Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its always funny to see liberals complain that their rights were trampled on, because they dont for a second mind trampling on the rights of conservatives..
Sorry, but in Arkansas you no longer can adopt, even as an unmarried straight woman..
As for the comparisons about zoning for houses, of course they were written strickly for houses, just like this law was written strickly for married couples..
Yep. Ya gotta love preventing people from adopting, or getting married. What the hell, while we're at it let's create a theocracy and we'll be one step closer to full fascism!!
Sorry, but in Arkansas you no longer can adopt, even as an unmarried straight woman..
As for the comparisons about zoning for houses, of course they were written strickly for houses, just like this law was written strickly for married couples..
I don't think that's correct. I think an unmarried person living alone can still adopt. It's a little more challenging to show the DHS that you can provide a stable, loving home, but the law doesn't prohibit single people from adopting. The bias is that a two-parent, two-income couple, legally bound through marriage provide more stability. If one person chooses to stay at home with the children, or if they lose their job, there is another adult providing income to the household and therefore economic stability. Because marriage is a formal, legal commitment, it requires effort and time to dissolve. So marriage is seen as a form of social stability. The interviews and application process is to determine emotional stability.
It should be pointed out that this Act didn't spring up out of nowhere. It's a response to the courts ruling that the old restrictions were discriminatory and Unconstitutional. The legislature refused to pass this legislation because they knew it would end up in the courts. The Arkansas Family Council decided to take it to the people, and campaigned to the conservative church culture. The four children who died in foster care, plus the man who molested several children, filmed it, and distributed that pornography, took the issue to a very emotional level. People thought they were voting to protect children. But the Act won't pass court scrutiny, the legislature will have to pass guidelines that are acceptable to the courts, and the Arkansas Family Council will shift their campaign back to attacking the liberal courts who have overruled the people's voice. Ho-hum.
Right, it's a ban on unmarried COUPLES. It's a ban on placing children in homes where two adults are cohabiting without the formalization of marriage. It's NOT a ban on single people, living alone.
you know, if all the gays got together and moved to a certain state, they could probably have their own little sanctuary. Maybe the Pac NW? Oregon or Washington? That's the beauty of federalism (not that a division of power exists between the federal government and states anymore). Our nation is far too diverse/ungovernable for a one size fits all federal bureaucracy. Can we all just agree to restore the Constitution, slash the size of the federal government by 75%, and live peaceably with one another?
you know, if all the gays got together and moved to a certain state, they could probably have their own little sanctuary. Maybe the Pac NW? Oregon or Washington? That's the beauty of federalism (not that a division of power exists between the federal government and states anymore). Our nation is far too diverse/ungovernable for a one size fits all federal bureaucracy. Can we all just agree to restore the Constitution, slash the size of the federal government by 75%, and live peaceably with one another?
I wish. Unfortunately for some people, living peaceably with eachother means pushing religion and banning certain peoples rights based on something they had no control over. I always feel like a hippie when I say 'Can't we just give peace a chance??'
Nope, not what I said. People who commit to one another for life, and then aren't able (or willing) to stay together, well it's unfortunate but at least at some point they committed before witnesses to give it a shot.
People who don't have that level of commitment to begin with shouldn't be giving birth to begin with, much less adopting someone else's child.
I could even see a single person adopting, but to add a second "parent" who isn't committed to staying in the relationship is a recipe for disaster. There's no blood relation there; neither parent is deeply vested in the relationship so the child is just as easy to leave as the partner.
I take it you are a bible basher?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
