Twisted Jurisprudence.

by on

At overlawyered.com, Walter Olson provides an update on the Vermont-Virginia lesbian custody battle (citing Eugene Volokh's "Volokh Conspiracy" blog), looking at how Virginia's court put anti-gay animus over solid legal jurisprudence by letting a (now ex-)lesbian partner who fled to Virginia ignore a Vermont court's joint custody decree. In effect, the Virginia court used that state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to override the intent of the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).

An interesting hypothetical: If there had been no civil union and only a joint custody decree (which can be granted to unmarried partners co-raising a child who then split), the Virginia court would not have been able to use the state DOMA to invalidate the custody decree, and the partner who fled to Virginia could have been prosecuted under the PKPA.

9 Comments for “Twisted Jurisprudence.”

  1. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    But remember, Stephen, Democrats (who gave you DOMA) are better than Republicans (who also gave you DOMA).

    Well, unless you’re a gay parent, at which point noting that neither of the old parties cares a fig about your parental rights means you’re “a dogmatist” who needs to fall in line with the DNC pronto.

  2. posted by Michael S on

    This shows that Gays are being screwed by fake moralists who have agendsas other than a man-woman marriage. The institution of marriage is dead in the hetero world, they know it, and by trying to bash gays they hope to divert their consciences away from their own failures.

  3. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    No doubt. But one cannot profess his “moral superiority” from the depths of his own immorality without demoting those he is condemning in legal and regulatory fact.

  4. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    NL, if we are wrong, you should not have to misrepresent what other people say. Kindly tell us with specificity and evidence exactly who around here has told anyone to “fall in line with the DNC.” Alternatively, you could admit that you were wrong.

  5. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    Goodness, Richard, you certainly respond quite violently to challenges to the tweedle-ocracy don’t you?

  6. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    NL, (A), kindly cite what exactly in my brief post you consider violent (there’s another term you are misusing), and (B), I note that you avoided responding to what I actually wrote.

  7. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    More bad faith from NL. He (I suspect it is a he, but I could be wrong) spews it on this discussion list, then acts as if it is the height of presumption for me to ask that he actually bother to address the points raised instead of indulging in the usual cheap point-scoring so typical of anonymous flamers. It is plainly not NL’s honest view that anybody is demanding a monopoly on this discussion, since (A) no one has, and (B) no one has stopped him or her from posting. What idiots do you think we all are, NL?

  8. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    Richard, the bad faith came from you in your very first attack on my post in another thread, where you referred to me as “desperate” for making a very clear and well-backed point.

    Look, you can swing your handbag around and screech at the top of your lungs about how wrong I am and what bad faith I have, but it’s not going to cow me from posting my observations as I see fit. If you persist in your baseless personal attacks, it’s not going to help you either — except in underscoring my point that on the actual issues (as well as propensity to launch blistering Rovian/Carvillian attacks), there’s not much “there” there in the Republicrat political pantheon.

    You’re proving my point more and more about the lack of real, substantive policy difference on gay issues (and other issues) with each intemperate post. For that, I thank you!

  9. posted by Tim Hulsey on

    Sorry to interrupt, but there’s an error in your post, Steve.

    The Virginia judge didn’t use the state’s DOMA to invalidate that Vermont custody ruling. He used the Marriage Affirmation Act, which is much more broadly written than Virginia’s DOMA.

    Because the Marriage Affirmation Act can nullify “any arrangement” that provides some benefit associated with marriage — including, one suspects, custody decisions — the judge could have used it (and probably would have) even if the two women had never been joined in a civil union.

Comments are closed.