Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Walter Olson has a post at Overlawyered pretty much dismantling Chuck Colson's absurd claims about the Miller-Jenkins case (that's the case where a lesbian couple split up and one partner, after filing for custody and visitation in one state, fled to another to try and deny the other partner her visitation rights for the child they'd raised). Colson wrote about it here and he left out all kinds of details that change the validity of his conclusions completely. For example:
Colson cites a recent in-depth story about the case in the Washington Post Magazine (April Witt, "About Isabella", Feb. 2). Somehow, however, he omits to mention a feature of the case that figured centrally in that account, namely the outstanding court order that Lisa Miller, biological and custodial mom of Isabella, has been defying for years now. Since Colson does not mention that court order, he naturally does not inform readers that it arose after Miller voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of a Vermont court dissolving her civil union with Janet Jenkins. Nor do his readers learn that Miller was happy to pocket child support payments from Jenkins, before eventually deciding to blow off the court order, or try to, by cutting off Jenkins' regular visitations with Isabella.
It's kind of an important detail to leave out, that Lisa Miller had originally filed for a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont, had listed Janet Jenkins as a "biological or adoptive parent" of Isabella, and had specifically asked that the court allow for visitation for Janet. Then she went off the deep end, moved to Virginia and filed in court down there to do the exact opposite, deny Janet all involvement with Isabella. But that's not all he forgot to mention:
Nor does Colson describe the current posture of the case. If he did, he would have to acknowledge that both the Vermont Supreme Court and a Virginia appeals panel have ruled unanimously against Miller, who nonetheless continues to defy the court order. There is no indication that Miller's team of Religious Right litigators is uncomfortable with this posture of hers....And, no surprise, Colson also fails to mention the relevant federal statute, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. ยง 1738A, which as Eugene Volokh points out "requires courts [in other states] to adhere to preexisting custody awards generally, not just ones that follow the dissolution of a marriage".
Again, it's kind of important. The only thing Colson cares about is whether a lesbian mother can be considered a parent or not; the actual legal issue involved is irrelevant to him. But it's kind of important to point out that the state courts in Vermont and Virginia have both ruled against Lisa and that Federal law clearly gives the orders of the Vermont court precedence over Virginia law. Olson sums up the intellectual dishonesty perfectly:
Probably the most enduring significance of the Miller-Jenkins case will be as an indication of the willingness of many on the Religious Right, even the lawyers among them, to applaud and defend the defiance of court orders when those orders inconvenience the godly or uphold the legal rights of the ungodly. I wonder whether Colson gives a thought to this when he decries, in the column, "our reckless pursuit of getting whatever we want at all costs".I also wonder whether the proposition that it's just fine to violate laws and court orders when one feels impelled by a higher cause -- I believe some social conservatives like to label this point of view as antinomian -- is a message that Colson is accustomed to spread when he addresses groups of prisoners in the course of his public work. If so, we can only hope the prisoners don't take the message to heart.
Hear, hear.
Comments
Oh, come on, that equal justice before the law is just soooo 20th century. We've moved beyond that because the gay has such power to redefine marriage, the relationships of men and women, and the Episcopal Church. Now we need some of those "strict constructionist" judges to just rule that there is no way a child can have two mommies, regardless of what other courts say. And if we have to lie or misrepresent the issue, then surely Jesus would understand. This is the most important thing for the courts today.;)
Posted by: bc | March 3, 2007 11:12 AM
Some of Olson's criticism seems misfocused. Surely it really is "just fine to violate laws and court orders when one feels impelled by a higher cause."
We wouldn't have a country, would we, if there hadn't been people willing to violate English law for what they saw as a higher cause? Where would civil rights be if Rosa Parks hadn't decided that day in 1955 that it was just fine to violate an unjust law for the sake of a higher cause?
It seems to me that rather than criticize violation of these court orders apparently on the grounds that there is something innately wrong with violating laws and court orders for the sake of a higher cause, criticism needs to focus both on any willingness to lie, by commission and/or omission, in order to avoid taking the consequences of disobedience and on the implied claim that the ugly bias involved in attempting to separate Lesbian parent and child qualifies as a higher cause.
Posted by: Julia | March 3, 2007 12:49 PM
Actually, it probably is wrong for an officer of the court (not sure if Colson ever got his license back, but he certainlt was a lawyer) to distort things this way.
As well, it should be noted that Colson has advocated "civil disobedience" before, such as firebombing the Brooking Institution (according to John Dean.)
And, frankly, the power of civil disobedience loses somehting if we take the default position that it isn't "just fine" to violate the law. While not a be all or end all, much of the moral power comes from willing assuming such risks (which is not to say all civil disobedience should be accredited this moral power, Eric Rudolph wouldn't earn it in my book.)
Posted by: Lettuce | March 3, 2007 2:51 PM
And, frankly, the power of civil disobedience loses somehting if we take the default position that it isn't "just fine" to violate the law.
Obviously I meant, if we take the postion that it IS just fine.
Doh
And the spelling mistakes are all mine, too
Posted by: Lettuce | March 3, 2007 2:52 PM
All of what Ed's post it correct, but it seems to me that the most damning part to the VA litigant's case (which hasn't been mentioned) is that the VA litigant, when she filed in VT to dissolve the civil union, specifically included a prayer that the VT court resolve custody issues regarding the child. The VT court did so. She didn't like the VT court's custody decision, and hence the litigation in the VA court.
She didn't like the VT court's decision? Tough noogies. The VA court's decision was correct.
Posted by: raj | March 4, 2007 4:59 AM
I've just started John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience and in the preface he talks about how Colson and Liddy endorsed the "argument" in Silent Coup that Dean orchestrated the Watergate break-ins to get dirt on DNC use of a prostitution ring run by a mate of Dean's wife. Not having followed Colson at all, I'm curious: does he still endorse this nonsense or did he retract after the source was revealed as (literally) a lunatic.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 5, 2007 9:13 AM
Just to link up two stories, Colson won the Templeton Prize in 1993.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 5, 2007 9:34 AM
It is indeed a sad commentary that Charles Colson is what passes as a deep-thinker in contemporary christianist circles.
Posted by: SharonB | March 5, 2007 5:35 PM