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.
"Senate Bill 158 creates a 'special category' known as licensed CARE families, who would receive 'substantially higher' pay from the state than foster families deemed unacceptable to the CARE program." To qualify as one of there these substantially higher paid foster families, you must be a "churchgoing 'husband and wife team.'"
What's with Kansas and Republicans always trying to give special rights and special benefits to the religious and to heterosexuals? Is giving such special rights to favored majorities something government should be using its power to do?
As noted above, it is a senate bill, it is a state matter, it is probably an excellent idea. Why don't you mind your own states business?
This is not about who can be a foster parent, but about which foster parents get extra money from the state.
Foster parents A get extra money, then foster parents B should also get the extra funding regardless of the sex of the parents.
It is perfectly legal in Kansas to prefer one over the other. Gays are not a protected class. In most states, discrimination over sexual orientation or gender identity is completely within the law. Marriage "may" be different as it is considered a "right" by some court decisions. Foster parenting is not a right. The level of reimbursement is not a right.
If there is any case here for discrimination in violation of the law, it may be with the kids. They are not being treated equally because of the situation in which the state placed them.
He also questioned why the state would put into statute specific relationship requirements.
Erin Teeter, director of foster care for Wichita Children’s Home, had similar questions about the bill.
Teeter said one of the children’s home’s best foster parents is a retired widow and that same-sex couples have proven to be capable foster parents.
“My concern is that we’re basing it entirely on morality,” she said. “Mine and yours might be different perspectives. We have several homes in this community that are homes with maybe two dads that are fantastic homes. And at the same time we might have a home that is lackluster that fits this criteria. I don’t think this is a criteria that shows a good foster home.”
Foster parenting is not a right - it is an obligation granted after meeting specific criteria. Most states, including Kansas, do not protect gay persons from discrimination. They are not covered under the civil rights act.
Um, the Civil Rights Act regulates discrimination between private entities, and discrimination by government in some very specific situations such as voting and public education - the CRA is completely irrelevant in this situation.
This would be a state government discriminating against its citizens generally. That falls under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
It would be just like Kansas passing a law saying gay people can't get driver's licences and drive on the public roadways of Kansas. Or Kansas passing a law saying gay people having anal sex is illegal, but straight people having anal sex isn't. Or perhaps just like Kansas passing a law saying gay people can't civilly marry in the state of Kansas but straight people can.
"Senate Bill 158 creates a 'special category' known as licensed CARE families, who would receive 'substantially higher' pay from the state than foster families deemed unacceptable to the CARE program." To qualify as one of there these substantially higher paid foster families, you must be a "churchgoing 'husband and wife team.'"
What's with Kansas and Republicans always trying to give special rights and special benefits to the religious and to heterosexuals? Is giving such special rights to favored majorities something government should be using its power to do?
Why haven't the Republican legislators in Oklahoma thought of this? I don't think it's in one of the their dozen or so anti gay bills.
It is perfectly legal in Kansas to prefer one over the other. Gays are not a protected class. In most states, discrimination over sexual orientation or gender identity is completely within the law. Marriage "may" be different as it is considered a "right" by some court decisions. Foster parenting is not a right. The level of reimbursement is not a right.
If there is any case here for discrimination in violation of the law, it may be with the kids. They are not being treated equally because of the situation in which the state placed them.
You're mixing up your laws. "Protected Class" refers to classes (such as race, religion, sexual orientation) in anti-discrimination laws that regulate conduct between private entities (such as businesses and customers).
This type of discrimination by a state government would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The question there is what are "Suspect" and "Quasi-Suspect" "classes." Suspect classes get strict scrutiny, quasi-suspect classes get intermediate scrutiny, and all other classes get rational review.
Um, the Civil Rights Act regulates discrimination between private entities, and discrimination by government in some very specific situations such as voting and public education - the CRA is completely irrelevant in this situation.
This would be a state government discriminating against its citizens generally. That falls under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
It would be just like Kansas passing a law saying gay people can't get driver's licences and drive on the public roadways of Kansas. Or Kansas passing a law saying gay people having anal sex is illegal, but straight people having anal sex isn't. Or perhaps just like Kansas passing a law saying gay people can't civilly marry in the state of Kansas but straight people can.
Several states prohibit gay adoption. Several states prohibit gay foster parents. Obviously, many do not agree with that arguing that the 14th applies; but it remains legal until the courts say otherwise.
So that's the agenda now? Can't lash out at gays as a group any more, now it's time to try and keep them in their place in contexts where their numbers are smaller?
Sigh. There'll be more sh.t like this. I predict using the term "husband and wife" instead of "married couple" is going to be big in small-mind lawmaking.
So that's the agenda now? Can't lash out at gays as a group any more, now it's time to try and keep them in their place in contexts where their numbers are smaller?
Sigh. There'll be more sh.t like this. I predict using the term "husband and wife" instead of "married couple" is going to be big in small-mind lawmaking.
If they just changed the wording to married couple, I think they would have a pretty reasonable law here. But, as written and surely as intended, this law is aimed at gays and non-church going persons.
Drat! Now I can't go the Kansas and make a living fostering kids because I do not meet at least six of those qualifications. IMHO - Sending children to one of the homes that meet those "rules" is effectively punishment for the crime of being born to idiots.
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.
