afraid. If you are Ms Miller’s friend- really her friend- then you should be openly telling her to comply with the law. What you guys don’t get is that Ms Miller will not only be losing custody of Isabella rather permanently, but she will go to jail for some time. If you truly were her friend, and if she truly loved Isabella, then she would not be risking the very real probability of never seeing her daughter again in order to support some group’s anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-rights agenda.

  15. Sei

    January 5, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    We had something of a glitch and a comment was destroyed accidentally. This is what we were able to recover:

    Austin wrote:

    “As a personal friend and former co-worker of Lisa Miller I came in
    contact with Lisa and Isabella almost every day this past year (up
    till the time Lisa left). I am not going to get into the legalities of
    this case as it would be pointless to argue the facts here as it has
    already been done. I do disagree with the court’s ruling to give
    full-custody to Janet though and I am disappointed that the courts in
    VA. are not abiding by what we have voted for here in my state
    concerning the marriage amendment. Google it if you want to read it.
    All I can attest unbiased (because I am not friends with crazy
    people), is that Lisa is one of the most devoted mothers I have ever
    met and is simply acting in the best interest of her child as she sees
    it. You can say all you want that Lisa made up the story of Isabella
    coming home suicidal after a visit from Janet but the fact is you
    don’t know that it isn’t true. I have been with Lisa and Isabella as
    Lisa truly went back and forth this year deciding whether or not to
    allow Janet to see Izzy and in the end she went against the courts in
    favor of her child. Each time the subject of Isabella possibly having
    to go see Janet was brought up I wish you could have seen the look of
    sadness on her face and I never got the feeling that Lisa had coaxed
    Izzy to feel that way. Isabella is an extremely intelligent child and
    thinks on her own. I know this because I have seen her disagree openly
    with Lisa on several occasions as do most children with their parents.
    All I am saying is that you can judge Lisa all you want to for what
    she has done but none of us are in her shoes. If it came between me
    giving my child over to someone who I honestly believed would harm my
    child or breaking the law, I would side with my child every time and
    that my friends is not crazy!”

    • Melanie Nathan

      January 5, 2010 at 10:51 pm

      To the Friend Of Lisa. As a family law mediator I have seen many such heart rendering scenarios. However the big mistake Lisa made was to allow herself to be used by the Christian extremist network that she is involved in. The so called ex-gays. Their very term denotes that they have a political agenda. That is what ended up looking bad for LISA. Why did she not go back to the Court at the time, see psychologists, take Izzy to counselling BEFORE disobeying court orders repeatedly. We have a system and if Lisa had not got caught up in that group she may have handled it comploetely differently and if there was something to be revealed through a court process why did it never cone to the Court.? If the child was upset to go to the other mom – then why did Lisa not help remedy that. I see kids going through divorce trauma all the time and eventually with help the families get it together and with a step up custody plan they are able to help the child adapt. But the minute Lisa got involved with these people she was extracated from complying with the system and giving it a chance to work.

    • Melanie Nathan

      January 5, 2010 at 11:04 pm

      From my earlier post where I said – “child was upset to go to the other mom – then why did Lisa not help remedy that. relationship. Instead she chose to say being a christian was a better lifestyle and she denied Janet as a parent. That was a huge mistake. She should have addressed the problemn and as a parent ought to have helped to mend the relationship before denying it. It is so clear that she used the religion thing as an excuse to abscond and deny Janet her rights. Have you thought about the trauma of what Lisa caused when the family first separated. The separaiton and loss from Janet will lead to sep anxiety by the child with regard to Lisa – the fear instilled in the child when ashe goes from one parent to another is a constant feeling of loss, unless the parents work together.. No wonder she did not want to leave Lisa for Janet. She was not capable of dealing with the tension and the fear of losing Lisa when she was with Janet. The abandonement for a child is the major feeling and that is what she feels without expert help. She cannot correlate or understand how to be with each parent not in unison. She does not have the capability of an adulty to understand that she can go between parents and she will alwyas safely have the other one. Lisa exacerbated this by not allowing her to see Janet consistently.This is a typical alienation case. The duty of lisa was to mitigate and not exacerbate the child’s insecurities. The childs behavior is clealry indicative of PAS. Very typical

    • Sei

      January 6, 2010 at 8:40 am

      To Austin, if you ever come back to read this.

      I somehow doubt that you are Lisa Miller’s friend. Unlike my colleagues, I personally believe that you are here on orders just like Derek James and Eric Smith and the rest of the Liberty University/Liberty Council crew to drum up sympathy for Ms Miller. Unlike them, your comment is just meant to be more innocuous sounding. To be blunt, if Lisa Miller thought that there was a problem with her daughter visiting Janet Jenkins, she had a duty to report it to the courts and get it all documented. Since her allegations seem to have been proven baseless, the courts ruled that Isabella had to continue to visit her mother, Janet. You hate this fact. The only people who are telling Lisa Miller that Janet Jenkins is out to hurt her child are the Fundamentalists surrounding her feeding her brain with what ever she thinks will take away who she is attracted to. She loathes and blames others for being lesbian and is looking for any way to get out of that. She has broken the law repeatedly. The day she chose to disobey the order to change custody, she lost any hope of regaining custody.

      Incidentally, children can be coaxed without you being there. In fact, I would like to know just how you know how Izzy felt or looked? Where you there every single time that it was discussed? You were with Lisa and Isabella Miller every moment of the day? I somehow doubt that very much. In fact, I doubt that you were by their side at all.

      Let me make something very clear. You guys have now helped a woman repeatedly break the law. You have lied and tried to flood these and other comment forums with these lies. You have manipulated this child in what borders on psychological abuse, and manipulated this poor woman into thinking that God is going to take away her sexuality because people like you told her that it was a sin and was wrong. The lot of you disgust me.

      You were sent here to counterbalance the posts from Aggie earlier. I doubt your story entirely.

    • Iggy

      January 6, 2010 at 7:13 pm

      Melanie, I believe the Big Mistake that Lisa made was in hiring an attorney through the yellow pages: Deborah Lashman. Jenkins’s pro bono lead attorney at the time was Joseph Price, reported by Newsweek as “a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer, he has served on the board of Equality Virginia, a gay civil-rights group.” Unknown to Miller, Deborah Lashman was a central figure in the history of legal rights for gay parents in Vermont. In a landmark 1993 case, Lashman had tried, unsuccessfully at first, to adopt the biological children of her longtime lesbian partner, Jane Van Buren.

      What troubles many about this entire scenario is that Lashman failed to advocate for Lisa as her client, insisting to the court that Jenkins had parental rights despite there being no basis in law for that. Hearing no opposition, the judge agreed. If Lisa had proper counsel, she would have addressed the issues first in her home state of Virginia, which puts the interests of the child before the interests of the gay union movement.

    • Sei

      January 6, 2010 at 7:49 pm

      Ah, amazing how the “the first lawyer deliberately screwed up this case” argument has surfaced. Was this all before or after Miller declared her conversion to Christianity and supposed renouncement of homosexuality?

      It would not have mattered. Virginia, by Federal law, does not have and never did have jurisdiction over this case! Got that?!

  16. Andrea

    January 5, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    As you apparently have. Whatever.

    • Sei

      January 5, 2010 at 3:42 pm

      I have not banned your comments, Andrea. I’ve gotten ticked off about them, but I haven’t banned you.

  17. Andrea

    January 5, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    The interview Miller gave was last fall, when the girl was six I’d assume she was referring to an incident that had allegedly happened when Jenkins had an extended period of visitation and might have been five. Isabella was born in April of 2002. Haven’t seen the documents, don’t know what Jenkins did or did not say and the statements of a 5-year-old are not likely to be considered reliable. But I was responding to some of the comments above from people who said their kids jump in the bath with them all the time and don’t make a big deal of it, etc and they’d think something was wrong with a kid who did feel funny about it.

    • Sei

      January 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm

      Andrea,

      No, the interview was given a month before the judge gave the order, and Lisa Miller said Isabella was six when it happened. Given that Janet Jenkins did not get to see her daughter when she was six, it did not happen. You have constantly referred to how Isabella sees Janet Jenkins, and I am curious how you know that? You can try to shift the timeline, but it isn’t there. Given the fact that the whole interview was meant to slander Jenkins, you really should not rely upon it.

  18. Andrea

    January 5, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    That isn’t that surprising, is it? The only people who are going to bother to comment on this article are those who care passionately on either side of the issue. There are going to be many more who silently support Miller and others who silently support Jenkins and others who have mixed feelings about the whole thing, like me, and think it’s absolutely terrible for that judge to ship a 7-year-old kid off to live with a strange woman she doesn’t know. I actually favor gay marriage and parental rights for gays but this is a case where I think that poor little girl is going to be ripped in half by people who are turning her into a symbol of something. She symbolizes different things to different groups. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Miller is not a fit mother and she is this child’s biological mother and the one that Isabella has a bond with. She doesn’t know Jenkins as her mother. Jenkins would show she’s the bigger person by giving up on the idea of getting custody and taking this kid to live with her and Miller would certainly show sense by bringing this kid back home and not forcing her to grow up in hiding wherever they’re at, letting her see Jenkins and continuing to teach her that the way Jenkins is living is wrong if that’s how she feels. As for the people practicing the so called “tea bagger” tactics on the newspaper forums, they are entitled to comment, just like you are. The best response is to counter speech with speech as you have done here.

    • Sei

      January 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm

      Andrea,

      I am more than free to comment on this site. This IS my site. Well, mine and Paula’s and Mel’s. You may notice our names on the posts. The judge is not sending this girl Isabella off to some stranger, she is being given to the custody of her mother because her other mother, Lisa Miller, chose to violate the judge’s orders repeatedly and then tried to slander Isabella’s mother Janet. By virtue of having decided to violate the judge’s visitation orders time and time again, Lisa Miller made it clear that she is an unfit mother. You may feel it is terrible what Judge Cohen is doing, but Lisa Miller is the one forcing Isabella to grow up in hiding, not Janet Jenkins or Judge William Cohen. Had Lisa Miller just followed Judge Cohen’s orders regarding visitation, she would have not lost custody and this would not have happened.

    • Andrea

      January 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm

      Isabella is being sent to live with someone she does not know as her other mother, has not seen in a year, and whom she most likely DOES view as a stranger. And that’s a dirty deal for that poor kid and I do think it’s a completely inappropriate judgement. If you disagree with the commentary on other news sites, maybe you ought to go there and do battle with them in the comments section. Maybe people reading your site have taken the argument there. Everyone’s got free speech.

    • Sei

      January 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm

      Then, Andrea, Lisa Miller should have obeyed the court’s orders. I know that you do not like this, but Lisa Miller has violated the law over and over again. You can make all the complaints you want, but you and the rest of this hit squad better get it right- the law is on Jenkins’ side not Miller’s, and Lisa Miller is more than likely going to jail now. It is the actions of Lisa Miller that caused this and you want to reward someone for violating the law.

      And, yes, they are trying this on other sites, and being banned by the editors for pulling this crap. So, Andrea, you might want to consider that one very carefully.

      And, no, freedom of speech only applies to the government censoring you. I have every right to ban your backside if I want to.

    • KS

      January 6, 2010 at 3:59 pm

      Sei,

      First off, you are assuming I am taking Miller’s side. I am not. No where in my comment to do I support either person. I only gave my opinion based on what I would consider Isabella’s best interest.

      Personally, I think Miller should have followed the court orders and continued her fight through the court systems if she felt that is what she needed to do.

      It does not matter who is wrong or right or who did what. It is about Isabella. Looking at these posts everyone here wants to point fingers at either Jenkins or Miller. No one wants to look at what is ultimately best for Isabella. She knows Miller as her mother. In your eyes Jenkins may very well be just as much Isabella’s mother, but is she Jenkins Isabella’s mother in Isabella’s eyes? No. Miller is.

      Anything that happens now is going to be traumatic – Isabella will more than likely watch the woman she knows to be her mother getting arrested, she will get swept up by police and taken into protective child custody, she will probably have to go to court (or custody type) hearings and most certainly feel scared and alone before being put with Jenkins. She is going to go through a pretty big ordeal. And it is SAD. This little girl is truly going to be the one suffering in the end.

    • Sei

      January 6, 2010 at 4:11 pm

      KS,

      You took Miller’s side by making the same argument that all the other people here have. Yes, it is sad, but the courts made the decision based upon the facts of this case. They made them because the person who decided that it was more important for her to break the law than allow Isabella to see her other mother broke the law. Isabella does not see Jenkins as her mother because Lisa Miller has done her damnedest to poison that little girl’s mind against Janet Jenkins. Yes, this is going to be traumatic. Guess what, if Lisa Miller had followed the law, it would not have happened. By arguing that she should be allowed to keep Isabella now for what ever reason IS taking her side.

    • KS

      January 6, 2010 at 7:39 pm

      Sei,
      Refusing the court ordered visitation should have come with penalities on Miller. However, stripping her custodial rights was extreme. If you look at my original comment, I stated that since Miller did take off with Isabella it changed the situation and Jenkins should now take custody and try and be her mom. NOT taking Miller’s side. And meaning that it is not going to be easy for Jenkins to be Isabella’s mom. Isabella is not going to openly or instantly accept Jenkins as her mom. Isabella is going to have to come to cope with all of this and Miller has probably filled her head with negativity towards Jenkins making the situation even worse. Hopefully with some therapy, they will all get through it. Children are going to believe what the person closest to them teach them. Isabella is going to believe Miller and trust what Miller told her. It is the simpliest of ideas. Think about Santa Claus. We all believed our parents when they told us he was real – even when our closest friends or even siblings told us otherwise.

      Again, I just feel stripping Miller’s custody was extreme. I am not condoning what Miller did in any way shape or form and certainly did not take sides.

    • Sei

      January 6, 2010 at 7:43 pm

      KS,

      No, it was not extreme. Not after the fines that were levied and the long, long battle over just having visitation. This was not a snap decision made by Judge Cohen. It came after over a year of Lisa Miller disobeying his orders regarding visitation. Now do you grasp this?

    • RMH

      January 9, 2010 at 12:49 am

      I can grasp the legal reasoning. I still feel in my heart it is not what is best for the child’s well-being. That will not change… I do not know anyone involved in this case so I won’t be helping any of them… but i cannot help but hope in my heart that they are in some other country far from here so this poor child can remain with the only person she has a parent-child bond with at this point. Rather then be ripped away from the only parent she knows. I was a child at 7 who was extremely attached to my mother to the point I had difficulty even being away from her at school… imagining myself at that age being in Isabella’s place gives me the view I have… sorry if you can’t understand why some people disagree with you for reasons that have nothing to do with the political issues with regards to religion or sexual orientation.

    • Sei

      January 9, 2010 at 9:26 am

      RMH,

      The people behind this debacle are pursuing a political agenda, or did you never quite catch that the people behind this are attached to Liberty University- home of the anti-LGBT ministry of the Falwell family? By hoping that Lisa Miller is now in some foreign country, you have also shown that you are an advocate for kidnapping and breaking the law. The only reason that this has gotten this far is because of the political agenda of the Falwell centered institutions. And how do you know that Isabella does not have a bond with Janet Jenkins? Because of what you have read in the Christian reporting of this? That little bit of information has always struck me as being odd. How do YOU know what Isabella thinks and believes? You state yourself that you do not know about this case beyond what you have read. You do not know who these people are beyond what you have read.

      What is best for this child is to know both of her parents. That Lisa Miller has chosen to deny her own child that right shows that she is not after the best interests of her child. By failing to turn over custody of Isabella to Janet Jenkins- as ordered by both courts- she now loses any and all chance of regaining custody and may end up losing visitation entirely unless Jenkins is willing to allow this child to visit Lisa Miller in jail.

      Lisa Miller and the Falwell centered groups behind her have never taken the best interests of Isabella into account. They have only tried to manipulate this whole thing into a political and social poster for their attempt to impose a Christian version of Sharia on America. Sorry, but you are as off base here as KS.

    • RMH

      January 9, 2010 at 5:03 pm

      Like I said… under what I consider ethical/just… it is a far greater crime (I say this morally, I understand it isn’t legally) to rip a child away from the only parent they know than to deny visitation with a parent the child is too young to remember. I said I do not care about the politics or religion because that doesn’t change my opinion on it – my opinion would be the same regardless of the sexual orientation, gender, or political leanings of those invovled. I have the right to my beliefs, I am not trying to change yours but if you cannot even understand why someone might genuinely hold different views then you I am done arguing. Morally I do not feel what she did was kidnapping… that won’t ever change. I can’t hope for something I consider wrong to happen and you can’t expect me too.

    • RMH

      January 9, 2010 at 5:16 pm

      And on a final note… I find it incredibly hard to believe you would accept something you genuinely felt in your heart and mind was child cruelty… just because the law said it was ok.

    • Sei

      January 9, 2010 at 5:23 pm

      RMH,

      Legally, what she did was kidnapping. What you are advocating is the violation of the law. You also did not really read my reply to you, did you? How do you know how Isabella feels in all of this? You are here to support a person who is violating the law, and who has chosen time and time again to violate the visitation order because the people backing her tell her that she is above the law. You may believe that it is alright for her to do this, but that also means that you are in the wrong- morally, ethically, and legally. I believe that it is child cruelty to deny a child her right to know a loving, caring parent who has no history of violence against them. I do believe that it is child cruelty to spread lies about that child’s non-custodial parent and teach those to that child. Lisa Miller has never had the best interest of Isabella in mind. She has only had her own insterets in mind. Now, she is going to lose Isabella completely, and the likelihood of visitation is very slim. If Lisa Miller had the best interests of Isabella in mind, she would never have violated the visitation orders or the law. I grieve that this girl will be denied the love of one of her parents by the actions of Lisa Miller.

    • Olivia Lowe Partridge

      January 10, 2010 at 7:37 pm

      “Rather than being ripped away from the only parent she know.”

      Ahem. This reminds me of the man convicted of killing both his parents in cold blood. Just before sentencing, he throws himself on the court’s mercy arguing that he is just a “poor little orphan.”

      Give me a break!

    • RMH

      January 9, 2010 at 12:46 am

      Sei – I do have similar views on this as KS. (I do not post here regularly but found this when searching for information on the news story). I don’t view it as taking either adult’s side but Isabella’s side. I understand the legal reasoning, but I do not feel the law is always right, and do genuinely feel that in cases like this, the rights of the non-custodial parent and the desire of the judge to “punish” the custodial parent for not listening to him are put above the child’s emotional well-being. I am not here to change your opinion, but I do feel it is valid in a country with freedom of speech to have *MY* opinion which is different then yours. I am not motivated by the religion, gender, or sexual orientation of those involved in this situation. I simply feel it is genuinely not best for *Isabella* who in *Isabella’s mind* only knows and has one parent to be sent to live with someone *Isabella* views as a stranger. I realize not everyone agrees with my moral views – that is fine. Emotionally, I cannot help but wish Isabella disappears until she is an adult. Even if you disagree, can you not at least understand why someone with no political stake in any of the surrounding issues *genuinely* feel in their heart that a child should be permitted to remain with the only parent they know? can you at least understand why someone would feel that way?

  19. Former lesbian

    January 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Well, let me clarify this. I did not get my info from any article. I have been on this case for six years. What I speak is on the scene collected info.

    Not once has Janet Jenkins demonstarted “motherly” instincts or love towards Isabella.
    Isabella is not a toddler now she is a seven year old who has missed her childhood because activists have abused her to use her as a token in the GLBTXYZ advancement.
    Why is it you all can never handle the ” other side of the coin” information?

    • Sei

      January 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm

      Because, Ms Wall, it’s all lies. Or had you ever considered that fact? Oh, yes, I know, I know, you talk about “motherly” instincts, but you are also a highly biased observer in this case, are you not? You see, I know a lot of women who I wouldn’t say have “motherly” instincts, but then again, I know a lot of men who don’t have motherly instincts either. Of course, you can take my word for it, or read Aggie’s post since she knows Jenkins a lot better than you. You have an agenda, Ms Wall, I do not. I report on the facts- FACTS- of this case, not upon the lies being perpetuated by you and your little hit squad. Please, do remember that, at the moment that warrant is issued, you are also in the crosshairs of this investigation for supporting Miller. Of course, you probably believe that is the cross you must bear for your faith, but the reality is that, if Ms Miller had followed the law, then this would not be happening. So, please, stop trying to slander a good person with weak arguments about “motherly instincts”. Having “motherly instincts” does not make a parent.

    • Aggie

      January 5, 2010 at 2:16 pm

      As someone who is a neighbor, I would say Janet has not been allowed to show motherly instincts simply because she hasn’t been able to get her ex to keep to court-ordered visitations… how can she show love (other than her nose-to-the-grindstone, not-giving-up approach to this problem) if she never sees Isabella?

    • Aggie

      January 5, 2010 at 2:55 pm

      The bath thing makes me laugh out loud, because my five-and-a-half year old is constantly trying to jump in the tub with me… I don’t think little kids think it’s a big deal, and if a little kid did, i.e. was ashamed or something like that, it would make me question who had taught her to be that way.

    • Melanie Nathan

      January 5, 2010 at 3:08 pm

      Ms. Former Lesbian – (Ahem) I find it extremely ignorant on your part to suggest that one person can tap into another’s instincts. I mean its physically impossible. Even if you stood right next to me – How would you know what I was feeling intuitively or instictively? You are simply out of whack here. It makes no sense. I have a great idea, when you are able to make sense please feel free to pursue a discussion that has validity. You ahve completely discredited yourself. I want to thank you though for coming onto our site to assist us in revealing to the public just how ignorant the religious right philosophy is. I do not know if you realize it, but all of you will soon be under investigation to see who has given Miller money and who has helped egg her along in the commission of the crime. If I were you I would go into hiding because you will be a suspect in aiding and abetting judging from your location, who you are mixed up with and also you rhetoric. Bottom line is you are not doing Miller a favor. You are hurting her situation. You are the type that is accusing everyone in te faith community to back off on their support. As yoou fire stuff up and coerce Miller to disobey the law, you are widening your exposure/. SO I say go for it – carry on making an ass of yourself and the entire population you pruport to represent by association. We here at LGR are having a blast baiting you to say things that one day you will regret and will come to haunt you.

    • Andrea

      January 5, 2010 at 3:16 pm

      As far as the bath thing goes, if it actually occurred as alleged, it did show pretty poor judgement on Jenkins’ part to bathe nude with a 5-year-old when she was essentially a stranger to the little girl, who I would guess has been raised with a far different standard of modesty growing up in an evangelical household. This isn’t a child who viewed Jenkins as “Mommy.” At best she might have seen her as a very distant relative when this incident allegedly occurred and none of my aunts or friends of my mother would have dreamed of bathing nude with me when I was the same age. I certainly wouldn’t do it with my nephew. I doubt this was something Miller would have done with the girl either, so she might very well have been freaked out and told Miller she didn’t want to do it anymore at Jenkins’ house. It might be something Jenkins could have done with a child who was very familiar with her and comfortable in her house, which she wasn’t.

    • Sei

      January 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm

      Andrea,

      You tried this one on Friday. Drop it, it never happened.

    • Andrea

      January 5, 2010 at 3:27 pm

      I haven’t seen the court documents or anything indicating that Jenkins has denied that it happened. I don’t think it would have been something child services would call abuse, in any event. Adults do bathe nude with kids and it’s not considered abuse, just far more openness than other parents would practice. A 5-year-old’s account probably wouldn’t have been considered credible in court anyway with the level of conflict this case is attracting and the judge might well have assumed Miller made it up or fed the words to Isabella. I do think it would have showed pretty poor judgement if Jenkins did do such a thing under the circumstances. Hopefully she wasn’t that dumb.

    • Sei

      January 5, 2010 at 3:30 pm

      Andrea,

      According to Lisa Miller, the bath happened when Isabella was SIX. Janet Jenkins has not seen Isabella in over a year. Isabella only just turned seven. DO THE MATH! It did not happen. It was investigated by the courts. Sorry, I can’t go down there to Virginia and get the records and show them to you. Get it through your skull- this bath was a figment of Lisa Miller’s imagination created in an attempt to slander Janet Jenkins’ name. Got that?

    • Melanie Nathan

      January 5, 2010 at 4:00 pm

      Andrea did you read the Court documents? If not maybe you should first before asserting so vehemently that Jenknins did not deny it. Because you have seen it does not mean its not there, That said its friggin irrelevant. Even if happened 100% the way Lisa says, is not child abuse. I am naked and bath with my kids. Its not a big deal in some households. My four year old loves the tub with mom because we play pokemon with the little plastic toys and we also make ‘lotion potions’ our special game with the shampoos. My child has curly hair – this is the only way I can get the knots out is to get into the bath and distract her. America grow up. In europe parents walk around the house in the nude and still believe in G-d, or Jesus or whatever. it is a minto point in his whole deal. Personally I would rather see a naked mom than a kidnapper mom have access to a child. I dont trust the mind of Milller at this point. She has had many opportunities to make it right and failed Isabella miserably. It should never have come to this. Are you saying the jenkins should not have asked for custody ever, even when the child DID know her really well? Dont you see its the time this has all taken and the withholding that has rendered this situation.

      Also let me say this Judge Cohen is acting 100% according to case law. If one parent alienates or wilfully withholds a child from another parent – such is tantamount to an assumption that the withholding parent is in fact NOT a good par.ent. Why would a good parent want to prevent a child from seeing the other parent . I appreciate you support gay marriage etc. if you do then you have got to treat this case as you would a heterosexual one.
      Check out the case of Masuga. Mother lost custody to father who had not seen kind for years due to withholding by mother. The Bio aspect does not factor in at all. Its the presumption of parenthood from the civil union relationships that makes Jenkins a parent. Remember Miller has a past historywith alcohol, suicide attempt, Psyche ward, and even though a long time ago, I would be more afraid of that than a naked mother.

  20. Melanie Nathan

    January 5, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    I support Sei; Derek James has been rattling off the same senseless talking points. In fact it is interesting to note how he has fallen to the bait yet again. Here is an article that is written about the unethical practices of Miller supporters and then BOOM one of the main culprits is stupid enough to add proof to the very article that is outing him. This is so unbelievably lucky for the reporter of the post. That said, James et al, that means all the names you are using ….you are not doing Miller a favor by what you are trying to do. In fact your type is causing all the support for Lisa to disappear because people in the Faith community do not want to be associated with idiots. So please take a break from yourself and get some rest and leave the work to the law….

  21. Aggie

    January 5, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Janet Jenkins is my neighbor, and my child’s child care provider. Janet is fabulous, the kids and parents all like her immensely. She’s been the target of a tremendous disinformation campaign on the part of the religious right. In the past few years (but especially in the past 72 hours) I’ve read patent falsehoods and slanders about her, and the case, in the blogosphere. If there’s been any miscarriage of justice, it has been that Judge Cohen has allowed defiance of the visitation orders to go on this long!

    • Iggy

      January 6, 2010 at 11:57 am

      Aggie: Are you saying that your neighbor Janet Jenkins is currently a full-time child-care provider in her own home?

  22. Pingback: JR

  23. Derek James

    January 5, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Wow… sounds like the Old Left Media got their feelings hurt because they only want to tell half the story, a slanted stack of bile, which paints Lisa Miller as a whacko as opposed to a loving mom trying to raise her kid. Good luck with that.

    And maybe Lisa Miller is nowhere to be found, but this battle is just beginning.

    You have not seen anything from ‘credible’ sources about Jenkins questionable skills as a parent or her alleged misconduct because those whom you would deem as such are part of the Old Left Media. To me, the OLM has long been rendered questionable, dubious and as such their readership/ viewership has plummeted.

    They all (OLM sources) refer to Jenkins as a ‘mom’ which is pure biological nonsense. Mammals require a male and a female to reproduce, therefore Ms. Jenkins is extraneous. … See More

    Nowhere on Isabella’s birth certificate does it state Jenkins as a parent.

    To me this is some judge bowing to some fringe interest and seems willing to lagalize the confiscation of a little girl from her rightful biological mother, her only known parent.

    In a word, Insane.

    • Sei

      January 5, 2010 at 1:10 pm

      Mr. James, thank you for backing up my reporting, in point of fact. The fact that it has been you, Eric Smith, and a couple of other people who have been making these comments is exactly what I’m finding. In fact, one news site has already outed you for constantly changing your name in order to inflate support for Miller.

      You see, the law states that a mother or a father is not necessarily the biological parent. In fact, many men and women use donors for sperm and eggs, and yet they are considered to be the parent of the child born to that union. What you are trying to do is undermine and destroy their rights. A case in California just like this one ended up with the biological mother losing custody of the child she conceived with a sperm donor when she tired to make the same argument as Miller. The courts finally ruled that custody had to be given to her ex-husband who was deemed to be the father of the child despite not being the biological parent. The law is on her side. It is only the fundamentalist media who are trying to make this about biology and not law. But that is because the Law is not on their side, and they, including you, do not believe that the Law is important enough to uphold.

      Now, we have been through this a dozen times, Mr. James, and you may not like it, but you keep losing this battle.

      I also love how I am a Liberal all the time to people like you. I’m a Centrist and Moderate, but, of course, that doesn’t matter. I believe in the law, and you do not. It is as simple as that.

      But, feel free to try and flood this comment page yet again with your pathetic attempts to derail this and spread the slander that has been said about Jenkins.

      Oh, and my feelings aren’t hurt by your accusations. You see, I’ve heard the same ones all my life and I know just how baseless and idiotic they are.

    • Grieved

      January 7, 2010 at 4:34 pm

      Sei,

      What if the law said homosexuality is punishable by death? Would you uphold that law? You claim to be “Centrist”, a “Moderate”.
      By whose standard?
      No doubt your own and others with whom you agree.
      I define a Liberal as one who has thrown off
      the Supreme Law and has given herself authority to judge matters by her own opinions and desires. Because a judge makes a decision/ruling does not make it just.
      It is only if it is a reflection of the Divine Lawgiver.
      Our world is corrupt. We are all contributors to that FACT. We are bent toward self-exalting, idolatrous pride. We all have an agenda. One can say that she doesn’t, but in reality we are out of self-deception. Until our eyes are opened to the Truth and we embrace it, we will never be free from the lies and guilt, whether we feel it or not.
      Our judicial system is more than flawed. It often operates from relativistic precedents that have been shaped by our unrestrained, self-indulgent, self-serving culture.
      What is best for the child? We would disagree. What we value conflicts. I value Truth. You value “facts”, those which can be distorted.
      By the way, the Lisa Miller “supporters”, if you mean those who are grieving over the whole matter and wondering what we would do if a court ordered us to give our child, that which we birthed and nutured, imperfectly, to someone who opposes the Truth and will teach her the same?
      No doubt what you would do. You would obey man’s law. And yet continue to reject God’s law, day in and day out. Calling good evil and that which is evil good…That the direction so many have taken.
      There are many of us who disagree with the courts decision and think Virginia should protect Isabella from Jenkins, and Vermont for that matter. Not 4 or 5 people. Some “facts”.

    • Sei

      January 7, 2010 at 4:51 pm

      The courts in Virginia have ruled that Janet Jenkins is granted sole custody of Isabella. There is also a difference between a law which executes someone for being a particular identity or ethnicity or culture or religion and one that grants custody to the parent which is actually willing to allow the other parent visitation. You are not contributing facts to this debate. What you have contributed were allegations proven to be wrong and false. You do not value the truth. What you value is lies above even your faith.

      Oh, you’re right, it isn’t four or five, it’s more like six or seven at this point. It is hardly a huge group going to different sites and spreading the same lies over and over again hoping that, like you, people will buy the lies.

      If your faith is really important to you, you will not protect it with a bodyguard of lies. Only one who has no true faith or belief in the Truth protects their beliefs with lies.

      You are switching now to perpetuating the bullying and attacks since honey and sweet words did not work. Do not expect me to bend any more than now than I have in the past. Let me make something very clear to you and the rest of your little cadre- after almost a week of this, I am as inflexible about this as I can be, and it sickens me to see people like you encouraging a person to disobey the law just because they feel above the law. Persecution is one thing, but this is not about being persecuted or “protecting” someone. It is about trying to make Christians above the law.