Home / Latest News /
VIDEO: Supreme Court upholds reversal of adoption ban
This article was originally published April 7, 2011 at 9:05 a.m. Updated April 7, 2011 at 11:09 a.m.
PHOTO BY AP / DANNY JOHNSTON
Arkansas Family Council President Jerry Cox, left, speaks to reporters at the Arkansas state Capitol in Little Rock after the state Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas law prohibiting gay couples and other unmarried people who live together from adopting or serving as foster parents.
- Comments (78)
- aAFont Size
Family Council decries Act I ruling
The president of the Family Council called the ruling upholding a ban on Act 1 the worst decision ev...
LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that said voter-approved adoption restrictions on unmarried couples who live together were unconstitutional.
The state's high court on Thursday released its opinion unanimously affirming a Pulaski County circuit judge's ruling last April that Initiated Act I of 2008 intrudes on privacy rights guaranteed by the Arkansas Constitution.
"The State's compelling interest, no doubt, is protection of the welfare of Arkansas's children, but we further hold that under a heightened-scrutiny analysis, which is the standard that applies to this case, the least restrictive means of serving that interest has not been employed," Associate Justice Robert L. Brown wrote in the 25-page opinion.
Proponents of Act 1 said it ensured children in state custody were placed in the safest homes while opponents argued it unfairly and illegally prohibited gay and other unmarried couples in sexual relationships from adopting.
Brown wrote that individualized assessments by the Department of Human Services and courts are effective in identifying issues with would-be adoptive parents. He said that method was the "least restrictive" and in the best interest of Arkansas's children rather than a blanket ban like Act I.
"By imposing a categorical ban on all persons who cohabit with a sexual partner, Act 1 removes the ability of the State and our courts to conduct these individualized assessments on these individuals, many of whom could qualify and be entirely suitable foster or adoptive parents," Brown wrote.
Jerry Cox of the Family Council, which worked to pass Act I, called the ruling the worst decision the Supreme Court has made and a "slap in the face" to Arkansas voters. He said his organization was considering a constitutional amendment or legislation to bring the adoption rules back into effect while noting an appeal in federal court is possible but unlikely.
"Today the Arkansas Supreme Court put the rights of adults way ahead of the welfare of children," Cox said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented , issued a statement praising the court's decision.
“This ruling is a relief for the over 1,600 children in the state of Arkansas who need a permanent family," Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas said. "The state admitted good families would be banned by this law, and that we have a critical shortage of homes. This ban wouldn’t even allow a relative – gay or straight – to foster or adopt a child with whom they had a close relationship, so long as that relative was unmarried and living with a partner. The court clearly saw that this ban violated the constitutional rights of our clients and thousands of other Arkansans.”
The law approving Act I passed by 57 percent of Arkansas voters in November 2008.
Read tomorrow's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full details.
Thank you for coming to the Web site of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. We're working to keep you informed with the latest breaking news.
Comments on: VIDEO: Supreme Court upholds reversal of adoption ban
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
WarrenGerrald says... April 7, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
Seems to me as one of those who voted FOR the restriction that my intention was NOT to use the "least restrictive" method, but indeed to RESTRICT the adoption of children ONLY to legally married couples!
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... April 7, 2011 at 9:32 a.m.
Good decision, and good for the children who need loving homes.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 7, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.
Bad decision, and bad for the children who need loving homes.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 7, 2011 at 9:39 a.m.
The headline should read "High Court Thwarts the Will of the People Again!"
( permalink | suggest removal )
TheBatt says... April 7, 2011 at 9:40 a.m.
Remember- Arkansas Supreme Court Judges are elected....
There are no "privacy" issues. If there were, then the entire screening process for foster and adoptive parents would then have to be struck down: no background checks, no means testing, no home inspections.
This nation continues the march... One that ignores the will of the people, and places legislative powers in the hands of the judiciary (which is unconstitutional).
( permalink | suggest removal )
MICHBEL says... April 7, 2011 at 9:41 a.m.
Children need loving homes, and that does not always or exclusively equate to male-female married couples. That also comes in the form of same-sex couples, unmarried male-female couples, and single-family homes. Great decision, and good for the children of the state of Arkansas. We took a step FORWARD today!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
rainbowharold55 says... April 7, 2011 at 9:49 a.m.
Fantastic news- and a huge blow against the forces of bigotry like Jerry Cox and the Family Council.
( permalink | suggest removal )
outinthesticks says... April 7, 2011 at 9:50 a.m.
Why don't we just line them up and kill them....it's the same thing we do with the unborn. You liberals want it both ways, and with the help of the courts, it looks like you'll always get your way. This country is headed for hell in a handbasket.
( permalink | suggest removal )
ToTheLeft says... April 7, 2011 at 9:54 a.m.
Good for the children! Shame on the ones who are against the children finding homes.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NWAConsumerReview says... April 7, 2011 at 9:54 a.m.
This is, indeed, a wise and well considered opinion. There is absolutely no evidence that "traditional" homes are any more effective in parenting than the homes of same-sex couples, unmarried male-female couples and single-family homes.
There are many children who need the homes made available in these non-traditional situations and if they can do as good or better job at parenting then why not allow them allow them to do it. There is no evidence that the future in life for these children will be any worse than from a traditional family.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 7, 2011 at 9:55 a.m.
No, their plan is to kill off old people first, with Obamacare.
( permalink | suggest removal )
fayfreethinker says... April 7, 2011 at 9:58 a.m.
"You liberals... with the help of the courts, it looks like you'll always get your way."
.
Yes we will. Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of every social issue and your side will continue to lose as progress marches on and conservatives are dragged kicking and screaming to a future based upon equal rights, fairness, justice and compassion.
( permalink | suggest removal )
rural01 says... April 7, 2011 at 9:59 a.m.
I'm an outinthesticks liberal and definitely do not always get my way. In this case however, I believe all people are equal, no matter how they have sex or with whom. That is none of my business. Children don't care either as long as they are loved and cared for.
( permalink | suggest removal )
ScottTracer says... April 7, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
I am a conservative to start. I have been with my "son" since the day he was born. Due to reason that are none of your business myself and his mother have not married. I have tried to adopt him with little success. The answer we get is, "get married". We are perfectly happy the way we are other than I have no rights to the son I have raised since birth. He biological father has seen him once I believe and wants nothing to do with him. Pays child support sometimes but it basically amount to a tank of gas per week because he also has 3 other children. So if I am willing to take responsibility and care for this child and pay for what he need why should I not be able to make him legally my son? It would save the state money and give me parental right should something happen to his mother. Marriage is not for everyone. Look at the statistics on divorse and that should tell you a little bit on how successful marriages are. If a person is willing to take responsibility for a child and mature enough to do so why hold them back. Arkansas needs to step into the present and stop living like folks did in the 1950s. @outinthesticks, please move farther out in the sticks. Your probably one of the same cowards that post raciest comments every chance you get but would probably poops in your cat bag if you actually had to deal with another race face to face you backward redneck.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 7, 2011 at 10:14 a.m.
It's easy to find credible evidence that the traditional family model is superior to the homosexual model. Here's one article.
www(dot)frc(dot)org/get(dot)cfm?i=IS04C02
( permalink | suggest removal )
Lee16 says... April 7, 2011 at 10:29 a.m.
The founding fathers would be aghast if they saw the embrace our nation has made of perversion in recent decades. The tyranny of the sub-minority has hit full tilt. "Equal rights," my foot. You mean special rights for homosexuals, and lessened likelihood for a child to be reared in a proper home.
( permalink | suggest removal )
fayfreethinker says... April 7, 2011 at 10:34 a.m.
LEE: "You mean special rights for homosexuals,"...
.
No, treating people like full human beings, with rights equal to everyone else, is precisely, "equal rights," not special rights.
( permalink | suggest removal )
SPA says... April 7, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.
Some issues are appropriate for voter referendum, while some are not. Personal emotional opinions that are driven by religious ideology and/or plain, simple fear and prejudice aren't the best engine for public policy. This issue is one that is best resolved by data and research. I'm glad to see that the AR Supreme Court went with the data and research.
However, it is a corollary that the Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) *must* receive the funding they *need* to adequately serve the public. They are already grossly underfunded and therefore understaffed *in the field*, with case loads that are unmanageable in many areas. Yet, DHS and DCFS administration and our legislature are rarely held to task by the "will of the public" for this...the public just turns its uneducated ire onto the in-the-trenches workers who are charged with darn-near impossible workloads, working with an antiquated information management system that was dumped by Oklahoma many years ago.
So now that the Court has ruled, the best action for those who disagree with the ruling is to be *proactive* instead of simply complaining about "liberals", because that accomplishes *nothing* for the children and families who need the services. CONTACT YOUR LEGISTLATORS AND DEMAND THAT THEY ADEQUATELY FUND AND STAFF THE DCFS. If we do this, vs. some other pork barrel project, then the concerns of everyone stand a real chance of being properly addressed with a maximum of options on the table.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NBS says... April 7, 2011 at 10:46 a.m.
Good decision. I think Arkansans would be more understanding if they knew that 99% of homosexuals are regular people with good values, just like 99% of heterosexuals in Arkansas. And I doubt that either 1% is going to try to go through the adoption process anyway.
If I had to give up my kids for adoption I would definitely prefer that they have a gay couple as parents as opposed to bouncing around in foster care or living in an orphanage.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BDR says... April 7, 2011 at 10:52 a.m.
@80Redux: Umm.. the link you provided goes to a certified hate group. Is that really the best you've got? You might want to look at the recent court transcripts from California where it was determined that there is no discernible difference between gay and straight households. As long as the household has loving parents, regardless of their orientation, that is all that really matters. Denying kids a loving household of any sort is frankly, un-American, and shameful.
This is exactly the reason we have the court system... to protect folks from the rampant bigotry that people like you extol.
( permalink | suggest removal )
chuck62 says... April 7, 2011 at 10:57 a.m.
I'm no lawyer, but I do know that courts (or at least the good ones) are bound by certain rules and precedents. In this case the article says they had to use the "heightened-scrutiny analysis, which is the standard that applies to this case." While I would personally be fine with limiting adoptions to ideal families (married mom/dad couples, and other considerations) I don't think this necessarily means that these elected judges have ruled improperly, or with an agenda in mind, or that they should be booted out. From what I can see, the ruling doesn't force the state agency to place children with singles, gay couples or shacking-up straight couples, it merely says that a law excluding them entirely on such a basis is unconstitutional. I predict this ruling will have very little effect on the actual outcome of the selection process.
( permalink | suggest removal )
cosmolady57 says... April 7, 2011 at 10:59 a.m.
Good call by the court. Just to let u know. I am a 54 year old married white,mother of 4(my choice not yours). Who believes in equal rights for everyone! Now if all of u who voted against this will bring one of the kids into your family,then we wouldn't be having this discussion. So as the old saying goes ..."put up or shut up". These kids need loving homes, Period!
( permalink | suggest removal )
BBeam says... April 7, 2011 at 11:06 a.m.
@Lee -- This decision was based on the Arkansas Constitution, not the federal Constitution. The Founding Fathers would be just fine with the states passing the laws they wanted to pass ... which is what the Arkansas Constitution is.
@Redux -- The first obvious response is that the Family Research Council is not credible -- it is extremely biased. Igoring that, however, the article you posted compares apples to oranges: married heterosexual couples versus unmarried homosexual couples (and mainly homosexual male couples). This sort of statistical slight of hand continues throughout the article -- like a later note that 79% of gay people in Vermont choose not to enter civil unions, but married cohabitating heterosexuals outnumber similar unmarried cohabitating couples 7 to 1. The comparison of cohabitating heterosexuals to all homosexuals shows that they are either extremely bad at statistical analysis or actually attempting to be deceptive.
@TheBatt -- Court opinions have long reflected the common-sense view that there is a special degree of privacy attached to the bedroom and what happens in it. Privacy is very implicated here.
@WarrenGerald -- The point of rights is that they cannot be voted away. The "compelling interest/least restrictive means" is the test courts apply when the government attempts to restrict rights guaranteed to an individual, such as free speech, what church you attend, having a lawyer when charged with a crime, equal protection under the law, or bedroom privacy. Just because a position is not popular does not mean that the person holding that position loses his rights.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 7, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.
Nice try BDR, just goes to show that anything that goes against the lib agenda is labeled "Hate". I was only attempting to show that there are credible arguments (and statistics) that show the California court decision was biased by political ideology and ignored facts that should have been considered.
There are plenty of other studies that show the same. I've made my point.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Redz7 says... April 7, 2011 at 11:08 a.m.
Some commentators here, declare that what they don't like is "unconstitutional" and it thwarts the "will of the people"; and, they also insist that laws or actions that please them, are "constitutional," regardless of the findings of Justices who are schooled in the law and are sworn to uphold both the State and Federal Constitutions. Such commentators seem to disregard that our Constitutions and their Amendments, were all voted upon and accepted by an overwhelming majority of "we, the people", and that those documents are the rock-base of every law of our State and the United States. By design, the Constitutions are not subject to easy change due to passions of the moment of a minority of the populace. Laws must conform with the Constitutions. Our nation has agreed that the Justices will make that determination, not a hodge-podge of "self-styled experts". Those of the laity, who agree or disagree with the Justices, should at least first read the Constitutions of Arkansas and of the United States, and understand them, before pronouncing the Justices of our Supreme Court as "RIGHT" or "WRONG!" Threatening to replace a Justice who does not conform with one's own ideas, is threatening the very basis of our nation's law and order. Our nation is superior to dictatorships around the world, precisely because we value and protect diversity of opinion and at the same time depend upon and honor the decisions of an independent, scholarly, judiciary, which is removed from ordinary political pressures and threats.
( permalink | suggest removal )
chuck62 says... April 7, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.
ScottTracer, does it not at all seem hypocritical for you to think you should be entitled to a legal relationship with the son of a woman with whom you don't want one? Why should he call you "Dad" if you are unwilling call his mother "wife?" Perhaps the system is working just fine, and your unwillingness to legally commit to the mother is an indication the level of committment they might also reasonably expect you to have to the son. Besides, if marriage is "just a piece of paper," isn't the same true for your relationship to her son?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BDR says... April 7, 2011 at 11:27 a.m.
@80Redux: The FRC isn't labeled as "hate". They *are* a hate group. No gray area there. But, hey, let's see the facts you suggest were ignored. Please forward that over!
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... April 7, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.
Remember, the 57 percent was only of those who actually voted,not all citizens. And more importantly, NONE of those voters were the ones directly affected by the decision -- the children in need of loving homes.
( permalink | suggest removal )
outinthesticks says... April 7, 2011 at 12:04 p.m.
Sorry, Scott, et.al., call me what you want, you still have to live in this state with me because I am not going anywhere. Why don't you move to California where more people share your opinion? Yes, I do have that terrible backwoods opinion that you bleeding hearts love to hate. (Gee, where did all your wonderful compassion go?) I'm sorry, but those of your ilk are exactly what I'm talking about. I assume you meant to inject "race" into the discussion, and try to call me a "racist", not "raciest", as in lewd. FYI, I grew up out here in the sticks with black people, played with them as a child, work with them everyday, and some of my best friends are black, and now some are Hispanic, too. I probably have a better understanding of what it meant to be black in "redneck Arkansas" than you could ever comprehend. So know what you're talking about before you attack me.
My point is simply this: I cannot understand those who seem to have so much compassion for children, yet treat unborn children as trash to be thrown out under the guise of "choice".
( permalink | suggest removal )
studentoflife says... April 7, 2011 at 12:39 p.m.
They can stay right here with others whom think like they do. You rednecks are always telling us to move where people think the way we do. You move! We will be right here with a good swift kick in your asses every time you all try to violate the civil rights of others. Stop acting like you all are the ones who love the children and everyone who thinks differently wants to kill children or something. If you rednecks don't want others to adopt the children, then all of you ban together and get to adopting all of them. You all will get the kids first. I can almost guarantee that! Then, there won't be any children left to go to the families in which you are against. Won't happen though, because I don't think you all care for the children as much as you want other people to think you do. If you did, we wouldn't have all of these children to adopt!
( permalink | suggest removal )
tamigirl1 says... April 7, 2011 at 12:39 p.m.
I am the mother of the 'son' Scott Tracer is referring to. He has been the father to my child since the day I brought him home from the hospital. I couldn't ask for a better father for my child then him. His biological father and father's family refuse to have anything to do with him. He showed up at the hospital slapped his last name on the birth certificate and then refused to pay me child support or even come see his son. He states that I'm living in a home with double income coming in why should he have to pay for our son when he has other children to worry about. With that being said he does not pay child support for his other 3 children nor does he have custody rights to them. So I have a man willing and ready to adopt my son and raise him as his own and already does provide for him (willingly) and is with him every day, then I have a man that is the biological father who has NEVER asked about his son, no calls, no emails, no texts, not even a birthday card on his bay. In fact the last time he saw our son was over a year ago because we ran into each other at a restaurant. His family is just as bad! So in the event God forbid I was killed in a car wreck my son would be turned over to the biological dead beat dad and Scott will have NO RIGHTS. Sound a little backwards???? I think so!
( permalink | suggest removal )
xxlawman87xx says... April 7, 2011 at 12:49 p.m.
Being a product of the foster care system, please tell me how being "married" or "straight" in any way impacts the ability of a person or couple to love and care for a child? I know I was lucky enough to be in a loving foster home until I was adopted but I know many arent so lucky and I can GUARANTEE you those children would rather have a loving foster family or adoptive family (no matter what their sexual orientation or marital status) than be back in the situations that warrant their need for such families. I love how we attack the people who want to take the children in yet we noone seems to be attacking the individuals who put their own children in a position to need a foster home or adoptive parents. Just my two cents.
( permalink | suggest removal )
YesterdaysGone says... April 7, 2011 at 1 p.m.
I support the ruling. I think the Act was intended to disallow gay couples from adopting. I have no opinion about that other than my gut feel is that I'm glad I was raised in a more traditional family. But just because I was raised in a traditional family doesn't mean the other could be just as good or better. However, the law didn't stop there. I'm a single guy and while I have no intentions of adopting a child I know that I would be a good parent, at least as good as some of the crazy married people I see. I'm happy for you folks that are married...but don't brag. You too can be single before you know it. And that would have nothing to do with your ability to care for a child. I'm thinking if something happened to my Brother and his daughter needed a home, I'd do everything I could to care for her regardless of ACT 1. To those that have a problem with a court overturning an election. Well...that's the system we have and I for one am happy that we don't live in a society where the majority opinion rules. I'm glad the founding fathers recognised that we needed a judicial branch of government to protect individual rights.
( permalink | suggest removal )
tamigirl1 says... April 7, 2011 at 1:46 p.m.
Bottom line for all voters you need to look at the BIG picture here, the children involved. Not what they think an ideal family to adopt should be which is a married opposite sex couple they need to be more concerned about the fact that these families are willing to adopt and love these children regardless of their marital status. I believe most of the voters that disagree with single family adoption is biased judgment against gays not single families in my situation. But none the less this effects me in a big way! Do you know that I cannot even have the father's rights taking away unless I solely adopt my OWN SON, which cannot be done because I'M NOT MARRIED! Catch 22 every which way I go with this!
Get your head out of the clouds as the world has evolved shouldn't our way of thinking follow!
( permalink | suggest removal )
MistaPhi05 says... April 7, 2011 at 2:03 p.m.
Plain and Simple You cant put RIGHTS to a Vote. If they put RIGHTS to a vote in the 50's. Blacks would never have gotten RIGHTS. Prejudice IS NOT THE WILL OF ALL PEOPLE
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 7, 2011 at 2:23 p.m.
FRC=Hate.
It's a scientific fact.
This ruling is great news for children and for Arkansas! Anything that p!sses off the bigots is fine by me.
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 7, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
"There are plenty of other studies that show the same. I've made my point."
No there aren't, and no you haven't.
Next?
( permalink | suggest removal )
mrprincipal03_yahoo-com says... April 7, 2011 at 3:25 p.m.
If you don't like a coutry governed by laws, then a trip to a place that is ruled by emotion would be best for many of the respondents on this page. Many of you seem to love an emotional rant with no supporting facts or valid, relevant information.
( permalink | suggest removal )
tamigirl1 says... April 7, 2011 at 4:29 p.m.
Well, it's all the same to me. I think anyone regardless of sexual preference or marital status has the ability to be a loving parent. And all the people who disagree with putting children in their care should spend more time talking about the trash that put them in that predictament to begin with. So, all these children stay in state's custody because somebody said they can't go to a loving home because there are two women or two men there or that those people aren't married? Freaking BS. I'm sure, if given a choice, these kids would LOVE to have a home regardless of this. Of course, the same evaluations should be given before turning a child over into a home for everybody...but opening up these options would only provide hope and in no way would we be taking a step backward.
Furthermore, if we are the UNITED States of America, then why aren't we united on this decision? It is allowed in other states and I think that we should unite in the decision to allow this to happen. How can it be legal in one state and not the other. Come on: UNITED States of America...when did we stop uniting? Or did we ever really begin?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie says... April 7, 2011 at 4:38 p.m.
80Redux says "No, their plan is to kill off old people first, with Obamacare."
Have you read Rep. Ryan's plan, what the Republicans have in mind? A voucher plan, give Medicare over to the insurance companies, and it doesn't even help the deficit!
Anybody with a bit of a brain knows who the Republicans are working for, and it isn't the ordinary American citizen!
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 7, 2011 at 4:41 p.m.
How about a Sanford University study. See page 16, which reports that children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers have a 41% higher rate of grade retention (failing a grade level). To be fair, this rate was still lower than the rate of grade retention for single parent homes, cohabitating hetrosexuals, and children living in group homes.
On Page 22 you’ll find this statement, “Family structure remains a significant predictor of childhood progress through school, even after every available sociodemographic control is applied, as other scholars have found with other outcomes and other datasets (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994).”
The study makes every effort to “control the data” in a way to benefit gay families, but the results are the results.
www(dot)stanford(dot)edu/dept/soc/people/mrosenfeld/documents/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Children(dot)pdf
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 7, 2011 at 4:44 p.m.
All I heard when reading Coralie's post was - waaaa waaaaaa waaaaa.
Goo - I'm not sure where you are getting your facts, but would sure like to see the math behind your hypothesis.
( permalink | suggest removal )
bmedwar05302321 says... April 7, 2011 at 4:47 p.m.
Some thoughts on the implications for democracy: theblakelog.wordpress.c om/2011/04/07/arkansas-supreme-court-strikes-down-adoption-law/
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 7, 2011 at 4:47 p.m.
Libs = Hate
It's a scientific fact.
( permalink | suggest removal )
studentoflife says... April 7, 2011 at 5:10 p.m.
Wow 80, when I read these comments, it's not on the libs.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 7, 2011 at 5:19 p.m.
I'll try to be kinder and gentler in the future. Then again, from my point of view I was just responding in kind. Read djigoo's two posts 10 up from here.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Golf19 says... April 7, 2011 at 9:11 p.m.
Shame, shame, shame on the Arkansas Supreme Court. They all need to be impeached for overriding the will of the people in favor of special interests groups like the ACLU (Which needs to be defunded completely) and gay rights groups.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Golf19 says... April 7, 2011 at 9:29 p.m.
@Tamigirl: We quit being united when society allowed immorality like homosexual behavior become a civil right and acceptable. God will not bless us as long as sin is allowed and accepted. Being gay is not a civil right. It is a behavior and choice, period.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... April 7, 2011 at 10:48 p.m.
In 1952 a poll showed that 68% of the country would accept a nationwide handgun ban. That would have been the will of the people. Didn't happen because of the constitutional rights to bear arms. If something is ruled constitutional or not, has nothing to do with the "will of the people" unless you change the constitution. If you don't like gays then don't be one, this country was not founded on the whim of polls. It was founded on a grand experiment of individual rights and freedom.
( permalink | suggest removal )
littlerockdjw says... April 7, 2011 at 11:15 p.m.
This day has been long overdue since November 2008. That blowhard Jerry Cox and his FRC can stop imagining that a liberal court thwarted the will of the people. Instead what happened today is that an intrusion of religious zealots into the everyday lives of those in our state was rebuked. However, I'm sure the FRC will be back with some other attempt to jam its values down our throats. They can't help themselves....
As several have posted prior to me, discrimination, no matter how popular, has never been (and never will be) on the right side of history. Jerry Cox can feel free to dictate to his followers as he pleases, but when his (or anyone's) religion contaminates the lives of everyone else, a line has been crossed. Our supreme court justices recognized this.
@Golf19: We are all free to live our lives according to our own moral and/or religious beliefs. And for that matter, morality is not synonymous with religion. It is a personal choice to harbor the beliefs of any religion (or no religion). For this reason, public policy should NEVER be based on these beliefs. The FRC attempted to do this (although underhandedly) with the 2008 ballot measure.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoCrossNoCrown says... April 7, 2011 at 11:52 p.m.
Someone must be from the planet Golf with the comments made here...
Do the words constiitution/constitutionality mean anything to some of those posting their bigoted rants. Maybe you should start by trying to understand what it takes to enact a LAW and not just vote on bigoted ammendments put up by the ledge. You can't just throw anything on paper and get 50% of the peoples vote to agree that does not make it a law nor what was voted on constitutional. ie.. So, If all the right handed people got together and put an ammenment on the ballot, get it voted on and garner 50% of the vote, that left handed people can't adopt children. Would that be legal? NO, it would be thrown out just like this one was and should have been.
If all these folks who are so worried that a child might be raise in a loving home with gay parents are really so worried, then rush out and get qualified to adopt as many children as you can afford, so the gays won't have any to choose from.... problem solved
Jerry Cox is HBIC = Head Bigot in Charge
He is so off the chart, that it is scary
He does not speak for Arkansas and for sure doesn't speak for me...
( permalink | suggest removal )
FertileMind says... April 8, 2011 at 9:20 a.m.
RainbowHarlold55 I suspect you are a harmless sodom*te born in 1955. A menace only to yourself. You are wrong on this issue. All of the liberals I've read comments on are wrong and I'll tell you why. You all have seared consciences that are numb to rightful living and thinking. Why would I trust you to make a decision about LIFE when you have decided DEATH of the unborn w/o batting an eye. You are unqualified to make valid life decisions. Your own lives are probably, privately, wrecks, many of you have struggles in your souls that will never be resolved until death turns you into lawn fertilizer.
Know what the irony is? The irony is you liberals are the first in favor of coming into my home to look down your noses to see if I'm qualified to adopt a cat. Cat/human dog/human what's the difference to you? Nothing apparently.
The other mind boggling logical fallacy you are guilty of is stating, in this forum, that people who want children adopted into male/female married homes don't care about placing children up for adoption. No, what we care about is seeing that the state's orphaned children (mostly result of liberal bahvioral faults) are placed in homes where they have less of a chance of turning into the son's and daughter's of Hell you turned out to be.
Woe to you Arkansas judges you hypocrits you make judgements to be popular rather than to be right.
This forum violates freedom of speech because it gave me a message that I am not allowed to use the word sodom*te. Not because the word is a naughty word but because it has a note of biblical judgement.
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 8, 2011 at 9:47 a.m.
Golf19, when did YOU choose YOUR sexual identity?
Yeah...that's what I thought.
( permalink | suggest removal )
LevitiCuss says... April 8, 2011 at 9:48 a.m.
Didn't Jesus say, "Judge not lest ye be judged?" After hearing so many of these "loving Christians" sound off here, I"m pretty sure Jesus wouldn't agree with most of them. In fact, your loud and asinine yammering is starting to make Baby Jesus cry...
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 8, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
The only word I can think of when I hear Libs resort to asking Christians to turn the other cheek is,
WINNING ! ! !
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 8, 2011 at 10:38 a.m.
I'm a Liberal AND a Christian, Redux. Also, I'm gay.
Just makes your pointy little head explode, doesn't it?
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 8, 2011 at 10:50 a.m.
It brings to mind another word.
Delusional
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 8, 2011 at 10:55 a.m.
Yes, I daresay you are, Redux.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... April 8, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
Bwahahahaa "This forum violates freedom of speech because it gave me a message that I am not allowed to use the word sodom*te. Not because the word is a naughty word but because it has a note of biblical judgement."
Freedom of speech does not exist here, nor on any website. Websites are private property of the person or company that owns them. Freedom of speech only protects you from going to jail (i.e. retribution by the government). The first amendment protects citizens from government, not from other citizens. That is why Freedom of Speech does not apply on/in private property unless the antagonist is an agent of the government, and acting in his/her capacity thereof.
( permalink | suggest removal )
SBA1960 says... April 8, 2011 at 12:59 p.m.
Ridiculous to prohibit those who pass the legal qualifications from adopting children because they aren't married. Lots of married couples that provide a terrible environment for children. Lots of people who don't want to be parents. Many more who don't need to be parents. Why would we want to limit the pool of those who do? Marital status and sexual preference have absolutely no bearing on parenting skills. It is time for people to stop imposing their prejudices and moral or religious values when they prevent children from leading happy family lives. This law is really pointed at homosexuals. What is next, taking children away from single parents because they are single?
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 8, 2011 at 1:37 p.m.
Sodomate? Sodomete? Sodomote? Sodomute? Sodom-sometimes-y-te?
( permalink | suggest removal )
23cal says... April 8, 2011 at 2:06 p.m.
80 REDUX said:
"How about a Sanford University study. See page 16, which reports that children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers have a 41% higher rate of grade retention (failing a grade level). To be fair, this rate was still lower than the rate of grade retention for single parent homes, cohabitating hetrosexuals, and children living in group homes."
Well, yes, by all means: let's be fair. And logical. AND look at he actual numbers given:
Children
of heterosexual married couples had the lowest implied rate of grade retention, 6.8%. Children of
lesbian mothers and gay fathers had grade retention rates of 9.5% and 9.7%, respectively.
Children of heterosexual cohabiting parents had a grade retention rate of 11.7%, while children
of single parents had grade retention rates between 11.1% and 12.6%
The differences in childhood grade retention between all types of non group quarters
households were dwarfed by the high grade retention rates of children living in group quarters.
According to Table 2, children living in group homes, many of them awaiting adoption or foster
parents, had an implied grade retention rate of 34.4%.
So, any kids we get out of state group care go from an average grade retention rate of 34.4% down to 9.5% and 9.7% with gay adopters. Which is better for the kids by about 354% as compared to your 41% number. Case closed. Using your fast shuffle with numbers, the law should be against single parents adopting (grade retention rates between 11.1% and 12.6%) as compared to the average 9.6% of gays, and WOW!!!!! the gays 25% BETTER!!!
It is obvious tome you didn't read your reference. If you had, surely you would have shared this quote:
"Abstract:
I use U.S. census data to perform the first ever large sample nationally
representative tests of outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples. The results
show that children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through
school as the children of most other family structures. Heterosexual married couples are
the family type whose children have the lowest rates of grade retention, but the advantage
of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher SES (socioeconomic status). Children of all family
types (including children of same-sex couples) are far more likely to be making normal
progress through school than children living in group quarters."
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 8, 2011 at 2:10 p.m.
"How about a Sanford University study."
I didn't know Fred Sanford had his own school! "I'm comin', 'Lizbeth! It's the big one!"
LOL...
( permalink | suggest removal )
23cal says... April 8, 2011 at 2:19 p.m.
Here is some more 80Redux:
"The census data show that having parents who are the same gender is not in itself any disadvantage to children. Parents' income and education are the biggest indicators of a child's success. Family structure is a minor determinant."
P. 3 "In-depth studies of the psychosocial
development of children raised by lesbians or by same-sex couples has found that these children
are normal and well-adjusted (Chan, Raboy and Patterson 1998b; Flaks et al. 1995; Golombok et
al. 2003)
"Table 1 lists 45 empirical studies of outcomes of children of same-sex couples,
comprising all of the journal articles listed in Fiona Tasker’s (2005) comprehensive survey
which examined childhood outcomes, plus several more recent studies listed by Wald (2006),
and all four studies listed by Meezan and Rauch (2005) as the highest quality studies in this
field1, and all the more recent studies which cite the earlier ones. None of the studies cited in
Table 1 find statistically significant disadvantages for children raised by gay and lesbian parents
compared to other children."
Did you catch that??? NONE OF 45 STUDIES FIND STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DISADVANTAGES FOR CHILDREN RAISED BY GAY AND LESBIAN PARENTS.
Rosenfeld's findings have been cited by lawyers fighting Proposition 8!!!!!! I think that very well illustrates how out of context you are taking your quotes.
You really should read---and understand---your reference before posting the link.
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 8, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
"You really should read---and understand---your reference before posting the link."
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, eteam.
BTW...thanks for putting Redux in his place...again.
( permalink | suggest removal )
arkie_mom says... April 8, 2011 at 2:34 p.m.
I'm glad to see there are other people here that care more about the actual welfare of children, rather than trying to use them as political pawns. If I weren't raising my kids in a heterosexual married Christian home myself, I might be concerned that including that type of arrangement for them in my will might expose them to as unhealthy an environment of hatred and bigotry as I have read about here. I am just hoping the "silent" majority isn't as prone to throw stones as the "not-so-silent" indignant "saints" posting here. I started to echo NoCrossNoCrown and tell folks to step up and adopt if they are so worried about the fate of children in non-traditional homes, but the more I think of the children, the less I like the prospect of subjecting them to that. Instead, I just pray every child in Arkansas can experience the love of belonging to a family that truly cares about them.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 8, 2011 at 4:04 p.m.
My quotes were copied from the actual report. Yes, Stanford being the bastion of liberalism that it is, the raw numbers were massaged, tweaked, and spun so that gay households seemed to be equivalent with tradition households, but the raw numbers are still the raw numbers. The study ultimately finds that the best environment is a traditional home where mother and father are present. Skip the spin and you'll find that underlying truth.
I'm going to agree with arkie_mom here that the key is love. I have a sister that raised three children on her own with no male support and I know how hard that was for them. I have a sister that is gay and gave up custody of her child to pursue her lifestyle. That child was raised by his father and new wife, it was a challenge but they were successful. I have a third sister that raised her child in a blended family, with children from other marriages. There is no easy solutions. Life is hard for everyone. I'm a firm believer that children need to see both male role models and female role models. I also believe that they miss out by not receiving input from both sexes.
Finally, I believe that being gay does not provide the "Right" to adopt a child. I don't recall sexual pursuation being listed as one of the protected classes in the constitution. The voters spoke, then a judge weilded his power and thwarted the will of the majority.
We all have an opinion, most treat each other with respect, some don't. I certainly don't have any qualms about playing the game either way. I'll be respectful if you are. If you're not, expect to see a harsher tone.
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 8, 2011 at 4:08 p.m.
"Pursuation?"
I'm just glad I wasn't raised by an idiot.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 8, 2011 at 4:51 p.m.
Goo - Please wash your face. I can smell it from here.
( permalink | suggest removal )
23cal says... April 8, 2011 at 7:29 p.m.
My quotes were from the actual report. It is hilarious that you want to cherry pick a couple of out of context quotes and then dismiss the rest of the study with "massaging numbers".
As to: "I don't recall sexual pursuation being listed as one of the protected classes in the constitution. The voters spoke, then a judge weilded his power and thwarted the will of the majority.'
If you look real hard, you might find "citizen" as a protected class. When the "will of the majority" flies in the face of constitutional protection of minority rights, judges are doing their job when they "thwart the will of the majority". Just like the judges have done in a host of cases, one of the most well known being Loving v. Virginia, where Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute was overturned. I can provide examples for Jim Crow laws and other anti-homosexual laws as well.
When the populace wants to legislate hate, it is the job of justices to enforce the Constitution in regard to civil and minority rights. "Protected class" my heinie...citizens are a protected class.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... April 8, 2011 at 8:33 p.m.
Thanks Arkiemom for such a sensible and loving attitude about this. One certainly hopes that bigotry and hatred are not core family values in anyone trying their best to raise children in a loving home environment.
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 8, 2011 at 9:14 p.m.
Redux, is that all you have left in your rhetorical arsenal? (djigoo waits while Redux finds his Merriam-Webster's dictionary...)
( permalink | suggest removal )
trouble06 says... April 8, 2011 at 10:13 p.m.
You bleeding heart liberals are so worried about whose going to adopt children and on the other hand you support Planned Parenthood a group that aborts hundreds of thousands of babies. Make up your freaking mind.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 9, 2011 at 7:33 a.m.
goo - just proving that I can be as low brow as you.
( permalink | suggest removal )
djigoo says... April 9, 2011 at 7:36 a.m.
"whose?"
It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you, Redux.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... April 9, 2011 at 8:40 a.m.
Trouble 06,
I am no fan of abortion, but why is it that so many hardcore right-to -lifers do not care what happens to children after they are born? The Ryan budget proposals are horrendous. He wants to keep taxes low for the rich and take away important social programs. I am proud to live in a country where there is an attempt to meet minimal standards of decency for the poor. While I agree that we need to trim programs across the board (including defense), we also need to put back the higher tax levels for the rich and we need to do a better job of taxing multinationals.
I am an adoptive, heterosexual married Mom who has volunteered for at risk youth. Some of these kids just need a loving place to stay. If I were unable to take care of my kids for some reason, I would much prefer that they be placed in a home with a gay person than a far right "Christian" who preaches hate. I am a Christian, but I abhor how some so-called Christians pervert the teachings of Christ in a manner to preach hate and persecution toward people. I know very many fine gay people who I would not hesitate to raise my kids.
( permalink | suggest removal )
80Redux says... April 9, 2011 at 7:55 p.m.
Goo, the viscous lesbian Christian from Wisconsin. She acts like a lesbian from Wisconsin, but not to much like a Christian.
( permalink | suggest removal )
trouble06 says... April 10, 2011 at 12:04 p.m.
Populist better take a look at what your Pres wants to do to funding the poor. You also need to get some facts about PPFA. PP being for women's health is bull S crap it's about the bottom line. The more abotions performed means more money.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.