Sentencing set in Vt. same-sex custod...

Sentencing set in Vt. same-sex custody dispute

There are 67 comments on the WCAX-TV Burlington story from Nov 18, 2012, titled Sentencing set in Vt. same-sex custody dispute. In it, WCAX-TV Burlington reports that:

A sentencing date has been set in a Vermont court for a Mennonite pastor convicted of helping a woman and her daughter flee the U.S. rather than allow the girl to have regular visits with the woman's former lesbian partner.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WCAX-TV Burlington.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#23 Nov 19, 2012
The revolution was a political decision made by the continental congress as a reaction to oppression and violence from the crown. This private citizen placed himself above the law because he doesnt like lesbians. There is no comparison.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The "obey the civil law" command in the bible is an interesting argument, because the Jews were living under Roman domination in the early 1st Century AD.
Now if one believes that the "obey the civil law" command is an iron law that should always be followed, then the American Revolutionary War, which established our independence, was surely immoral because any violent revolution against the existing lawful government certtainly violates that command. The same can be said of the revolutions of 1989 - 1991 in Europe where communist governments were overthrown (all peacefully except in Romania).
Yet NOBODY would seriously argue that the American Revolution, nor the revolutions in Europe were NOT moral. And honest people can disagree as to which civil laws are moral and just and should be followed, and which civil laws are not moral nor just and should not be followed. Life is complicated.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#24 Nov 19, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
The revolution was a political decision made by the continental congress as a reaction to oppression and violence from the crown. This private citizen placed himself above the law because he doesnt like lesbians. There is no comparison.
<quoted text>
There IS a central commonality. Don't forget that a LOT of Americans who fought the British in our Revolutionary War, were state militia. And ALL able-bodied males over the age of 16 years were, by law, IN the militia. So these were average folks who armed themselves and who killed British soldiers, and their Native American allies, and others, and who participated in violent acts, such as the Boston Tea Party, and other violent acts, against the existing legal government, and the prevailing law.

People who revolt against their own government are generally called "brave", "courageous" and "heroes" if they win, and are generally called "terrorists", "criminals" and "traitors" if they lose.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25 Nov 19, 2012
This case is an example of why we need marriage equality. In a heterosexual marriage, this would only be part of the child custody settlement.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26 Nov 19, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The "obey the civil law" command in the bible is an interesting argument, because the Jews were living under Roman domination in the early 1st Century AD.
Now if one believes that the "obey the civil law" command is an iron law that should always be followed, then the American Revolutionary War, which established our independence, was surely immoral because any violent revolution against the existing lawful government certtainly violates that command. The same can be said of the revolutions of 1989 - 1991 in Europe where communist governments were overthrown (all peacefully except in Romania).
Yet NOBODY would seriously argue that the American Revolution, nor the revolutions in Europe were NOT moral. And honest people can disagree as to which civil laws are moral and just and should be followed, and which civil laws are not moral nor just and should not be followed. Life is complicated.
Those who stand to benefit under theonomy and caesaropapism will disagree with you, and in fact did and DO consider the American and French Revolutions to have been immoral. They have been working against them ever since.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#27 Nov 19, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
There IS a central commonality. Don't forget that a LOT of Americans who fought the British in our Revolutionary War, were state militia. And ALL able-bodied males over the age of 16 years were, by law, IN the militia. So these were average folks who armed themselves and who killed British soldiers, and their Native American allies, and others, and who participated in violent acts, such as the Boston Tea Party, and other violent acts, against the existing legal government, and the prevailing law.
People who revolt against their own government are generally called "brave", "courageous" and "heroes" if they win, and are generally called "terrorists", "criminals" and "traitors" if they lose.
Militias were all voluntary.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#28 Nov 19, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Militias were all voluntary.
They were all voluntray when they fought besides teh regular Army.

But if your town was attacked, by anyone, all able-bodied males over the age of 16 years were defacto militiamen and they had a responsibilty to fight and defend their town.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#29 Nov 19, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Militias were all voluntary.
All they needed was a musket, a good combat knife and a sword. Then they needed sturdy boots and clothing.
SLIF

Scarborough, Canada

#30 Nov 19, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
This case is an example of why we need marriage equality. In a heterosexual marriage, this would only be part of the child custody settlement.
If it was a hetero marriage and or divorce,and either of the parents were a pimp,rapist,wife-beater,hooker ,or bank robber,they would still be allowed custody,and the poor kid would also be stuck with their parents genes.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#31 Nov 19, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
All they needed was a musket, a good combat knife and a sword. Then they needed sturdy boots and clothing.
Which a lot of them didn't have, if you read the accounts about the Continental Army and the various state militias.

The British Army was a professional army and probably all the officers believed that they couldn't lose to a bunch of rebellious ragamuffins.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#32 Nov 19, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
They were all voluntray when they fought besides teh regular Army.
But if your town was attacked, by anyone, all able-bodied males over the age of 16 years were defacto militiamen and they had a responsibilty to fight and defend their town.
There was no law that imposed such responsibility.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#33 Nov 19, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Which a lot of them didn't have, if you read the accounts about the Continental Army and the various state militias.
The British Army was a professional army and probably all the officers believed that they couldn't lose to a bunch of rebellious ragamuffins.
True. Getting a good musket probably took some serious money.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#34 Nov 19, 2012
SLIF wrote:
<quoted text>If it was a hetero marriage and or divorce,and either of the parents were a pimp,rapist,wife-beater,hooker ,or bank robber,they would still be allowed custody,and the poor kid would also be stuck with their parents genes.
They would still have the genes, but people proven to be unsuitable parents can be denied custody.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#35 Nov 19, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Getting a good musket probably took some serious money.
Read about General Baron von Steuben, a GREAT AMERICAN HERO (and an openly gay man), and the obstacles he was up against in basically creating a professional army from scratch. He wrote the first U.S. Army Training Manual which covered a lot of things such as training regimens, the layouts of camps for health and sanitary reasons, and all sorts of other rules and regulations which greatly benefited the U.S. Army and was used for many decades.

I made a special trip one day after church to take a long drive and visit the grave of this great man and pay my respects to him for what he did for our country.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#36 Nov 19, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Read about General Baron von Steuben, a GREAT AMERICAN HERO (and an openly gay man), and the obstacles he was up against in basically creating a professional army from scratch. He wrote the first U.S. Army Training Manual which covered a lot of things such as training regimens, the layouts of camps for health and sanitary reasons, and all sorts of other rules and regulations which greatly benefited the U.S. Army and was used for many decades.
I made a special trip one day after church to take a long drive and visit the grave of this great man and pay my respects to him for what he did for our country.
I have already. He was kicked out of the Prussian military because of his fondness for men. Seems Benjamin Franklin recognized his military talents and brought him here. The true force which gave Washington an edge was a gay man. So we could call him the father of our military, a gay man.

Right on bro!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#37 Nov 19, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already. He was kicked out of the Prussian military because of his fondness for men. Seems Benjamin Franklin recognized his military talents and brought him here. The true force which gave Washington an edge was a gay man. So we could call him the father of our military, a gay man.
Right on bro!!!
I agree.

Congress was so grateful for his help in training the army, that they granted him a large tract of land in upstate New York (where his grave is located, and which I visited and paid my respects to this great man), and a lifetime pension. Many cities host an annual "Steuben Day Parade" in honor of this great American.

And the U.S. had at least one ship named for him, as well as one ballistic missile submarine named for him.

When he died, he left his estate to two officers with whom it is said he had "special love and relationships with".

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#38 Nov 19, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Congress was so grateful for his help in training the army, that they granted him a large tract of land in upstate New York (where his grave is located, and which I visited and paid my respects to this great man), and a lifetime pension. Many cities host an annual "Steuben Day Parade" in honor of this great American.
And the U.S. had at least one ship named for him, as well as one ballistic missile submarine named for him.
When he died, he left his estate to two officers with whom it is said he had "special love and relationships with".
Indeed. Very touching story.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#39 Nov 20, 2012
They fought the british in defense of their newly-declared independence as decided by the continental government. It is still nothing at all like advocating and abetting kidnapping of a child because you're a homophobe. There was no oppression of either miller's rights--jenkins and the child are the victims here.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
There IS a central commonality. Don't forget that a LOT of Americans who fought the British in our Revolutionary War, were state militia. And ALL able-bodied males over the age of 16 years were, by law, IN the militia. So these were average folks who armed themselves and who killed British soldiers, and their Native American allies, and others, and who participated in violent acts, such as the Boston Tea Party, and other violent acts, against the existing legal government, and the prevailing law.
People who revolt against their own government are generally called "brave", "courageous" and "heroes" if they win, and are generally called "terrorists", "criminals" and "traitors" if they lose.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#40 Nov 20, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
They fought the british in defense of their newly-declared independence as decided by the continental government. It is still nothing at all like advocating and abetting kidnapping of a child because you're a homophobe. There was no oppression of either miller's rights--jenkins and the child are the victims here.
<quoted text>
Perhaps a better analogy would be a civil rights march, in any country, because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever.

Frequently a government will tell marchers that they are violating one or more laws by marching in the streets, and arrest them. The GREAT American, Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind. Should he and his followers NOT have marched for civil rights merely because doing so was violating some local law ? OF COURSE NOT !

My point is that although the bible commands you to obey the civil law, doing so is not always the moral course of action. But deciding which laws to follow and which laws not to follow is not always a clear case, and honest people can differ on which laws should be followed and which laws should not be followed.

I'm not arguing the pastor was in the right here. I believe clearly he wasn't. But some people are going to have a different opinion on that.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#41 Nov 20, 2012
Anyone can choose to break a law, but doing so also means you must accept the punishment. Abetting the kidnapping of a child is a heinous crime; this guy should go to jail for a very long time.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps a better analogy would be a civil rights march, in any country, because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever.
Frequently a government will tell marchers that they are violating one or more laws by marching in the streets, and arrest them. The GREAT American, Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind. Should he and his followers NOT have marched for civil rights merely because doing so was violating some local law ? OF COURSE NOT !
My point is that although the bible commands you to obey the civil law, doing so is not always the moral course of action. But deciding which laws to follow and which laws not to follow is not always a clear case, and honest people can differ on which laws should be followed and which laws should not be followed.
I'm not arguing the pastor was in the right here. I believe clearly he wasn't. But some people are going to have a different opinion on that.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#42 Nov 20, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Anyone can choose to break a law, but doing so also means you must accept the punishment. Abetting the kidnapping of a child is a heinous crime; this guy should go to jail for a very long time.
<quoted text>
In this particular case, I agree. I never said that I didn't.

btw, I happened to see a case on tv last nite where a gay man was murdered by a group of teenage thugs. He ran from them, and they caught up with him and beat him to death, simply because he was gay. They were convicted of his murder. Their sentence. NINE YEARS EACH. Why ? It happened in Canada, and they simply don't sentence murderers to the same terms as we do. I think they all should have recieved life in prison.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Staunton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Police Surround Wilson Elementary School (Apr '09) Jun 16 gage adams 23
senior lunch Jun 7 Ashbell 1
Jesus Christ, the Son of God May '15 Son of man 1
Lowes False Advertising May '15 Lowes Not Honorin... 1
Debate: Gay Marriage - Stuarts Draft, VA (Jul '10) May '15 Joseph Ellinger 13
Nexus Services Plans Expected to Create Jobs May '15 Rangrank 1
Energizer closing Verona plant May '15 Rangrank 2
More from around the web

Staunton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Staunton Mortgages