Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Saturday, February 06, 2010

Isn't it a shame when the kidnappers of children get no respect?

Poor Lisa Miller.

What is this world coming to when a woman who breaks the law and kidnaps her child to keep her away from the other parent (who has never done anything to harm the child) can't get a fair shake from the media?

At least that's what our "friend" Peter LaBarbera and Lifesite News thinks about the Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller custody case:

Janet Jenkins, a practicing lesbian who was once in a “civil union” with ex-lesbian Lisa Miller, is conducting a media campaign to locate Miller’s seven-year-old daughter in an attempt to gain custody of the child.

Miller’s daughter, Isabella, was conceived via artificial insemination during the pair’s relationship, and has no biological relationship with Jenkins. Miller disappeared with Isabella in December, apparently in an effort to prevent a Vermont judge from transferring custody of her child to Jenkins.

But Jenkins is doing numerous interviews with mainstream media outlets, ostensibly in an effort to locate Isabella (described by Jenkins in one interview as “my child”), which are uncritically repeating her charges against Miller, while failing to mention Miller’s charges against Jenkins – -including that her relationship with Jenkins was abusive.

This ridiculous post recounts an interview that Miller gave to Lifesite News accusing Jenkins of abusive behavior. Of course the post omits the fact that the allegations were investigated by Virginia's Child Protective Services and deemed as "unfounded."

But the main sticking point here is that both LaBarbera and Lifesite News is trying to garner sympathy for Miller. To them, she is the "victim of a media campaign out to demonize her."

But hasn't Miller demonized herself in the eyes of the public by kidnapping Isabella?

I'm sure the media would love to get her side of the story but seeing that she has gone into hiding instead of following the law, speaking to her would be difficult, wouldn't it?

Related posts:

FRC's Peter Sprigg voices support for kidnapping of child in custody case

Liberty Counsel attacking lgbt parenting again but won't comment on Jenkins/Miller case

Washington Post columnist: Lisa Miller needs to come out of hiding and face her chaos

Janet Jenkins pleads for help in finding her daughter

Black History Month lgbts of color - Paul Winfield

Congratulations to Mary O'Grady, who guessed the identity of today's LGBT Black History Month hero and the first gay black man to receive an Oscar nomination - Paul Winfield.

From www.glbtq.com:

The theater always had a special place in the heart of actor Paul Winfield, but his career included numerous film and television roles. He was nominated for several acting awards and won an Emmy in 1995.

Paul Edward Winfield was born in Los Angeles on May 22, 1941 to Lois Beatrice Edwards, a garment-industry worker and union organizer. When Winfield was eight, his mother married Clarence Winfield, a construction worker.

One of Winfield's vivid memories from those years was seeing Mark Robson's 1949 film Home of the Brave, in which African-American actor James Edwards played a leading part rather than the role of servant to which actors of color were typically confined.

When the family returned to Los Angeles, Winfield attended Manual Arts High School, where he excelled in both music and acting. He was named best actor in the Speech and Drama Teachers Association Drama Festival for three consecutive years.

Because of these achievements he was offered a scholarship to Yale but, apprehensive about fitting in there, chose to accept a two-year scholarship at the University of Portland. He subsequently attended other colleges on the West Coast, including UCLA, which he left in 1964 six credits short of a degree when professional opportunities beckoned.

In addition to appearing on stage he served as artist in residence at Stanford University during the 1964-1965 academic year.

Winfield became a contract player for Columbia Pictures in 1966. Initially he continued his stage work and played minor parts on television, but in 1969 Sidney Poitier chose him for a role in Robert Alan Arthur's film The Lost Man.

Winfield also became familiar to viewers of the small screen with a regular role as Diahann Carroll's boyfriend on the situation comedy Julia (1968-1970), a groundbreaking series that many consider to have been influential in increasing opportunities for African-American actors on television.

Winfield turned in a memorable performance in Martin Ritt's 1972 film Sounder, which earned him a nomination for an Academy Award as best actor.

Know Your LGBT History - Paris Is Burning

In celebration of Black History Month, I wanted to focus on a positive movie featuring lgbts of color.

Unfortunately there aren't many out there but one which should be on the top of everyone's list is Paris Is Burning.

Paris Is Burning (1990) is a documentary which centers on the ball scene in New York City during the late 1980s. It tells the story of how various young African-American gays and transgenders unite themselves in "houses" and compete for trophies during that they call "balls." Balls are competitions in which they showcase their style, fashion, and dance movies.

The documentary gives a window into the world of people seemingly deserted by both the black and gay communities. It shows how they love and support each other, giving each other what both the gay and black communities are failing to deliver - appreciation and empowerment.

I love this movie and the personalities in it from Pepper LaBeija to Angela Xtravaganza to Dorian Corey; especially Dorian Corey.

And there is an interesting story regarding Corey. When she died, folks went through her apartment looking for old costumes and the like and found a mummified body with a note which said:

"This poor soul broke into my apartment and I was forced to shoot him."

As morbid as this story is, it emphasizes what I liked about the gays and transgenders in Paris Is Burning. Faced with a double negative of criticism from black community and unintentional omission from the gay community, they learned to take care of themselves and do it well.

The following is a clip from Paris Is Burning:

Florida 'pro-family' group offers 'apology' for picture and other Friday midday news briefs

Stemberger: Wrong pics of gay couple was ‘mistake’ - Organization responsible for posting a rude picture of lesbian couple (see earlier post) issues an "apology." Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel sees it for the distortion that it is. This column is almost better than the first one.

Iowa Republicans Want To Exclude LGBTQ Students From Safe Schools Law - South Carolina, meet your twin.

Bronze Star recipient Benjamin Ford, accused in West Side gay bashing, is stripped of rank - A gay basher gets what he deserves.

RedState's Erickson brings conservatives' witch hunt to HRC's Knox - HRC's Harry Knox being jumped for his comments about the Pope.

Religious right group push phony photo to make the case against gay adoption

The picture above symbolize how religious right groups demonize the lgbt community. According to the Orlando Sentinel's Scott Mawell:

On the left is the picture that the Florida Family Policy Council of Orlando, used to illustrate the gay couple that was awarded custody of a relative. It appeared under the headline: "FL judge violates law, places child in homosexual adoption" (on the right) is the actual couple.

Maxwell writes an excellent piece on the recent situation involving a lesbian couple being awarded custody of one-year-old boy.

I wrote about the situation, focusing on how the right-wing Florida group the Liberty Counsel was attacking the ruling. But Maxwell includes some important details about the case which even I wasn't aware of:

Florida is the last state in the U.S. with an outright ban on gay adoption. And three court rulings in recent months suggest the archaic law may be on its last legs.

The rationale for preventing balanced, loving parents from adopting children — when the state has a backlog of needy children, no less — is hard to justify in concept.

And when you actually look at the specifics of human lives involved in real cases — the way Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Maria Sampedro-Iglesia did last month — it's darn near impossible.

In considering the case, Judge Sampedro-Iglesia heard from family members, a child psychologist, the boy's preschool administrator, a social worker and the state-appointed Guardian ad Litem.

All of them, the judge wrote in her order, "testified in support of the adoption as being in the best interest of the child."

The state did not offer a single witness to rebut that claim.

"The only testimony elicited today," the judge said at the end of the hearing, "was that [the 1-year-old] is loved by these parents more than they even thought that someone could be loved."

So the judge ruled that he could stay with the two women — one of whom is related to the boy. (Child-welfare workers had taken him shortly after he was born. Alenier and Leon stepped up, offering to raise him — much to the delight of their extended family.)

I could say a lot about what the Florida Family Policy Council tried to do but Maxwell says it much better than I ever could:

These are the dirty tactics of Christianity's far-right warriors.

Not the majority of mainstream Christians, mind you. Not those who are focused on caring for their own families and practicing their own faith — but those who are obsessed with homosexuality.

These extremists wage their campaigns of intolerance based on deception and misrepresentation.

And they have the gall to do it in God's name.

On some twisted level, you can see why they have been reduced to misleading histrionics.

Because they are losing the fight.

Amen, Maxwell.

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Religious right showing hostile new militancy against the lgbt community

In the span of less than a week, we have witnessed a meltdown of religious right talking heads against the lgbt community.

First there was the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg who said on Hardball earlier this week that he supports "criminalizing homosexual behavior."

Around the same time came the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer who published an ugly screed saying that homosexuality should be against the law. He compounded this nastiness when he tried to backtrack explaining that he "merely" said that "homosexual behavior" should be treated the same as intravenous drug abuse

After the People for the American Way destroyed his argument, he seemed to say "to hell with pretending to clarify" when he voiced the following opinion:

Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if homosexual conduct was still against the law.

Gays in the military: problem solved. We shouldn't make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy. If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits.

Gay marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior. Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs?

Gay indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don't want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That's why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs.

Hate crimes laws: problem solved. We wouldn't throw a pastor in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. For instance, he's free to say that murder is not only contrary to man's law but also to God's law. End of the threat to freedom of religion and speech.

Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace.

FRC's Peter Sprigg voices support for kidnapping of child in custody case

Adding to his odious comments about "criminalizing gay behavior," Family Research Council board member and spokesperson Peter Sprigg is now speaking out on the Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller custody case.

Sprigg seems to be voicing support for Miller's kidnapping of Isabella, the child in the center of the case.

In his piece, A Parent's Nightmare, Sprigg says.

Imagine that you are a mother (perhaps you are). You have only one child -- your own flesh and blood, conceived with your egg, borne in your body, pushed out into the world by your own exertions.

She is seven and a half years old, and for the last six years you have been her sole caretaker. Single parenthood is tough, but your parents help, and it seems your daughter is doing well. She is happy and well-adjusted. You have worked hard to support her and transmit your values to her. She goes to church with you every week.

Now, someone wants to take her away from you. Her father? No -- another woman wants to be her mother. This woman lives in a different state hundreds of miles away. Your daughter once knew the woman, but so long ago that she has no memory of her. The woman has no biological relationship to your child. She has no adoptive relationship to your child. But she wants to take your daughter away from you and be her mother now.

No court has ever found you to be an unfit mother. And yet -- unbelievably -- the courts of two states have ordered you to transfer custody of your child to this other woman.

According to a December 2008 Newsweek magazine, the case is more complicated than how Sprigg laid it out. From the article, we learn the following :

Miller and Jenkins agreed to raise Isabella together.

Jenkins said the reason why she did not file for adoption was because she was told she didn't need to because they had the civil union (the two had married in a Vermont civil union before Isabella was born).

When the two broke up, Miller agreed to allow Jenkins to have visitation rights. Jenkins even paid child support. Miller allegedly began keeping Isabella away from Jenkins, ultimately by moving from Vermont to Virginia a state which does not recognize gay marriage or civil unions.

Furthermore, the only reason why custody was transferred to Jenkins was because Miller continued to defy court orders by not allowing Jenkins to have visitation with Isabella.

In his defense of Miller's illegal actions, Sprigg makes a huge error on what the courts actually said when transferring custody:

No court has ever found Lisa to be an unfit parent. Indeed, the courts do not even claim that it is in Isabella’s “best interest” to be given to Janet. They are simply punishing Lisa for not complying with earlier orders to allow Janet visitation. (Lisa claims that Isabella had severe negative emotional reactions after earlier visits with Janet).

That statement is false. According to the Rutland Herald, Judge William Cohen said:

"The court concludes that it is in the best interest of (Isabella) that Ms. Jenkins exercise parental rights and responsibilities. This court stated that continued interference by Ms. Miller with the relationship between (Isabella) and Ms. Jenkins could lead to a change of circumstances and outweigh the disruption that would occur if a change of custody were ordered."

But Sprigg is right about one thing. The entire case is a parent's nightmare. But there is more than one parent involved. It all boils down to two points for me:

1. Jenkins is Isabella's legally recognized parent.

2. Why couldn't Miller have just abided by the court orders and allowed Jenkins to have visitation with Isabella like she originally agreed to?

Jenkins simply wanted time with her daughter. That's all. No plots, no plans to "indoctrinate" Isabella into the United Sisterhood of the Knit Flannel or whatever ridiculous notion there is emanating from the right.

The fact that Sprigg and Miller's other supporters (who all claim to stand up for truth and values) seem to be encouraging Miller to continue her law breaking just underscores their hypocrisy. Truth and having values also encompasses a respect for the law.

I find the entire case disturbing but what also bother me are the consistent attempts by Sprigg and others on his side of the spectrum to dehumanize Jenkins as an outsider, an interloper, and evil vagabond witch out to steal Isabella away from Miller as a part of some sort of agenda-driven plan.

The only persons who have an agenda-driven plan here are Sprigg and the rest who are throwing out feeble defenses for Miller to continue to evade the law and expose Isabella to danger.

Saturday, February 06, 2010

Friday, February 05, 2010

Thursday, February 04, 2010