Custody Battles and Evangelical Civil Disobedience

Happy New Year's Eve-Eve, everyone. I'm occupied with work-related stuff in an effort to finish up in time to enjoy the next couple of days work-free.

In the meantime, quite a bit on the evangelicals-in-the-world front is going on. I'll relate one such item all-too-briefly:

I refer to the situation involving a custody battle between two women, Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. Miller and Jenkins were legally coupled (a la domestic partnership) in Vermont back in 2000. Two years later, they had a baby, Isabella, as a couple (though Miller was the biological mother). Miller subsequently (in the fall of 2003) returned to her conservative Christian faith, renouncing her relationship with Jenkins and becoming in effect a former lesbian. Jenkins, understandably, sought to enjoy visitation rights guaranteed in Vermont's law. Though Miller had moved to Virginia, courts there consistently ruled that Jenkins has the same rights to see and visit Isabella that any straight parent would have in the instance of a divorce with children.

Miller, with extensive support from conservative Christian legal agencies, consistently challenged Jenkins's right to see Isabella. Courts became increasingly impatient with Miller's resistance, finally ruling this last year that the only way to enforce visitation rights is to switch custody to Jenkins.

The switch was to take place on Jan 1, 2010. A last-ditch effort by Miller's attorneys to stay the switch failed, as the Virginia judge noted that Miller had failed to show up to the hearing and had cut off all contact with her lawyers. (The blog Box Turtle Bulletin, always a great source of LGBT-related news, has a nice summary and timeline.)

The latest twist? It seems now that Miller has absconded with Isabella rather than abide by the court's ruling.

Let there be no mistake: the situation with Isabella and her parents is at least as ugly as custody battles usually are. My interest is in the conservative-evangelical response to it. Of course, conservative evangelicals typically oppose any civil union or marriage-like arrangement between same-sex partners (with multiple exceptions, of course). Yet they also typically oppose breaking the law, in this case the direct and repeated orders from Virginia courts as well as kidnapping a seven-year-old. Which tendency will win out?

It's early yet to tell; the story hasn't quite broken the surface of national media. But in the conservative news sources I look at, the spin seems to be that Miller's kidnapping and going into hiding constitutes a brave and necessary act of civil disobedience. Onenewsnow's comments on their heavily slanted reporting are revealing (though in fairness a number of posters seem supportive of Jenkins). More telling (and disturbing) is this web site, proclaiming a "Protect Isabella Coalition." Box Turtle Bulletin links that site to one Debbie Thurman, a semi-prominent spokesperson for ex-gay ministries (primarily her own, called "The Formers"). Interestingly, the site's "think of the children!" rhetoric works alongside some good old-fashioned talk about "judicial activism" and the violation of Miller's religious rights.

"Why aren't Virginia's marriage laws and DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] not working?" asks the FAQ section. The answer, of course, is that the federal constitution's full faith and credit clause requires Virginia to honor agreements legally made in Vermont. Moreover, the fact that Miller is in contempt of court by disappearing with Isabella does not show her or her case to advantage in the eyes of the judiciary.

Thus civil disobedience--breaking a law one considers unjust--becomes necessary. The groundswell of support for Miller among at least some evangelicals, however, suggests that such civil disobedience may spread. A person that knowingly shelters Miller and Isabella, or who lies about their whereabouts, is also committing civil disobedience.

The question then presents itself: how does this act of civil disobedience (and the pronouncements of support for it) function as political activism? How does it function as Christian witness?

More tomorrow,

JF