Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

News, , ,

‘I promised God that if he would save my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle’

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Image

February 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Lisa Miller, an ex-lesbian who made national headlines during her battle to protect her daughter from a custody transfer to her former sex partner, is now telling the story of her struggle through a book by one of her attorneys, Rina Lindevaldsen.

Only One Mommy: A Woman’s Battle for Her Life, Her Daughter, and Her Freedom” (New Revolution Publishers, 2011), gives readers new insights into Miller’s inspiring odyssey from abused and neglected child, through the horrors of sexual and chemical addictions, to redemption through faith in Jesus Christ.

Miller’s final act of bravery was her decision to enter into hiding with her child, Isabella, to escape her former lesbian partner Janet Jenkins, who was successfully seeking to transfer custody of Miller’s daughter, Isabella, to herself.  Although Miller remains in hiding, she speaks to readers through journals and letters left with her attorney, and through Lindevaldsen’s own narrative.

At the root of Miller’s nightmarish childhood were two elements: contraception and divorce. Miller’s early memories are filled with the bitter reminder that her mother, who was using birth control at the time she conceived Miller, had not wanted her.

“Whenever my mother was mad at me, she would pull out the oval peach colored pack of birth control pills that she had saved all those years to show me that only one week was missing, and that was the week she got pregnant,” Miller writes.

At age seven, Miller’s parents divorced, leaving herself and her brother alone with an increasingly mentally ill, distant, and cruel mother.  Miller’s isolation and lack of affirmation from her parents led her to seek solace in unhealthy fixations on food, diet pills, and pornography. In order to relieve herself of emotional pain, she began to cut herself, which added to the scars that her body already held from her mother’s beatings

However, Miller was also the recipient of positive influences through friendships with leaders in her church and schoolteachers, who took an interest in her and provided her with adult role models. Her religious education would come back to her in her darkest days, providing a way out of her seemingly impossible situation.

After entering a troubled marriage, and finally making a suicide attempt that left her in intensive care for days, Miller received another major blow. During her recovery in a psychiatric ward in Virginia, a counselor informed her that she was a lesbian and must seek the sexual companionship of other women.

“As part of my treatment, in order to be released, I had to meet with my immediate family, including my husband, and tell them I was a ‘lesbian.’ I complied, and not surprisingly, my marriage ended. Even though I had left behind all of my childhood addictions at that time, sadly, I entered into the addiction of homosexuality,” writes Miller.

Lisa eventually entered into a relationship and a Vermont “civil union” with a recovering alcoholic named Janet Jenkins. During that time she was artificially inseminated, resulting in the birth of her daughter. She recalls that in the misery of her sexually immoral and conflictive relationship with Jenkins, she almost lost Isabella before she was born. It was then that she made a special petition to God, promising him that “if he saved my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle.”

Isabella was born healthy, and although Miller did not keep her promise immediately, she recalled it as her relationship with Jenkins continued to deteriorate. “It was then that God brought to mind the covenant that I had made with him just months earlier.  I knew enough from my religious background that one does not make covenants with God and not keep them without suffering negative consequences. When my daughter was 17 months old, I left the homosexual lifestyle and moved with my daughter back to my home state of Virginia, where she had been conceived and born.”

Judicial tyranny and the struggle to save Isabella from her lesbian “other mother”

After Lindevaldsen’s summary of Miller’s victory over homosexual vice and her other addictions, the attorney leads readers through the maze of legal arguments that have been used to justify giving parenthood rights, and ultimately guardianship, of Isabella to Jenkins.  In the process she shows that no state is truly safe from the effects of homosexualist legislation in other jurisdictions.

Although Miller was artificially inseminated while in a civil union with Jenkins, Isabella was never adopted by her, and Jenkins’ name does not appear on Isabella’s birth certificate. Moreover, Miller and Jenkins were residents of Virginia when they entered into their Vermont “civil union,” and Virginia’s constitution explicitly denies all recognition to such unions.

In sum, while Jenkins appears to lack all standing to make a claim of “parenthood,” that did not prevent judges in Vermont and Virginia from twisting the law like a pretzel to ensure that Jenkins had access to Isabella.

Miller’s legal nightmare began when a Vermont judge decided to literally create a law where one did not exist. Vermont had no law giving parenthood rights to the spouse of a woman who is artificially inseminated - the spouse had to adopt the child. But despite the fact that civil unions were to be treated like marriages under Vermont law, Vermont Judge Richard Cohen decreed from the bench that Jenkins was Isabella’s “mother.”

Noting that “the court admitted that the legislature still hadn’t answered the question of how a child born by artificial insemination by an anonymous sperm donor would gain the legal status of a child to the spouse who was not biologically related to the child,” Lindevaldsen observes: “To its credit, the court at least admitted what it was doing—creating new law in order to reach its decision.”

However, despite all of the protections inserted into the Virginia constitution against the enforcement of civil union or homosexual “marriage” legislation from other states, prosecutors managed to make use of a federal law that was designed to stop one parent from denying custody to another: the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (FKPA).

Although the law was created to prevent parents from fleeing to another jurisdiction to get a better custody settlement through another set of courts, it was used in Miller’s case to claim that Virginia could not cancel the custody order issued by the Vermont court.  Lindevaldsen argues that this is false reasoning because the federal Defense of Marriage Act protects states from the obligation of giving “full faith and credit” to homosexual unions formalized in other states, and even under the FKPA, states don’t have to enforce the decisions of other states’ courts.  Nonetheless, the Virginia courts ruled in favor of Jenkins, and agreed to apply the Vermont decision.

Lindevaldsen goes on to discuss the destructive effects of the homosexual lifestyle, and documents the damage to children and teens caused by the movement’s influence in the school system. 

The author, who is a an associate dean and professor of law at Liberty University, told LifeSiteNews that Christians need to be aware of the Obama administration’s relentless pursuit of Miller and her daughter, and the implications of their decisions at the voting booth with regard to family issues.

“I think certainly the current administration has obviously made a commitment that this is a high priority for them, that they are going to track down a biological mother and attempt to take this child away from her biological mother and I certainly think that there is some political pressure that could be taken,” Lindevaldsen said.

“I think the word needs to get out. Christians need to know that these things are happening, the idea that a woman apparently had to flee the country to protect her child, shouldn’t be happening in America, and I don’t think enough Christians know about that and don’t realize that the people they vote for in an election year, who they vote for has direct consequences on things like this.”

She added that, in addition to their involvement in the national political process, Christians can work at the state level to ensure that other children are not victimized by ant-family legislation.  Lindevaldsen says she has handled dozens of other cases that are similar to Miller’s.

“We need to pass laws at the state level making it very clear that courts do not have the discretion to do this, to declare a child to have two parents, because we need to avoid these situations happening in the future, because they are happening on a regular basis.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

 



Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

News, ,

Donald Trump says he will promote LGBT ‘equality’ as president

Lisa Bourne

CONCORD, New Hampshire, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Does Donald Trump support the gay agenda or oppose it? On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, observers are still scratching their heads about where the GOP frontrunner actually stands.

Trump has repeatedly and consistently said he supports the natural definition of marriage, but can a President Trump be relied on to promote it resolutely and cogently? It is this question that has many marriage activists expressing concern about his increasingly likely hold on the GOP nomination.

In fact, the National Organization for Marriage has gone so far as to say that Trump has “abandoned” the pro-marriage cause.

Trump himself underscored the problem on the weekend when he told a New Hampshire television station that from the White House he would push “equality” for homosexuals even further forward.

A cable news reporter self-identifying as a lesbian asked him last Thursday after a rally in Exeter, "When President Trump is in office, can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?"

“Well, you can and look - again, we're going to bring people together. That's your thing, and other people have their thing,” Trump told Sue O’Connell of New England Cable News. “We have to bring all people together. And if we don't, we're not gonna have a country anymore. It's gonna be a total mess.”

Following the comments, Trump appeared Sunday on ABC’s This Week program with George Stephanopoulos and would not commit to appointing Supreme Court justices who’d overturn Obergefell, though that would be his “preference.”

STORY: ‘Anyone but Donald Trump’: Here’s his record on life, marriage, and religious liberty

“We’re going to look at judges. They’ve got to be great judges. They’ve got to be conservative judges. We’re going to see how they stand depending on what their views are. But that would be my preference,” he told Stephanopoulos. “I would prefer that they stand against, but we’ll see what happens. It depends on the judge.”

Trump’s comments follow his statements during a Fox News Sunday interview last week, when he said, “If I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things, but they've got a long way to go.” 

“[Marriage] should be a states rights issue,” Trump continued. “I can see changes coming down the line, frankly.” 

When asked by Fox if he “might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage,” Trump replied, “I would strongly consider that, yes.”

The real estate mogul criticized the Supreme Court for the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states last June, but then later in August, Trump voiced support to NBC News for banning companies from firing employees on the basis of sexual orientation. “I don't think it should be a reason” to fire workers, he said at the time on Meet the Press.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a number influential evangelicals have endorsed Senator Ted Cruz in the race for president. The Texas senator has not only committed to appointing pro-marriage justices, but says the president and the states can rightly defy the “fundamentally illegitimate” ruling just as President Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision.

NOM has also been highly critical of Trump, saying he has “abandoned” their cause. The organization said in its January 27 blog post just prior to the Iowa Caucus that “Donald Trump does not support a constitutional amendment to restore marriage to our laws. Worse, he has publicly abandoned the fight for marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued their illegitimate ruling redefining marriage, Trump promptly threw in the towel with these comments on MSNBC: ‘You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land.’”

NOM had said the week before that Trump “has made no commitments to fight for marriage, or the rights of supporters of marriage to not be discriminated against and punished for refusing to go along with the lie that is same-sex 'marriage.'”

New Hampshire voters have been tracked as showing support for homosexual “marriage,” as a poll last February showed 52 percent of Republican NH primary voters saying opposing gay “marriage” is unacceptable.

The latest CNN/WMUR tracking poll shows that overall 33 percent of likely Republican primary voters support Trump, giving him a growing 17-point lead over the nearest GOP contender. RealClearPolitics polling average in the state puts him at 31.0 percent support, with Marco Rubio second at 14.7, John Kasich third at 13.2, and Ted Cruz fourth at 12.7.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Rich Koele / Shutterstock.com
Greg Quinlan

Opinion, , ,

The unravelling of Chris Christie

Greg Quinlan

February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- I'm a member of the clergy and for the past eight years have lobbied the powerful in Trenton, covering the administrations of both Governors Jon Corzine and Chris Christie.  I did much of my work on behalf of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, associated with Tony Perkins' Family Research Council.  I am currently the President of the Center for Garden State Families.

Those of us who are engaged in the fight to secure the right to believe, speak, and practice the Christian faith in America were all heartened by the election of a Pro-Life Governor in 2009.  Not only did Chris Christie run as an open Pro-Lifer, but he adopted a position in support of natural marriage in the course of the campaign.  And when legislative Democrats attempted to pass same-sex marriage in the lame duck session, so they could have outgoing Governor Corzine sign it into law, Chris Christie rallied opposition and stopped it.  Those were the early, hopeful days; but as Governor, Chris Christie has presented himself in an inconsistent, even scatterbrained way, often making decisions that go against earlier stated beliefs. 

One of his first decisions was to make a liberal Democrat the state's Attorney General.  Once approved by the Senate, and she was, the Attorney General could not be fired by the Governor, as was the case with other cabinet officers.  This gave a liberal Democrat enormous power and she used it to join up with liberal Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in filing a brief against Christians in a case called Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.  Just one day after being sworn in, the newly appointed state Attorney General took the most aggressive legal posture available to defend former Governor Corzine’s one-gun-a-month handgun rationing law, moving to dismiss an NRA lawsuit to overturn the law, and later vigorously opposing the NRA’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the case.  Because of this appointment, New Jersey did not join in the lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare.

Governor Christie appointed a radical "sexologist" to run the NJ Department of Children & Families.  This appointee would later resign when it emerged that she had held the top job in an organization that had supported a study advocating the normalization of some forms of adult-child sex. 

His judicial appointments were also confusing.  While claiming to oppose same-sex marriage, Governor Christie nominated an openly gay Republican to the state Supreme Court who supported it.  Even Democrats wouldn't support this plainly unqualified appointment, and he never served.  The Governor supported the advancement of a liberal Democrat to the job of Chief Justice, while refusing to support the re-appointment of a Republican and the Court's most conservative member.  He also appointed a controversial defense attorney who had defended a number of Islamic extremists who had violated immigration law. 

In 2013, many of those in the Christian community opposed legislation that banned young people from receiving counseling and therapy to lead them away from homosexuality.  As an ex-gay myself, I could have personally attested to the benefits of such counseling, much of which is no different than what is found in contemporary twelve-step programs.  However, the Christian community opposing the ban was not afforded the opportunity to meet with the Governor.  Only the homosexual community with its pro-ban agenda was given that benefit.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

I don't blame the Governor for this, but I do blame his staff.  As President Ronald Reagan said, "personnel is policy," and  Governor Christie's choices in personnel have not advanced the policies he campaigned on, and often it was the direct opposite.   

New Jersey ended up being just the second state in the country that only allows young people to receive counseling that advocates homosexuality, but bans by law counseling that advocates heterosexuality. When he signed it into law, Governor Christie embraced the made-up "science" of the propagandists, when he cited un-specified "research" that "sexual orientation is determined at birth."  This is the so-called "gay-gene" trope that has baffled those engaged in the Science of Genetics because it has never been discovered.

As a candidate for Governor, Chris Christie talked the talk and raised the expectations of Christians in New Jersey. As Governor, and especially in his appointments, Christie undermined our confidence in his leadership. Christians should ask tough questions before extending our faith in him again.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Center for Medical Progress lead investigator David Daleiden speaks at an event in Washington, DC, before the 2016 March for Life. Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

News,

Pro-life investigator hits back with new footage after judge blocks release of abortion sting videos

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

SAN FRANCISCO, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A new video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) shows two National Abortion Federation (NAF) employees saying that abortion clinics would be interested in kickbacks from profits on fetal tissue and body part sales.

The video comes three days after a San Francisco imposed an injunction sought by NAF against CMP videos that one of the abortion group's attorneys said meant that "NAF's members can sleep a little easier tonight."

CMP accused the pro-abortion organization of hiding behind the court.

According to U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick, however, NAF "made...a showing" that release of CMP videos would harm rights to privacy, freedom of association, and liberty of NAF members.

URGENT: Sign the petition to Harris County urging them to drop the charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Click here.

"Critical to my decision are that the defendants agreed to injunctive relief if they breached the agreements and that, after the release of defendants’ first set of Human Capital Project videos and related information in July 2015, there has been a documented, dramatic increase in the volume and extent of threats to and harassment of NAF and its members," wrote Orrick.

Additionally, the judge found that CMP's videos “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions," and that nobody from the abortion industry “admitted to engaging in, agreed to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit" in the CMP videos.

However, in a new video released today that is unrelated to the injunction, a NAF employee told undercover journalists that kickbacks "definitely [sound] like something some [of] our members would be really interested in," with another chiming in that money from private purchasers to abortion clinics were "a win-win" for clinics.

The undercover investigators, who had purported to be part of a biotechnology company with an interest in fetal parts, were offered the chance to be at a NAF conference. “We have an exhibit hall and then we also have the general conference. But I mean, this is a very great way to talk to our members. We have a group purchasing program through our membership,” the journalists were told. “So it seems like this would be a really great option to be able to offer our members, as well.”

This is the second ruling against CMP in recent weeks, and the second by Orrick since July. The San Francisco judge issued a restraining order against CMP related to NAF's 2014 and 2015 meetings in San Francisco and Baltimore that Friday's ruling extended.

The other recent ruling came in the form of an indictment of CMP's David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Merritt and Daleiden turned themselves into Houston authorities for booking and processing last week. After being released on bail, Daleiden spoke at a LifeSiteNews/Christian Defense Coalition press conference after which more than 100,000 petition signatures backing Daleiden were dropped off to the Harris County, Texas District Attorney's office.

According to Orrick, who says he reviewed the more than 500 hours of recordings from CMP, "It should be said that the majority of the recordings lack much public interest, and despite the misleading contentions of defendants, there is little that is new in the remainder of the recordings. Weighed against that public interest are NAF’s and its members’ legitimate interests in their rights to privacy, security, and association by maintaining the confidentiality of their presentations and conversations at NAF Annual Meetings. The balance is strongly in NAF’s favor.”

NAF did not respond to a request for comment about the allegations by Orrick and a NAF spokesperson that CMP's videos have caused threats and other security concerns against NAF members.



Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook