Supreme Court: Va. Must Enforce Gay Visitation Rights

[Psychoblues]

Isn't it about time that we all just stop discriminating against gay people? They're queer for sure. And, they're here also for sure. Our very conservative Supreme Court even see's it this way for crying out loud!!!!!!!!!

Now, which of you will be further victimized by this decision like you have been victimized by this election?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

Source: AP

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

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

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

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

There will be Peace In The Valley, Someday.

Psychoblues

[Des]

Good. I have a very, very conservative religious family for the most part. They will never agree with me on the issue of gay rights, but even they aren't mean enough to deny anything to our gay family members they wouldn't to anyone else...like treating them like humans and visiting them. Not that that is the same as child-parent visitation, but come on...

[Psychoblues]

Des, I was once as guilty as anyone of gay bashing, proudly displaying a beaten and obnoxious confederate flag and a lot more shit that I'm not very proud of now. I did myself a favor. I started thinking about some of that shit and it has changed me profoundly.

I'm still a dumbass, I still like my beer and I still come on this board to raise hell with the idiots and discuss things with those that are not so much. My purpose in posting this article in the Legal forum was to encourage the legal geniuses here to expound on the legal ramifications of this Supreme Court decision and how this might impact on other gay rights issues/cases now working their ways through the system.

Can I buy you a drink?!?!?!??!??!?!??!?!?

Psychoblues

[actsnoblemartin]

as longas the law states that a gay person has the right to see the child, that law along with any other should be enforced, and i too am against gay bashing.


Isn't it about time that we all just stop discriminating against gay people? They're queer for sure. And, they're here also for sure. Our very conservative Supreme Court even see's it this way for crying out loud!!!!!!!!!

Now, which of you will be further victimized by this decision like you have been victimized by this election?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

Source: AP

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

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

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

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

There will be Peace In The Valley, Someday.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Marteen!!!!!!!!!!! Thank goodness you weren't in the line of that errant F-18!!!!!!!!!!!!




as longas the law states that a gay person has the right to see the child, that law along with any other should be enforced, and i too am against gay bashing.

I think the original question concerned a narrow interpretation of a vague law or at least the imposition of a law that didn't even exist but I'll let the legal beagles work all that out!!!!!!!!!!!!

Still on the H20 diet?!?!?!?????!?!?!?!?!?! Cold one coming up!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yurt]

the title of the thread is wholly inaccurate and your presumptions about the supreme court believing one way or the other are wholly inaccurate.

[Abbey Marie]

the title of the thread is wholly inaccurate and your presumptions about the supreme court believing one way or the other are wholly inaccurate.

This concerns me. Not everyone reads entire links, so it is important that a serious title bear some resemblance to reality.

How far off the mark is it, Yurt?

[Yurt]

This concerns me. Not everyone reads entire links, so it is important that a serious title bear some resemblance to reality.

How far off the mark is it, Yurt?

as i understand the scotus, by not granting cert, scotus is not giving any opinion as to the validity or merits of any claim raised. psycho asserts in the title that scotus said "Va. Must Enforce Gay Visititation Rights." that is not true, scotus simply denied cert. psycho also asserted that scotus supports gay rights, this is also not true as scotus simply denied cert.

[Kathianne]

Good. I have a very, very conservative religious family for the most part. They will never agree with me on the issue of gay rights, but even they aren't mean enough to deny anything to our gay family members they wouldn't to anyone else...like treating them like humans and visiting them. Not that that is the same as child-parent visitation, but come on...

I personally think gays shouldn't be allowed to 'marry.' With that said, I would vote 'No' on any proposal to disallow civil unions and the rights they promise. I'm for more freedom, not 'extra' freedoms.

[Abbey Marie]

as i understand the scotus, by not granting cert, scotus is not giving any opinion as to the validity or merits of any claim raised. psycho asserts in the title that scotus said "Va. Must Enforce Gay Visititation Rights." that is not true, scotus simply denied cert. psycho also asserted that scotus supports gay rights, this is also not true as scotus simply denied cert.

Thanks, Yurt. Are we going to have to insitute title-editing around here?

[Yurt]

Thanks, Yurt. Are we going to have to insitute title-editing around here?

up to you. i think people are intelligent enough to read threads and decide for themselves. for instance, this thread, people can either believe psycho or believe me. or they can go research what denial of cert means and what impact it has on a case. sometimes i purposefully write misleading titles to get people's attention. in this case, i don't believe psycho is doing that, nor do i believe that psycho intentionally mislead us, he simply does not have a clue, and thsi is evidenced further by his insistence that bush v. gore was originally brought by bush in the state courts.

if psycho wants to believe things that aren't true, that is his problem, and no amount of title-editing will help him.

[Psychoblues]

The title came directly from the article posted, abby.



Thanks, Yurt. Are we going to have to insitute title-editing around here?

And I think the editing around here already exceeds common sense or responsible administration but that's a different predicament. My purpose on this subject, as I pointed out earlier, was to encourage evaluations that I hoped our resident legal beagles would place into non-legal and layman's language as well as possibly point out cases presently making their ways through the system or that have already done so and how this decision might impact them in the future.

I maintain that my intention is innocent from the further implications of somehow wrongly identifying the argument.

Katie's Got A Gun

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

The title came directly from the article posted, abby.


Psychoblues

really?

your title


Supreme Court: Va. Must Enforce Gay Visitation Rights

title from the article


Va. Must Enforce Gay Visitation Rights

the article is missing the words "Supreme Court:". granted, i can see how the article was successful in misleading you, but it is not true that your title came directly from the article.

no need to thank me for helping you out in this thread.

:beer:

[Psychoblues]

I simply copied and pasted the title of the article in question, yuk, at the time I originally posted it.


really?

the article is missing the words "Supreme Court:". granted, i can see how the article was successful in misleading you, but it is not true that your title came directly from the article.

no need to thank me for helping you out in this thread.

:beer:

The title in the link has now been changed for whatever reason unbeknownst to me but the intent continues to be clear and I don't think it is unclear either way. The very first sentence in the article continues to read that the decision came from the Supreme Court, SCOTUS, and my intent was never under any circumstances to imply anything differently. I did that, intentionally changed an article title, about year or two ago and was dressed down by none other than jimnyc and I've never been guilty of it since. I continue to have more respect than that for him and the board whether you or anyone else does or not.

And I'm not thanking you for a damn thing, yuk. You've never done anything for me to thank you for that I know about or can remember. But, I may have forgotten something somewhere along the way. You do understand that it is difficult to post here without relying somewhat on my refreshments, don't you? And I am also very much an all nighter in the most serious sense of the meaning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jk, yuk!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

I simply copied and pasted the title of the article in question, yuk, at the time I originally posted it.



The title in the link has now been changed for whatever reason unbeknownst to me but the intent continues to be clear and I don't think it is unclear either way. The very first sentence in the article continues to read that the decision came from the Supreme Court, SCOTUS, and my intent was never under any circumstances to imply anything differently. I did that, intentionally changed an article title, about year or two ago and was dressed down by none other than jimnyc and I've never been guilty of it since. I continue to have more respect than that for him and the board whether you or anyone else does or not.

And I'm not thanking you for a damn thing, yuk. You've never done anything for me to thank you for that I know about or can remember. But, I may have forgotten something somewhere along the way. You do understand that it is difficult to post here without relying somewhat on my refreshments, don't you? And I am also very much an all nighter in the most serious sense of the meaning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jk, yuk!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

the article has been changed, okaaaay...and if you go back and read my previous posts i flat out said your intent was not to mislead.

you don't want to thank dear ol' yurt....fine, have it your way, you asked for legal beagles or whatever to explain their understanding of the ruling, i did and i corrected your errors. the SCOTUS made no decision save not to hear the case, you cannot attribute that to mean the SCOTUS believes on way or the other on the merits. but i trust you read my previous posts and i don't have to explain it to you again.

[Psychoblues]

I think I told you in another thread just a moment or so ago that I'm considering taking back some of that ol' shit I've been saying about you, yuk!!!!!!!!!



the article has been changed, okaaaay...and if you go back and read my previous posts i flat out said your intent was not to mislead.

you don't want to thank dear ol' yurt....fine, have it your way, you asked for legal beagles or whatever to explain their understanding of the ruling, i did and i corrected your errors. the SCOTUS made no decision save not to hear the case, you cannot attribute that to mean the SCOTUS believes on way or the other on the merits. but i trust you read my previous posts and i don't have to explain it to you again.

Damn, don't be so hard to get along with!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

BTW, what does "cert" mean and just how does that not reflect the general consensus of the SCOTUS in this case? And I did read where you attempted to explain in your own shitty way your attitude towards my intent in this issue/article.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Yurt]

I think I told you in another thread just a moment or so ago that I'm considering taking back some of that ol' shit I've been saying about you, yuk!!!!!!!!!




Damn, don't be so hard to get along with!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

BTW, what does "cert" mean and just how does that not reflect the general consensus of the SCOTUS in this case? And I did read where you attempted to explain in your own shitty way your attitude towards my intent in this issue/article.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

:laugh2: it was good, admit it!

cert is short for certiorari. in short, the SCOTUS is an appellate court and its jurisdiciton is appellate and the right of appeal to the court is limited, iow, not all cases have a constitutional right to be heard in front of the supreme court. in the cases that do not have a right to be heard, the court has the power to deny or grant cert, essentially meaning, the court has the power to hear the case or to not hear the case if your case does not have a right of appeal.

in this case, the SCOTUS denied cert, they basically said, we don't want the case, it bores us and we don't have to hear it and it doesn't meet our guidelines (their rule 10 i believe). if the court denies cert, they did not make a decision as to the merits of the case.

with that said, appellate lawyers (i've done it in CA) have used a denial of cert to show that the lower ruling is essentially the law now. but note, the supreme court could take the issue up in the future and rule differently. in fact, when citing a case that has been denied cert, you include that in your cite.

[Psychoblues]

Yeah, I admit, it was good for cleaning my monitor again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



:laugh2: it was good, admit it!

cert is short for certiorari. in short, the SCOTUS is an appellate court and its jurisdiciton is appellate and the right of appeal to the court is limited, iow, not all cases have a constitutional right to be heard in front of the supreme court. in the cases that do not have a right to be heard, the court has the power to deny or grant cert, essentially meaning, the court has the power to hear the case or to not hear the case if your case does not have a right of appeal.

in this case, the SCOTUS denied cert, they basically said, we don't want the case, it bores us and we don't have to hear it and it doesn't meet our guidelines (their rule 10 i believe). if the court denies cert, they did not make a decision as to the merits of the case.

with that said, appellate lawyers (i've done it in CA) have used a denial of cert to show that the lower ruling is essentially the law now. but note, the supreme court could take the issue up in the future and rule differently. in fact, when citing a case that has been denied cert, you include that in your cite.

Thanks for the expose', yuk. I am certainly no lawyer but you have gone a good way towards helping me and I am certain others in understanding what this might mean now and in the future. I'll return the favor someday!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

if you stop and think about it, this case has nothing to do with gay rights, anyway.....this case was about visitation rights between two lesbians who raised a child together.....so, when they split up and one gay person tried to prevent the other gay person from visiting their child, was one of them engaging in anti-gay behavior?.......obviously, the lower court's decision had nothing to do with gender bias, or they would have taken the child away from both of them.....

[Psychoblues]

That's not the way I read it, pmp. Does is not apply that the refusal to allow the other partner visitation was due to an unrecognized parental status or otherwise legally groundless demand for relief or injunction? I think it is exactly a gay issue and one of many working their ways through the system at this time.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

Does is not apply that the refusal to allow the other partner visitation was due to an unrecognized parental status or otherwise legally groundless demand for relief or injunction?

Psych.....look at the case again....the lower court DIDN'T refuse visitation.....the other lesbian partner was the one who wanted to refuse visitation, but the court ordered it to be allowed.....so obviously the refusal was not a gender bias and the court's order wasn't a gender bias......where are you going with this?.....

[Psychoblues]

I don't have a particular destination with this conversation, pmp, I just want to understand the particulars about the events better than I do at this time.



Psych.....look at the case again....the lower court DIDN'T refuse visitation.....the other lesbian partner was the one who wanted to refuse visitation, but the court ordered it to be allowed.....so obviously the refusal was not a gender bias and the court's order wasn't a gender bias......where are you going with this?.....

Can I get you a refreshment?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues