Proposed Ban on Gay Adoptions in Arkansas

Utah is crazy, too- as if its a surprise

Dan Savage has a post up at SLOG jsut now about a committed gay couple that is raising the one man's neices and nephews but the court wants to take them away and put them into the foster care system- for four kids, ranged in age from 10 months to 11 years old, it means they will end up seperating the kids it would be nearly if not completely impossible to find foster homes for the kids altogether, and meaning that if the mother never regains custody they will likely be seperated for life - and what a lovely life that will be... It is the saddest, sickest, least just thing that I've heard about... today...

---

by: Nel Bot @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 13:20:41 PM CDT

Here's why it won't work.

prohibit unmarried couples living together from fostering and adopting children

This will cause unmarried heterosexual couples (as well as any couple, or single person, who has ever fostered or adopted or ever plans to) to rise against the measure.

While the religiously retarded loathe the GLBT community, when they try a stunt like this that prohibits benefits to het couples as well, it fails. Witness Arizona's resistance to the '06 amendment that would have had serious consequences not just to gay couples, but to all unmarried couples.

The gamble is simple: AFC is betting that there are few enough unmarried, het, planning-to-adopt couples to force their stupidity onto the state. Similar bets were made here in AZ and the right-wing fucktards lost. Ideally this will prove true in AR as well.

Of course, even supposing such a ban, it can easily be struck down as unconstitutional; there's no science to back it up. It's simply an attempt to force a narrow religious view onto hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Blogwhoring @ http://indigestible.nightwares.com/

---

by: Warren @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 13:58:51 PM CDT

I disagree with your optimism

Of course, even supposing such a ban, it can easily be struck down as unconstitutional; there's no science to back it up.

Obviously, if this gets into Arkansas' consititution, someone will end up trying to bring a case before to the US Supreme Court.  I see three arguments that the Christian conservative majority on SCOTUS may make:

1) The federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over state laws (and constitutions) when it comes to adoption

2) Married couples are legally more stable than unmarried ones and stable couples make for safer childhoods.

3) Two parents are better than one.

Of course, I think all three of these arguments are BS, but that doesn't mean that SCOTUS won't use them.  Sadly, I get the sense that these days, the majority of SCOTUS doesn't care about making sense or using logic-- rather they try to find arguments that, superficially, seem to justify their pre-existing views on social issues.  The argument that SCOTUS makes will not necessarily rest on whether two loving, non-married partners will make as good of parents as a married couple.  Granted, SCOTUS may be more leary to limit the rights of non-married straight people, than if this amendment only applied to homosexuals.  In any case, if this amendment passes, it's certainly very bad news.

---

by: eastsidekate @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 14:14:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i agree with your disagreement

this won't affect opposite-sex couples in any way.  if the rules surrounding adoption in a state require two people to get married, and those two people definitely want to adopt children, then they will go to the courthouse and sign that paper.  the sanctity of marriage is thus defined: i can go out and pick up a homeless crack addict right now--as long as i make certain she's a woman--who i don't love and never will, and adopt kids with her.  and this fosters strong families how, again?

gays may not be specifically mentioned here, but they damn well know that it's going to hurt them and only them.  this sick measure is to kick gays around and offer no recourse around such a proposal if it gets passed--i can't sign that piece of paper at the courtnouse with someone i love, only with someone i don't .  to the brainless and unthinking supporters of this measure, the ability to effectively raise children has nothing to do with love or ability. 

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 15:25:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so sure...

Maybe I'm projecting my own independence onto others, but my sense is that if a couple is required to be married before they can adopt, they aren't necessarily going to get married so they can adopt.

I suppose a lot of it will depend on how the issue is presented to the voters. But based on the sole idea of "only married people can adopt", I can't see the initiative passing a serious legal challenge anyway.

Blogwhoring @ http://indigestible.nightwares.com/

---

by: Warren @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 17:05:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so sure...

Maybe I'm projecting my own independence onto others, but my sense is that if a couple is required to be married before they can adopt, they aren't necessarily going to get married so they can adopt.

I suppose a lot of it will depend on how the issue is presented to the voters. But based on the sole idea of "only married people can adopt", I can't see the initiative passing a serious legal challenge anyway.

Blogwhoring @ http://indigestible.nightwares.com/

---

by: Warren @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 17:05:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It isn't just gays who get hurt

Bans like these DON'T hurt only gays and lesbians, they hurt most the kids who desperately need good foster/adoptive parents of any kind - gay, straight, single, married, partnered, whatever.  And that's why I think they will ultimately be doomed.  There are quite a few straight people who are against marriage equality but think if there aren't enough good, straight families around to foster all the kids (and obviously there aren't), gays and lesbians are an acceptable, if clearly second class, option.  This kind of ban may pass in a place like Arkansas, but I think there are several states where marriage bans have passed that something like this will NOT pass.     

---

by: kt @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 23:53:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

easily struck down?

not really.  first, a supreme court would have to agree to hear the suit challenging it (they don't have to).  then, they would have to stick to quality legal reasoning.  in most marriage equality supreme court cases, the courts have indeed been "activist" and shown their willingness to find non-legal reasons for keeping status quo (like marriage is all about raising children, and related drivel).

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 18:04:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, why would anybody care about the kids?

Ok, just to get this right: no lottery to fund college scholar ships but an amendment that prohibits kids from finding a foster home?

Aren't those the same people who are against abortion?  First force kids to be born into broken families, then limit the number of foster families and finally don't think about how to finance education?   Good going, christian nuts!  

---

by: rupi3000 @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 14:50:27 PM CDT

It will pass.

They couldn't get a bill passed by the Legislature last year because there were just enough of the members there with brains.  However, going directly to the people will dredge up all of the knuckle-draggers and this will pass without any problems.

They passed the anti-marriage amendment in '04 (I think) with 75% of the people voting for it.  They'll have a smaller margin with this initiative, but it will probably still pass because, well, it's Arkansas.

---

by: jeffala @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 14:56:43 PM CDT

States

I'm very fortunate to live in a state where all constitutional amendments and ballot initiatives have to go through the state legislature and the governor first before being placed on a ballot.  This helps prevent any wingnut group with a prejudiced agenda from making laws based on their own biases; thereby protecting minorities.  It's not always foolproof; such as when the majority of the legislature and governor are of the same mind as the wingnut group.  But, it's far more superior then being left to the bigoted whims of the voting public.

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 16:27:15 PM CDT

Not a Constitutional Amendment

It's only a ballot measure. It can subsequently be overturned by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Arkansas legislature, OR struck down by state judges, OR struck down by federal judges (cf., Nebraska).

Why an initiative rather than a constitutional amendment? I don't know, but I do know that an initiative requires fewer signatures to get on the ballot. Draw your own inferences.

---

by: KipEsquire @ Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 14:31:23 PM CDT