Information Alert: Marriage Amendment Makes Difference

Victoria Cobb, President
Monday, August 24, 2009

Early last week, the Court of Appeals of Virginia rendered a decision in a custody case and used the marriage amendment as a key element in their decision.

The case should sound familiar. Two women, one of whom had a child from a previous heterosexual marriage, live together in Virginia. They then “briefly traveled to” Canada and were “married” under a Canadian law authorizing same-sex marriage. Eventually there are accusations of child neglect and investigations by the Department of Social Services. The child involved was placed in the shared custody of the natural father and maternal grandmother. The “marriage” quickly dissolves, and a battle over visitation ensues.

Evidence was presented to the Virginia Beach Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and visitation was denied to the former girlfriend of the biological mother. She appealed, and the case eventually ended up with the Court of Appeals.

In their decision, they quickly agree with the lower court, arguing essentially that the former girlfriend had no “legitimate interest” in receiving custody. In addition to other legal reasons, the court argued that because the Canadian “marriage” was “void in all aspects” under Virginia law, they could not grant any visitation. They quickly point to the marriage amendment passed by voters in 2006 and the Marriage Affirmation Act passed in 2004 as the binding law.

Notice that you didn’t hear about this case in the media. I find it very interesting that when the marriage amendment is upheld as binding law in a case the media has no time to report it. Yet, as in the case of Lisa Miller and her little girl Isabella, when the amendment wasn’t used by the court to protect parental rights it’s in every newspaper.

The court pointed out that “the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Court.” Unfortunately, in a nation where words like “parents” and “family” and “marriage” are being redefined, such legal standards are being undermined every day. The plaintiff seeking visitation used phrases like “quasi-stepparent” or “functional equivalent of a family member.” This time, the court got the decision right.