Attorney: Two Women's Legal Battle Forces State Marriage Law Face-Off

OK, so the long and short of this is that two lesbian women went to another state (from Virginia, to Vermont) in order to get a civil union. Now that the couple has split up and Virginia won't recognize the non-biological "parent" and give her visitation. Do y'all see what opening the box on gay marriages is going to do to society? Can you not see how it's going to tear about the basic foundations of our society? Expect more of this type of thing.

(AgapePress) - A Virginia judge has ruled that a Vermont court visitation order, issued in favor of a lesbian non-custodial and non-biological parent, may not be registered in Virginia because the state's laws do not allow civil unions or same-sex "marriage."
The case involves Lisa Miller, her biological child, and Janet Jenkins. In December 2000 the two women, who lived in Virginia, traveled to Vermont to obtain a civil union. In time, Miller gave birth to a child through artificial insemination. However, the lesbian couple's relationship ended when Lisa became a Christian and left the homosexual lifestyle.
A Vermont trial court awarded Jenkins "parent-child" contact and visitation with Miller's child. However, a Virginia court declared Miller to be the sole parent and ruled that the Virginia Marriage Affirmation Act barred recognition of civil unions. Simultaneous appeals are pending at the Vermont Supreme Court and the Virginia Court of Appeals.
Miller, the biological parent, is represented by Matthew D. Staver, president and general counsel of the Florida-based group Liberty Counsel. He says the legal battle between the two women pits the laws of Virginia and Vermont against each other.
"While this was on appeal, Janet Jenkins tried to register [the Vermont trial court's] order and essentially tried to short-circuit the appeals process," Staver says. Registration, he explains, is the first step in enforcing an out-of-state visitation order in Virginia.
Judge William Sharp acknowledged that the Vermont order was not enforceable with appeals pending but went ahead and registered it, Miller's attorney notes. "The good news now, however, is that the attempt was met head on," he says, "and the judge ruled that a Vermont civil union has no validity in the state of Virginia. It cannot be enforced."
Staver believes this latest development in Miller v. Jenkins demonstrates the importance of states passing marriage protection amendments. "Whenever a state crosses the line and adopts a same-sex union," he says, "whether it's a civil union as in Vermont or same-sex marriage as in Massachusetts, the other states are directly affected, and children are caught in the middle of these conflicts."
But the Liberty Counsel spokesman is convinced that not even state constitutional amendments will keep proponents of homosexual marriage from exploiting the legal system to challenge established laws in an effort to extend "marriage rights" to same-sex couples. "The definition of marriage is not for judges to decide," he contends. "It must be decided by the people. It must be uniform."
Unless the U.S. Constitution is amended to protect traditional marriage, Staver asserts, "same-sex marriage advocates will continue using the courts to force their agenda on the rest of the country." While pleased that a judge has ruled that a Vermont civil union is legally invalid in Virginia, the pro-family attorney believes only a federal amendment can ultimately prevent future interstate conflicts over the definition of marriage.