While the
federal government teetered on the brink of a shutdown over budget issues, including Republicans' opposition to abortion funding, Arkansas went in the opposite direction this week.
It's Supreme Court ruled that the state law barring same-sex couples from adopting violated individuals’ right to privacy.
The Huffington Post reported that the court overturned Act 1, a 2008 voter-approved ballot measure that prohibited unmarried couples who live together from adopting children, which, in essence, shut out gay and lesbian couples because they are not allowed to marry in the state.
"Act 1 directly and substantially burdens the privacy rights of 'opposite-sex and same-sex individuals' who engage in private, consensual sexual conduct in the bedroom by foreclosing their eligibility to foster or adopt children, should they choose to cohabit with their sexual partner," read the court ruling. "The pressure on such couples to live apart, should they wish to foster or adopt children, is clearly significant."
In making its decision, the court argued that one of the plaintiffs in the case, Sheila Cole, was forced to make a “pernicious choice” when trying to adopt her granddaughter, who was put in foster care because Cole was not allowed to adopt her.
"[Cole] can either give up her fundamental right to sexual intimacy in her home free from investigation by the State into her sexual practices in order to adopt or foster or forego the privilege of having children by adoption or fostering," the court wrote. "We hold that the burden inflicted on her is direct and substantial."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought the case on behalf of a group of same-sex couples, arguing that it wouldn’t allow a relative, gay or straight, from adopting or fostering a child who they are close to as long as they were unmarried and living with a partner.
Angry about the ruling, the president of the Act 1 boosting Family Council Action Committee (FCAC) lamented that the ruling was an act of “judicial tyranny” and that the act was passed only to ensure that children were placed in the best possible homes. The FCAC is likely to appeal.
Do you agree with the same-sex adoption ruling?
Same sex couples have just as much of a right now adopt as anyone else.
Im not talking some san fran hedonists throwing queer orgies on the weekend, but stable gay dudes or dudettes deciding to go off and be miserable together, and then chosing to provide a stable loving home for a child. How can that be bad for America?
PS: it was so bad the cops got sick of showing up and would take forever and a day to come and end the beating, so freaking sad.
But im still left wondering if I have the right to paint the entire community with a generalization, even given what ive observed. If the home is stable and loving, what really is the difference?
I feel if people would realise that 'gay' feelings are part of normal development, and usually are of a transient nature, unless social development is hampered, or there is undue pressure on the individual, usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment.
when problems of sexual identity occour as the individual is so pressured, development can be delayed or retarded, o...
I feel if people would realise that 'gay' feelings are part of normal development, and usually are of a transient nature, unless social development is hampered, or there is undue pressure on the individual, usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment.
when problems of sexual identity occour as the individual is so pressured, development can be delayed or retarded, or the individual may stay with the label they have so as to have a quieter life, or they may be very shy or lack confidence, and may end up in an abusive relationship out of fear, enduring the equivalent of rape on a regular basis. A similar thing happens to some children of heterosexual parents. The whole thing stinks, but I agree that a test for suitability for being a parent should be given to any prospective parenting couple, and a dilligent enquiry into their past behaviour and any usuitable actions towards children should immediately put a stop to their move to adopt. If I were in the situation where a child of mine was to be put to adoption, I would make it an absolute condition that it would only be allowed to be placed with a married man and woman of good character (to be assessed) I know from divine proscription that same-sex active relationships are outlawed by heaven, and I wouldn't want my child to be in an environment where he or she would be exposed to such a relationship, with perhaps the idea implanted that such a relationship can be 'all right', for it is not, inherently.
You can love someone without having a sexual relationship with them - I think that people who have those feelings would do best if they decide not to follow them, but to mix and get to know many people of both sexes in a safe moral environment, so they can assess thier own feelings without being pressured. Restraint is a wonderful thing. If you never do the harmful thing, the harm doesn't come.
Sounds like the best thing to do would be for you to raise the child yourself. Wouldn't want to risk your chance at eternity.
" usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment. "
- I would love to see your source on this. Because it's outrageously inaccurate. If it were true, such behavior could be easily corrected through psychiatry, but as has been proven empirically, it's not something one gets "cured" from. It is not a learned behavior. A "learned behavior" is to repeat that nonsense.
And you shouldn't use such an anecdote to mire your decision. A heterosexual couple kidnapped a young girl and raped her repeatedly. She was held hostage for years during this abuse. Yet I still believe heterosexual couples should be able to adopt kids.
" usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment. "
- I would love to see your source on this. Because it's outrageously inaccurate. If it were true, such behavior could be easily corrected through psychiatry, but as has been proven empirically, it's not something one gets "cured" from. It is not a learned behavior. A "learned behavior" is to repeat that nonsense."
My source on this is from my own contacts and experience, from my own common sense, and I wonder why you say "Because it's outrageously inaccurate", and then go on to say "if it were true -- could easily be corrected through Psychiatry --- proven empirically, and mention a 'learned behaviour'. and being 'cured' from.
Which definition of empirically are you using - see below - (websters dictionary)
Definition of EMPIRICAL
1
: originating in or based on ob...
" usually from some homosexual or lesbian person of their aquaintance, or there is little opportunity to meet people of the opposite sex in a non-threatening and unpressured safe environment. "
- I would love to see your source on this. Because it's outrageously inaccurate. If it were true, such behavior could be easily corrected through psychiatry, but as has been proven empirically, it's not something one gets "cured" from. It is not a learned behavior. A "learned behavior" is to repeat that nonsense."
My source on this is from my own contacts and experience, from my own common sense, and I wonder why you say "Because it's outrageously inaccurate", and then go on to say "if it were true -- could easily be corrected through Psychiatry --- proven empirically, and mention a 'learned behaviour'. and being 'cured' from.
Which definition of empirically are you using - see below - (websters dictionary)
Definition of EMPIRICAL
1
: originating in or based on observation or experience
2
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3
: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4
: of or relating to empiricism
If you wish for more detail, and risk learning more than you have now, email me, and I will give you more, and links to help you understand why I say these things. Cured is a bit vague, but many people who start out believing they 'are gay' have had help to overcome this, and have come to understand and see themselves differently. Currently, there is a movement to try and prevent therapists helping those who wish to move towards 'being straight', with claims it cannot be done - yet is has been and is in process of being done - see definition 3, and the fact it is being successfully done is according to this definition, something you can get "cured" from, and therefore a revision of ideas is in order - a deeper understanding is needed. You tend to splash a few conclusions around as if you know what you speak of - I should also like to see your sources. However, from my perspective of the ideas you are displaying, It is part of the push to have 'gay' relationships normalised in this society, which is not a good idea in my book, and such ideas can take a lot of overcoming by someone with those feelings who desires not to have them. Thank you for your comment - it has given me pause for thought, as they say. Hope to hear from you via email
What that means, in "simple" terms is that vulnerable minorities should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. It means that a voter majority shouldn't be able to institute things like slavery (outlawed in the Constitution) or institute another ban on interracial marriage. 40 years ago people thought it was "disgusting" (drawing from other comments on this topic) for a black person and a white person to marry and that it was against God's will. Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
It boggles my mind when people talk up the Constitution and then think that these blatant violations are Okay. Regardless of what you think, the Constitution is there for a reason. If you think it's sick, that's your business. Guess what, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is sick but it's their Constitutional right to be so offensive. They believe they're following God's will, so if you're really so "disgusted" by two men (or two women) adopting a child because "God said so," keep in mind that that you've got your share of sick creeps dancing on soldiers' graves because they think "God said so." Keep in mind also that God said that greed is no better than homosexuality, and tha...
What that means, in "simple" terms is that vulnerable minorities should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. It means that a voter majority shouldn't be able to institute things like slavery (outlawed in the Constitution) or institute another ban on interracial marriage. 40 years ago people thought it was "disgusting" (drawing from other comments on this topic) for a black person and a white person to marry and that it was against God's will. Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
It boggles my mind when people talk up the Constitution and then think that these blatant violations are Okay. Regardless of what you think, the Constitution is there for a reason. If you think it's sick, that's your business. Guess what, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is sick but it's their Constitutional right to be so offensive. They believe they're following God's will, so if you're really so "disgusted" by two men (or two women) adopting a child because "God said so," keep in mind that that you've got your share of sick creeps dancing on soldiers' graves because they think "God said so." Keep in mind also that God said that greed is no better than homosexuality, and that when you prattle on about the Liberal Agenda being against God, the Conservative agenda of defending excessive greed is just as full of fault "in God's eyes." So let's just keep our religion where God said to keep it, private.
As has been proven through years of study, a child raised by a same-sex couple is just as well-adjusted as one raised from a heterosexual couple. The sex of the parents DOES NOT MATTER, only that there are TWO of them. This is fact. Your own preferences do not matter. If you don't want same-sex couples adopting babies, put your money where your mouth is and adopt all of those children so that there are no children left for same-sex couples to adopt, because all you're doing right now is hurting the children with your bigotry.
You can eat your picture now with a spoon.
In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be leveled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper.
But I confess that I do conceive that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body.
The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be leveled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies,
namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power.
But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government,
but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority."
James Madison truely understood the power of a majority when it could easily focus on a minority and that was his greatest concern in introducing the Bill of Rights to be included in the US Constitution.