Liberty Counsel uses bad logic to deny lesbian the right to see her child

I will have updates on the Andre Bauer thing as soon as they come. For the time being, however, I need to focus on other equally important situations regarding the lgbt community and the religious right.

Maybe Liberty Counsel's Matt Staver is working too hard.

How else can one explain how he maybe thought he could pull a fast one in the latest religious right update of the Lisa Miller/Janet Jenkins custody case.

A little background - Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins entered a relationship. Miller had a child, Isabella, and the two agreed to raise her together.

However when Isabella was 17 months old, the couple split up with Miller becoming a "born-again Christian" and "ex-gay." Since that time, she has refused to allow Jenkins to see Isabella, even though she initially agreed to allow Jenkins to see the child. Jenkins was even paying child support.

Courts have consistently ruled against Miller, even though she had engaged in ugly tactics in an attempt to deny Jenkins her rightly visitations, including moving to another state.

Enter the religious right. You see, Miller retained Liberty Counsel lawyers for her counsel and they and other members of the religious right have continuously milked this case for propaganda purposes, making it seem that Jenkins has no right to any parental claims.

Meanwhile they continue to drag this case through the courts from hearing to hearing.

Which comes to the crux this post. In his latest update of the case courtesy of One News Now, Staver says the following:

Meanwhile, Staver believes Janet Jenkins' purpose in the custody battle is to push the homosexual agenda -- not to gain a relationship with her former partner's daughter.

"The last time that she wrote a letter or tried to call [Isabella] was five years ago when she was age two," he notes. "She's never tried to send a card of any kind for any reason to Isabella. She has never sent her an e-mail. She has never come to any of her church recitals or plays or Christmas programs."

For one thing, it's ironic that Staver is implying that Jenkins isn't trying to gain a relationship with Isabella. And here I thought Staver's group was saying that Jenkins has no right to a relationship with the child.

And secondly, and this is confirmed by the Newsweek article and the Liberty Counsel itself, the couple split up when Isabella was 17 months old. And since that time, Miller has been engaging in chicanery to keep Jenkins from seeing Isabella.

Maybe that's why Jenkins hasn't been able to come to any of Isabella's church recitals or plays or Christmas programs?

And no one knows whether or not Jenkins sent Isabella a card. It stands to reason that if she did, Miller would have kept Isabella from receiving it.

Lastly, Staver's point about email is just plain dumb. Isabella isn't even 10-years-old. How many children under the age of 10 have their very own email accounts? Or anything computerwise that isn't supervised by their parents or guardians (in this case that person would be Miller - the very person who is keeping Jenkins from seeing Isabella.)

Staver is trying to argue insignificant points to obscure the big picture. Of course Jenkins cares about Isabella or she wouldn't be fighting this long and drawn out (thanks to the Liberty Counsel) case to try and get at least visitation time with the child.

And I hope she gets it for not only her sake but for the sake of little Isabella.