[PurpleLove08]

Anyone feel really strongly on the issue?

[Stormcrow73]

This is the initiative to prevent unmarried couples from fostering children right?

I feel very strongly that it should be bounced from the ballot as unconstitutional. Barring that, a resounding defeat would be very good for the state's children. At least Beebe is now beginning to state he's opposed to it even if it is reserved opposition.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow73

This is the initiative to prevent unmarried couples from fostering children right?

I feel very strongly that it should be bounced from the ballot as unconstitutional. Barring that, a resounding defeat would be very good for the state's children. At least Beebe is now beginning to state he's opposed to it even if it is reserved opposition.

I have such mixed feelings, my hubby and I have bee tossing it back and forth. I will probably vote NO, There are so many foster kids and not nearly enough homes. We had a friend (single guy) who took in foster boys in their teens when we lived in NM. No one could have tried harder to be a good role model for these boys. Then I think about other foster parents, especially single ones and I cringe. Of course this can happen with married as well as unmarried couples.

My problem lies more with the adoption issue than the foster parenting.

Nita

[Stormcrow73]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I have such mixed feelings, my hubby and I have bee tossing it back and forth. I will probably vote NO, There are so many foster kids and not nearly enough homes. We had a friend (single guy) who took in foster boys in their teens when we lived in NM. No one could have tried harder to be a good role model for these boys. Then I think about other foster parents, especially single ones and I cringe. Of course this can happen with married as well as unmarried couples.

My problem lies more with the adoption issue than the foster parenting.

Nita

My opposition is 2-fold. Number 1 is the fact that this could eliminate a lot of potential homes for children and I can't in imagine anyone would think it's better for them to stay in institutional settings than be placed with a family, regardless of the family's orientation or marital status. Number 2 is the obvious fact this is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent gay couples from fostering children. If this passes, our state will be at the heart of a tornado of litigation. And we certainly don't need that.

As for the argument of this possibly eliminating some less than capable single foster parents: on the first, I do not think this has ANY bearing on single foster parents, only unwed couples; secondly the task of weeding out those who are not capable should fall to interviewers and full background checks with plenty of oversight follow-ups and not a blanket statement of "No Confidence" from the state.

Why should we invite the litigation???

[Sam I Am]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow73

secondly the task of weeding out those who are not capable should fall to interviewers and full background checks with plenty of oversight follow-ups and not a blanket statement of "No Confidence" from the state.

Why should we invite the litigation???

If I had much faith in DHS and their ability to be able to follow through on things it would help. As it is, we have precious few resources for follow up, and an interview is only as good as the person doing the note-taking. And I don't have a solution for that; I think DHS has been run poorly for many, many years, and more children are probably at risk of long term problems from being in the system than they would be in a single parent home - or gay parent home, or whatever. The DHS track record is abysmal, but the whole system needs an intense overhaul.

All that being said - get those kids into caring homes. I completely agree it is a smokescreen to ward off gay couples fostering. The idea that marriage will make a more secure environment is bunk anyway...you have a 50/50 chance of making it whether you're blessed by God or not. (tongue in cheek there, folks..nothing against traditional marriage, I've done it several times ). If there are people married, single, gay, purple, or mixed Martians out there who are willing to house children in need, get 'em in and get 'em started - the kids need them.

[Stormcrow73]

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

If I had much faith in DHS and their ability to be able to follow through on things it would help. As it is, we have precious few resources for follow up, and an interview is only as good as the person doing the note-taking. And I don't have a solution for that; I think DHS has been run poorly for many, many years, and more children are probably at risk of long term problems from being in the system than they would be in a single parent home - or gay parent home, or whatever. The DHS track record is abysmal, but the whole system needs an intense overhaul.

All that being said - get those kids into caring homes. I completely agree it is a smokescreen to ward off gay couples fostering. The idea that marriage will make a more secure environment is bunk anyway...you have a 50/50 chance of making it whether you're blessed by God or not. (tongue in cheek there, folks..nothing against traditional marriage, I've done it several times ). If there are people married, single, gay, purple, or mixed Martians out there who are willing to house children in need, get 'em in and get 'em started - the kids need them.

Amen to that!

[RTTNFAM]

I guess I will be the one person on here who thinks that a veil or not, that I will vote yes! I will also say that my faith would not allow me to feel that placing children in a gay household is "ok". IMO it is not! I also do not believe that a single parent home is as ideal as a home with a mom and a dad. Growing up in a single parent home I know the complications and hardships that can come of it. In all reality, whether people choose to believe it or not, this measure is just trying to ensure that children are placed in the best possible scenario. Most these children have been through enough as it is, they don't need placed in another controversial spot!

[strumpeace]

This is the second election in which anti-gay people have put an issue on the ballot in order to ensure that Arkansas goes for the Republican Presidential candidate. It's a smokescreen.

I'm opposed to the initiative. It's bigotry, pure and simple.

[Stormcrow73]

Originally Posted by RTTNFAM

I guess I will be the one person on here who thinks that a veil or not, that I will vote yes! I will also say that my faith would not allow me to feel that placing children in a gay household is "ok". IMO it is not! I also do not believe that a single parent home is as ideal as a home with a mom and a dad. Growing up in a single parent home I know the complications and hardships that can come of it. In all reality, whether people choose to believe it or not, this measure is just trying to ensure that children are placed in the best possible scenario. Most these children have been through enough as it is, they don't need placed in another controversial spot!

Let me ask you this very pointed question: Would you have rather grown up in a single parent household where you were loved and nurtured as best as possible or would you rather have grown up in an institution with "The State" as your sole caretaker? That's really the breadth of options we're talking about here. There isn't much in between.

[bchris02]

As far as I know gays already are banned from adopting in this state. If that's so, then this is just a political move to rally the troops to vote for McCain. On one side it's good people are standing up for moral values, but on the other side this only re-enforces our image as a backward state. I am going to vote no regardless of my personal feelings on the issue.