Fear Of Fags rampant in Arkansas

[Liar]

And I'm not talking about the Wesboro dipshits. Although I'm sure they giggle with glee over this.

Because really, what can this proposal be, other than a "let's save kids from any risk of having a gay parent" measure?

---------------

11:30 a.m. - Adoption Foster Ban Proposal Approved for November Ballot

Reported by: KARK 4 News
Monday, Aug 25, 2008 @11:30am CST

The Secretary of State's office has approved the necessary signatures for an initiated act proposal, which bans co-habitating couples from adopting or fostering children, to appear on the November 4th ballot.

From a press release Jerry Cox, president of Family Council Action Committee, said the Secretary of State’s validation of over 85,000 signatures of registered voters for the Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act is well over the required 62,000 and clears the way for passage in November.

“I couldn’t be any more pleased,” said Cox. “Overall about 90% of our signatures were valid. This is a great compliment to the hard work of over 2,500 volunteers and over 1,000 churches and other groups all across Arkansas who pitched in to make this happen.”

Arkansas Families First opposes the measure. The group says they've seen mistakes with Notaries and doubt the canvassers collecting signatures, actually witnessed 200 signatures in one day, as some documents report. State law requires those collecting signatures to watch the voter sign his or her name.

Arkansas Families First plans to file a legal challenge in the state supreme court, objecting to the signatures and the ballot title which says "that it is in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care to be reared in homes in which adoptive or foster parents are not cohabitating outside of marriage."

Secretary of State Charlie Daniels reported that Monday's certification brings the group’s valid signature total to 85,389. 61,974 valid signatures, or eight percent of the total number of votes cast for Governor in 2006, are required to get a proposed initiated act on the 2008 ballot.

On August 21, the group submitted petitions with 32,061 signatures to the Secretary of State. 27,501 were determined to belong to Arkansas registered voters. On July 7, the group submitted 65,972 signatures of which 57,888 were determined to belong to valid Arkansas voters. Under Arkansas law, ballot issue sponsors have 30 days from the date of notification of insufficiency to collect additional signatures.

 

[R. Richard]

I feel that your analysis of the situation is inaccurate. Yes, the news item does indicate FOF, however, it also indicates a strong fear of lesbians. Why is it that you seem reluctant to pursue that aspect of the situation?

 

[Shwenn]

"that it is in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care to be reared in homes in which adoptive or foster parents are not cohabitating outside of marriage."

And here I thought it was in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care that they get adoption or foster care.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The title of this thread aroused a "duh," reaction in me.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lesbians are okay; I never met a lesbian who wasnt appropriate and a good parent, but the Rainbow Rangers are another story. Every fag we used as a foster parent was in it for the sex. It was a constant problem.

 

[Liar]

I feel that your analysis of the situation is inaccurate. Yes, the news item does indicate FOF, however, it also indicates a strong fear of lesbians. Why is it that you seem reluctant to pursue that aspect of the situation?

A slight English mishap from me. It slipped my mind that Fag is not a gender-neutral slur. Would "Hate Of Homos" work better?

 

[Boxlicker101]

And I'm not talking about the Wesboro dipshits. Although I'm sure they giggle with glee over this.

Because really, what can this proposal be, other than a "let's save kids from any risk of having a gay parent" measure?

---------------

11:30 a.m. - Adoption Foster Ban Proposal Approved for November Ballot

Reported by: KARK 4 News
Monday, Aug 25, 2008 @11:30am CST

The Secretary of State's office has approved the necessary signatures for an initiated act proposal, which bans co-habitating couples from adopting or fostering children, to appear on the November 4th ballot.

From a press release Jerry Cox, president of Family Council Action Committee, said the Secretary of State’s validation of over 85,000 signatures of registered voters for the Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act is well over the required 62,000 and clears the way for passage in November.

“I couldn’t be any more pleased,” said Cox. “Overall about 90% of our signatures were valid. This is a great compliment to the hard work of over 2,500 volunteers and over 1,000 churches and other groups all across Arkansas who pitched in to make this happen.”

Arkansas Families First opposes the measure. The group says they've seen mistakes with Notaries and doubt the canvassers collecting signatures, actually witnessed 200 signatures in one day, as some documents report. State law requires those collecting signatures to watch the voter sign his or her name.

Arkansas Families First plans to file a legal challenge in the state supreme court, objecting to the signatures and the ballot title which says "that it is in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care to be reared in homes in which adoptive or foster parents are not cohabitating outside of marriage."

Secretary of State Charlie Daniels reported that Monday's certification brings the group’s valid signature total to 85,389. 61,974 valid signatures, or eight percent of the total number of votes cast for Governor in 2006, are required to get a proposed initiated act on the 2008 ballot.

On August 21, the group submitted petitions with 32,061 signatures to the Secretary of State. 27,501 were determined to belong to Arkansas registered voters. On July 7, the group submitted 65,972 signatures of which 57,888 were determined to belong to valid Arkansas voters. Under Arkansas law, ballot issue sponsors have 30 days from the date of notification of insufficiency to collect additional signatures.

There is no reference at all to homosexuality, either male or female. They would be included in the ban, of course, but I think it is aimed even more at straight couples living together "without benefit of clergy."

Either way, it's a crock.

 

[Weird Harold]

Because really, what can this proposal be, other than a "let's save kids from any risk of having a gay parent" measure?

...
Reported by: KARK 4 News
Monday, Aug 25, 2008 @11:30am CST

The Secretary of State's office has approved the necessary signatures for an initiated act proposal, which bans co-habitating couples from adopting or fostering children, to appear on the November 4th ballot.
...

While the wording would certainly ban same sex couples from adopting or fostering, the target seems to be Un-Married couples and the intent to shield children from the evil influence of anyone "Living In Sin."

Not all moral outrage is directed at GLBT people, not even for the homophobes in the middle of the Bible Belt.

 

[Shwenn]

There is no reference at all to homosexuality, either male or female. They would be included in the ban, of course, but I think it is aimed even more at straight couples living together "without benefit of clergy."

Either way, it's a crock.

I think it is definitely aimed at homosexuals. This law adds a requirement for heterosexuals to adopt while making it legally impossible for homosexuals to adopt.

I don't think that is lost on anybody.

But let's check out The Family Council Action Committee website just to confirm what we already know. Here we have the home page description of their organization:

"The Family Council Action Committee is dedicated to promoting, protecting, and strengthening traditional family values through the political process. The Action Committee is a state-wide grassroots organization involved in ensuring the confirmation of conservative judicial nominees, protecting the Arkansas Marriage Amendment, and dealing with issues such as the expansion of gambling"

A quick consultation with Uncle Google reveals that the Arkansas Marriage Amendment, the prime motivator for this organization, is a ban on gay marriage.

Convinced?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Of course its aimed at homosexual males. Theyre a big fucking problem for kiddies. Lesbians dont have the same issues as the guys, and are rarely, if ever, a problem. But the men! OMG

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think it is definitely aimed at homosexuals. This law adds a requirement for heterosexuals to adopt while making it legally impossible for homosexuals to adopt.

I don't think that is lost on anybody.

But let's check out The Family Council Action Committee website just to confirm what we already know. Here we have the home page description of their organization:

"The Family Council Action Committee is dedicated to promoting, protecting, and strengthening traditional family values through the political process. The Action Committee is a state-wide grassroots organization involved in ensuring the confirmation of conservative judicial nominees, protecting the Arkansas Marriage Amendment, and dealing with issues such as the expansion of gambling"

A quick consultation with Uncle Google reveals that the Arkansas Marriage Amendment, the prime motivator for this organization, is a ban on gay marriage.

Convinced?

I think you are probably right. BTW, welcome to Literotica and the AH.

Any couple that would want to adopt or foster would pretty much have to be in a committed, long-term relationship. If they are a straight couple, and there are no impediments, such as a spouse who is missing but still legally married, they would probably wed and avoid other hassles. A same sex couple can be just as committed, but unable to marry, so they would be more lkely to want to adopt or foster. Of course, either gay or straight couples would be included in the ban.

BTW, JBJ, I would assume that, before any adoption or fostering arangement is made, the prospective parents would undergo a careful screening for pedophiliac tendencies, and this would apply to either gay or straight couples. Michael Jackson, even though he was acquitted, would probably be banned from adopting anybody.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOX

The screening rarely does any good. During the 20 years I worked for the state they were constantly weeding gay pedophiles out of the system, and all of these men passed criminal checks. I cant recall one lesbian who was ever apprehended, but the guys were always up to no good.

 

[Belegon]

While I think the legislation is aimed at homosexual couples, I highly suspect that the proponents of the measure consider the ability of it to prevent non-married heterosexual couple that are less likely to be active in the church-going community a very beneficial side-effect.

A lot of them types a couples be godless heathens and hippies, ya know...

No equal opportunity childcare, just equal opportunity discrimination.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So....only godless perverts get to adopt?

Maybe kids need moms & dads? The idea has been optimal for several 1000 years.

 

[Liar]

JBJ, the question is irrelevant. There are too many orphaned kids and not enough adoptive parents anyway. And one good parent is a hell of a lot better than none.

 

[Boxlicker101]

JBJ, the question is irrelevant. There are too many orphaned kids and not enough adoptive parents anyway. And one good parent is a hell of a lot better than none.

Generally speaking, that's true, but the wrong person can make life hell on earth for a kid. So can the wrong two persons, for that matter, and it doesn't matter whether they are natural or adoptive or foster parents.

 

[Liar]

Generally speaking, that's true, but the wrong person can make life hell on earth for a kid.

Yah. That's why I said good parent.

No offense, but: Duh.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

NO, it isnt irrelevant. Kids need moms and dads. Adoption isnt a feel-good program for freaks.

 

[Liar]

NO, it isnt irrelevant. Kids need moms and dads. Adoption isnt a feel-good program for freaks.

Wow. Three sentences that have nothing to do with each other.

Nor with the point I made.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

I understand you perfectly. Youre in favor of homosexuals adopting kids; you see these guys as noble Samaritans wanting to help the children.

I think theyre pedophile freaks.

I mean, you have to ask yourself the question: What does any single guy/guys want with a kid?

 

[jackell99]

Here's an idea...

So if this passes the referendum, and you're part of a gay couple looking to adopt... why not move the hell out of Arkansas?
It's obvious you're not welcome there, so why stay?
I'm not welcome at Klan gatherings, so you know what, I don't go!
I'm not welcome at the Sin City Disciples cLub house, so I don't go there.
I'm not welcome at my uncle's house, so I don't go there.
I prefer to live, work and be around people who tend to think like I do on issues I see as key to my existence.
Why is that such a hard concept for some people?
Jeesh!

 

[rgraham666]

Perhaps because bigotry shouldn't be enacted into law?

 

[impressive]

Perhaps because bigotry shouldn't be enacted into law?

Word! I don't want MY tax dollars supporting it, that's for damned sure.

 

[tolyk]

So if this passes the referendum, and you're part of a gay couple looking to adopt... why not move the hell out of Arkansas?
It's obvious you're not welcome there, so why stay?
I'm not welcome at Klan gatherings, so you know what, I don't go!
I'm not welcome at the Sin City Disciples cLub house, so I don't go there.
I'm not welcome at my uncle's house, so I don't go there.
I prefer to live, work and be around people who tend to think like I do on issues I see as key to my existence.
Why is that such a hard concept for some people?
Jeesh!

Why should they have to leave Arkanas because 8 measley percent of the voting population doesn't think they should have the right to adopt?

Why should anyone of any sexual orientation have to pack up and leave because of that same 8%'s opinion. That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

 

[jackell99]

There is a mechanism

If eight percent of the population get to decide something is law than 92 percent of that same population need swallow what they're handed with a steaming hot cup of shut the fuck up and learn to deal with it. Because they had the chance to be heard and didn't take it.
And if 51 percent of the voting populace think bigotry should be the law in Arkansas than it will be and you will have the option of moving the hell out or learning to live with it.

The only reason ritual sacrafice is considered wrong is because a majority of people felt it should be.