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.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#63 Nov 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh ... they pissed off the locals who massacred them, leaving only trace archaeological remnants to prove that they ever came. Their later European relatives were far more intrusive.
True. Those dudes with the shaved heads and stone hammers were a real bitch...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#64 Nov 22, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
If you are going to stand on the integrity of your beliefs, then you should not hide your deeds. If one hides what one does, one has no honor or moral basis. Saying one did it but should not be punished is the stuff of constitutional challenges, not clear-cut criminal acts.
Lots of scoundrels get away, but I was referring to those who get caught.
<quoted text>
I think many criminals are psychopaths who could care less about integrity and beliefs. Let me get this straight. You are differing between civil disobedience for a moral cause and other criminal acts right?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#65 Nov 22, 2012
I'm saying that if you are going to claim a moral high road for breakin the law, you should plead guilty to intentional criminal behavior and take responsibillity. Whether you help kidnap a child for some religious reason or for profit, you abetted a felony. There is no moral high ground when you deprive people of their rights.
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I think many criminals are psychopaths who could care less about integrity and beliefs. Let me get this straight. You are differing between civil disobedience for a moral cause and other criminal acts right?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#66 Nov 22, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
I'm saying that if you are going to claim a moral high road for breakin the law, you should plead guilty to intentional criminal behavior and take responsibillity. Whether you help kidnap a child for some religious reason or for profit, you abetted a felony. There is no moral high ground when you deprive people of their rights.
<quoted text>
Does that principle also apply to the Founding Fathers, who revolted against the existing legal government, drove loyalists from their homes and burned their crops, and who also owned black human beings ?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#67 Nov 23, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
I'm saying that if you are going to claim a moral high road for breakin the law, you should plead guilty to intentional criminal behavior and take responsibillity. Whether you help kidnap a child for some religious reason or for profit, you abetted a felony. There is no moral high ground when you deprive people of their rights.
<quoted text>
I see what you are saying. I agree, just played the straight man for ya.

You had a good point there.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#68 Nov 23, 2012
The founders' actions were the will of the continental congress, voted and approved. The DOI contained the signatures of those people; they took responsibiity. It wasn't a private decision.

Slavery was legal, remember?

This sleazebucket decided that he was above the law, condemning the child to the life of a fugitive in a 3rd-world hellhole, denying that child her rights. No matter how you want to slice it, his actions are no better than any other kidnapper.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Does that principle also apply to the Founding Fathers, who revolted against the existing legal government, drove loyalists from their homes and burned their crops, and who also owned black human beings ?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#69 Nov 23, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
The founders' actions were the will of the continental congress, voted and approved. The DOI contained the signatures of those people; they took responsibiity. It wasn't a private decision.
Slavery was legal, remember?
This sleazebucket decided that he was above the law, condemning the child to the life of a fugitive in a 3rd-world hellhole, denying that child her rights. No matter how you want to slice it, his actions are no better than any other kidnapper.
<quoted text>
Well, I agree with your assessment of the pastor. My point is that things in life are not always as clear-cut as we all know, and because of that, no real general rules can be made as to when you should follow a particular law or obey a particular government, and when you should not. Even if those laws were enacted by, and supported by, a majority of the people.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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
Angie poff Mar 17 Devin 1
Corrections Officer (Aug '16) Feb 26 Beware of State Jobs 2
Beware of State Jobs Feb 26 Beware of State Jobs 1
Natascha Knick- September Circle trash Feb '17 Tim 2
News Augusta Woman No Longer Faces Animal Cruelty Ch... (May '12) Feb '17 Buk 7
Beware of Corrections Jan '17 Beware of Correct... 1
Rentals in Staunton Jan '17 FriendOfDon 2

Staunton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Staunton Mortgages