Arkansas Blog

Whoa! Guess I'm going to have to rethink my screen name! Nah, the huckster will be back soon...

Bush gets rebuked AND descrimination is deemed unconstitutional? Oh happy day!!!

I sense a new constitutional amendment appearing soon on a ballot near you.

must be sign of the times where
a ruling that says loving people
who want to give a foster child
a loving home is a big deal.

props to the arkansas supreme
court.

must be sign of the times ...
Posted by: upstate ny bill

It has been a rough couple of weeks for the far right. Between defeat on estate taxes, their failed amendments and this ruling, they must be sensing some sort of change in the mood of things. A wounded elephant is dangerous. We must be on guard.

The fecal matter will hit the Kelvinator over this one. Conservative Christian Coalition types will have a fit. But the fact is there are so many unloved, unwanted children with nowhere to go that gay couples would be a tremedous improvement over their current situation. If the dissenters to this opinion would support sex ed (and the associated use of condoms & other birth control) this woudn't be quite as big of an issue. I know they believe the power of prayer will keep teens from having sex. But what prayer has the most effect, a girl praying to be celibate several times a day or a boy praying to be uncelibate several time an hour??? Hooray for the Supreme Court having the intestinal fortitude to deal with this in certainly what will be a firestorm.

FYI, we have a PDF of the opinion on the ACLU website page about the case, just click my name for the link.

"I sense a new constitutional amendment appearing soon on a ballot near you"

I see a federal case looming if such an amendment appears.

Any legal minds wanna pontificate regarding what will happen when such an amenment passes?

Why do we keep bringing up gays during election years? This is going to hurt us at the ballot box. There will be big time backlash against this. I can already hear Jim Holt stoking his fires of hate for votes. This was the right thing to do at the wrong time.

What are the political implications of this decision?

Will Jim Holt cite it as another example of an activist court that is more dangerous than al Quaeda?

Will Mike Beebe try to say he is neither pro-gay foster parent nor anti-gay foster parent?

Will Asa!, Holt and the other GOP candidates try to make this into a campaign issue and try to paint Democrats as pro-gay?

Too late to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year...deadline to turn in 80,000+ signatures is next Friday (July 7). So it won't produce a swelling of turnout as in '04 with the marriage amendment.

Let the prognosticating begin...

I have trouble believing that there is EVER a wrong time to do the right thing.

Its a good day for Arkansas foster Children.

In response to
"I have trouble believing that there is EVER a wrong time to do the right thing."

I do not wish that the decision would have been different, and political considerations should not decide when courts make decisions.

That said, while you comment makes good common sense -- that is no substitute for good political judgment. I think the timing of this is unfortunate.

In politics, sometimes doing the right thing at the wrong time results in a lot more bad things happening all the time.

If you do the right thing before the general public is ready to accept it there can be a political backlash and those who demagogue can get complete control of all elected government.

Studies? Who needs studies?

My gut tells me that gays are repulsive--ergo, incapable of being foster parents.

My heart tells me that gays are not repulsive, and are quite capable of being foster parents.

My gut tells me repubs are repulsive and my eyes and ears concur.

I wonder if homo parents will try to have sex with their children as often as heterosexual parents do?

Also how will Holters equate this issue with other great Commie conspiracies like minimum wage and preK education? Oh! This is a Christain moral issue, right? In some great sweep of the hand they all become issues of "our way".
_

"My gut tells me that gays are repulsive."

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Does your gut tell you that orphans should be wards of the state -- a state that you, as an average Republican, probably think is incompetent?

Why should we listen to our gut anyway? Everybody knows that the gut is usually full of s***.

I bet one of your 10 closest friends or family members is gay. What does your gut tell you now? It's your brain that ought to be in gear for a change.

Hooray for foster kids. Hooray for Arkansas. Any kid that needs a home should have one. Thank goodness there are good Christian people, straight or gay, who take them in and give them a chance. Way to go Supreme Court of AR! Anyone who is willing to love a child and protect them should be allowed. Those people who stand outside abortion clinics preaching hell and damnation could sure learn a lesson about love and how better to spend their time and money. I've stopped to talk to them before and they never seem to have done too much to care for unwanted children.

"There is no substitute for what God and nature intended."

I can't believe I agree with Delay though I'm not quite sure how he is so sure what God's intentions were. Given the overwhelming evidence that gay people have been around for a long time and don't seem to be disappearing, doesn't it seem that they were actually part of plan? We're all God's children and are to love each other.

I am a lesbian with my own home, a good life and established professional career. I cannot have children myself due to a severe medical issue resolved a few years ago. Why, if I have a loving home located 4 doors down from a good elementary school, 3 loving dogs, room to spare and an open and loving heart cannot foster children who are lost in a state system that cannot help them?

What makes me such a threat?

God bless you AR Supreme Court. I will pursue my application now for fostering. Thank You!

Indeed, a victory for kids in need of a home...way to go Ark. Sup.!

If the legislator expects not to get their head handed back to them by the Court (AR or US) if they try to pass another constitutional amendment like this one, they better find a way to outlaw divorce since every single parent family is suspect under the approach that DeLay wants to take.

I guess that if an Arkansas soldier dies in Bush's war, his children would be taken away from the widow unless she rapidly remarries.

Someone needs to stand back and take a real hard look at the logic of any of these homophobic approaches.

My brain tells me the Court made the correct decision.

Gunner Delay is gutless, brainless, and has no heart. He is gutless because he could have set himself apart from the herd mentality and shown that he is his own man.

He is brainless, in this case, because like most republicans, he is against activist court unless they rule against what they believe in - and at that point they seem to want the courts to act as super-legislators. This case was decided on the facts, and only the facts. The administrative agency had no statutory basis to disallow gay persons (persons of gayness? I get my PC terms confused) or enact regulations based on their biased view of what constitutes morality.

It would be activist to find that an administrative agency may promulgate ( I love that word) regulations that are outside the scope of its legislative authority. Its not an administrative agency's role to decide what is moral or immoral ( and in this case its not the general assembly's either, but I bet they feel differently)

" Delay was a state senator I believe. Why didn't he or Jim Holt, or the Huckster just whip out a law that gave the administrative agency legislative authority to ban gay people, hispanics or whatever other minority group they might be hating on that day? There is only so much hate one person can spread I suppose. How many hours until some rep or senator from Zinc Ark or somewhere close proposes such a bill?

Last, Gunner "Lil' Tom" Delay has no heart. People don?t chose to be gay anymore than they chose what race or gender they are born. One day, the religious bigots in this state will understand that all homosexuals want is to be able to love and live like the rest of us.

"The negative social impact of the past 30 years of epidemic fatherlessness should be enough evidence to convince us that purposely removing either gender from the home is a bad idea. "

Yeah, my dad split when I was 8 and cut off all contact.
Here I sit on skid row--2 degrees, great 7 year marriage, beautiful stepchild, adorable bio child, rewarding career teaching school, 2 story 3 bedroom, 2 acre yard, active member of active church, vote in every election, teach vacation Bible school, have LOTS of gay friends though. That must be the negative social impact he's takling about. Just can't imagine what a drain on society I would have been with a father actually in the home. Puh-lease.

I find it interesting that this was a 7-0 decision.

Someone correct me if I am wrong - but that means Huckabee appointee, and former candidate for attorney general, Betty Dickey was clearly on the pro-gay.

It also means Franklin Poff, appointed by Gov. Huckabee just for this case, also voted pro-gay.

Is Huckabee just not shrewd enough to find some wacko right wing attorney out there who would probably vote how he wanted? What is going on here? And who the hell is Mr. Poof?

I am proudly pro-gay, pro-hetero, pro-bisexual, pro-black, pro-white, pro-Mexican, pro-Asian, pro-handicapped, pro-T-Ball, pro-Methodist, pro-coin collector, pro-left handed, pro-God fearing, pro-atheist, pro-plasma TV, pro-smoking, pro-women, pro-bike riding, pro-pro and pro!

I'm damn near pro anything that is legal and a few things that are currently illegal. I'm anti-liar, hypocrite, bully, and crook and anti-WAR.

Somewhere after WWII we quit fighting Hitler and Tojo and started fighting each other. We're past the point of ridiculousness, it's getting plumb dangerous. Most people would make good parents or foster parents. We only hear about the rotten ones in society. The misery they bring to the world makes for good TV news, selling newspapers and magazines.

I'm male, I'm damn near a sex addict, I love women better than food, I have 2 lovely teenage daughters and I have never for a second thought of them in a sexual manner. If I had, I wouldn't be here typing. I figure gay people to be about the same way. About anything is better than being stuck in an orphanage. I believe your sexuality is set at birth, statistics show more hetero people are molesters than gay people.

This is a good decision today. Only the hate mongers will attack it.

"In politics, sometimes doing the right thing at the wrong time results in a lot more bad things happening all the time."

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure someone would be quick to do), but isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be apolitical in its decisions, even in the timing of them? Anytime they hand down a decision such as this, the rabid right is going to be ready to pounce. And the right has the fabled memory of an elephant.

Think how many children can be helped between now and the day after the November election. That, in my opinion, makes it a timely decision.

And let's not forget that a jackass can bring even a mighty elephant to his knees by kicking him in the right place.

DBI, you were raised RIGHT...as in correct, not as in right and left. I like you.

Perhaps we need a law banning Republicans from being foster parents? Seriously, should we allow children to be raised by such greedy, un-Christian, hate-filled people like Republicans?

If the folks bringing the lawsuit were ONLY concerned about child welfare, I woudn't have much trouble with this decision.

But, the gay-rights community in Massachusetts changed my mind on this one.

When a private Catholic adoption agency exercised its religious prerogative not to place kids with homosexuals, the gay rights community didn't take the high road and say, "no problem--we can already adopt from several other agencies here in Mass, we'll just adopt our children from a different agency. After all, what's really important is that these kids find homes."

No, they had the state enforce their anti-discrimination law and give the adoption agency an ulitimatum--accept gay parents or cease operating. Their message was clear--if we can't adopt these kids, then no one should be able to adopt them. FYI--the Cathlolic agency ceased operating in Massachusetts. Another legal victory "for the kids."

That really troubled me. It makes me wonder if these efforts are truly "for the kids," or it's really just using children as pawns to convince everyone else that your lifestyle is morally acceptable and normal.

It does seem that hate, like poverty, is a vicious cycle and the next generation really deserves a way out. Maybe gay parents are one exit!

"Studies? Who needs studies?

"My gut tells me that gays are repulsive..."

Thank you, Mr. Colbert.

His "gut" probably tells him that orphans need to be sterilized too as they were during the first half of the last century.

I guess they thought that losing ones parents was of a genetic disposition.

With regard to the issue of the Catholic adoption agency in Mass. What most people don't understand is the difference between "public" and "private". "Private" institutions, like churches, when they are behaving as private instittutions, do not have to follow public anti-discrimination laws. For instance, no church has been forced to allow gay people to worship there.

The Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts was contracted by the State of Mass. (a PUBLIC entity) to place the STATE'S foster children. They were supposed to conform to anti-discrimination laws because they were operating in a public capacity. Catholic agencies, when operating privately, can refuse to place kids with gay families. The distinction is vital, and not understood by most Americans. It is at the core of separation of church and state. Massachusetts was essentially endorsing a church-based opinion about gay people, and allowing it as a basis for discrimination, which is against its own anti-discrimination policy. (Which, might I remind you, is state law that is voted on by the people.)

"or it's really just using children as pawns to convince everyone else that your lifestyle is morally acceptable and normal."

As opposed to what, anonybigot? YOUR "morally acceptable and normal lifestyle"?

You proclaim to be some sort of advocate for the well being of orphans, yet you spout intolerance.

Wow, you just made the bold and the blue's point. Maybe we should place orphans with asses like you so you can teach them your "morally acceptable and normal" bigotry, thus ensuring that future generations of Republican carry on your "morally acceptable and normal bigotry."

Except for black kids, or asian kids, or russian kids, or any other kid that isn't "pure"...wouldn't want to taint the Master Race...

How many of you gay-bashers out there have opened your home to a foster child?

Thanks, Arkansas Supreme Court, for a sensible decision that removes an ugly piece of prejudice from the books and at the same time opens the way for more kids to find a home.

Main stream religious community: Speak up and take back your Christianity from the American Taliban. The Republic Party's ties to the American Taliban are pushing us dangerously close to the brink of Fascism.

I don't believe "anonymous" is a bigot of the worst kind, so I think we should go easy on him/her. I just think he's confused about what actually happened in Massachusetts.

And, anonymous, wasn't it the Catholic agency that decided to CEASE OPERATING rather than follow the state's anti-discrimination policy, which it was bound to by law? so why is it the gay rights activists who get branded as not having the children's best interests in mind. The Catholic agency were the ones who stopped their work entirely.

And I'm pretty sure many other non-religious agencies stepped in to fill the void.

I can also assure you that gay parents often take the most abused, neglected, troubled, "unplacable" children. Gay people who are parents would never think of using their children as pawns. They know how important a stable family is to these kids, and they want to offer it. That's why they decided it was a bad idea of the Catholic agency to discriminate. It was the Catholics who didn't have the best interests of the kids in mind.

Here's an idea. If Jerry Cox and Gunner DeLay are really so concerned about the kids, they and everyone who is opposed to today's ruling should step forward and agree to be foster parents to a child that otherwise may not get foster parents---children with behavioral problems, physical or mental disabilities or severe illnesses.

In other words, the "difficult" kids who often get left behind when many families look to become foster parents. The cute, healthy white children always get picked, but the others too often get bounced back and forth from DHHS to one temporary caregiver after another.

In other words, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Cox and all those who claim to be motivated by the interests of the children--practice what you preach.

Otherwise, all you're doing is gay bashing--a popular activity guaranteed to get you accolades from your like-minded colleagues and the peanut gallery, but otherwise an empty and vapid exercise in pandering to fear and loathing.

"I don't believe "anonymous" is a bigot of the worst kind"

Sorry Kevin, I must respectfully disagree. Either you are a bigot or not.

COOL.

THANKS FOR ASKING ASA WHAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. NOW I WANT TO KNOW WHAT BEEBE THINKS ABOUT THIS.

Kevin, thanks for the full story on the Massacusetts case. It seems no amount of distortion is impossible for those who hate others. Thanks for setting the record straight.
Oh, to the person who saw the supremes decision as pro gay. No, it was pro Constitution. Those rules protect us all.

Many sincere good people (despite all of your efforts) still believe homosexual conduct is morally wrong. Until you eradicate orthodox religious belief (good luck there), you will continue to have to call people like me "bigots" and "hate mongers," etc. That's fine. I'm willing to take that argument head on. But don't you for ONE SECOND tell me that my opposition to homosexuality makes me a racist.

I know it's an easy side-stepping of the issue. It has clearly been annointed as the chosen argument to combat religious conservatives.

But you might be surpised how many "hate mongering" Christian families there are out there whose families are racially mixed (by marriage and adoption).

As a conservative I support Asa Hutchinson and am proud that he opposes gays serving as foster parents.

It is a source of pride to me that my candidate will state his position on controversial issues like this one.

Of Asa's opponents, one will likley give his opinion (Rod Bryan) and one will dodge the question all together (Mike Beebe).

As a voter it is important to me to know what ideas and issues I am voting for when I cast a vote for a candidate. I am always amazed that more democrats are not similarly minded.

Has anyone here worked in the foster care system in Arkansas or been a part of it? There is so much dysfunction with it that if you actually want to be a foster parent, you're likely to throw up your hands out of frustration before you even get to the point of completing the training of being a foster parent.

We might have a surplus in the budget but social services for children have been cut by how much money over the years? If you're a participant in the social services related foster care, you know how overworked they are and how children fall through the cracks. But no one does anything about it until some lawyer decides to sue the state for not helping children. I'm guessing the only exception might be the Lord's Ranch that Huckabee takes care of.

I was just talking to my dad who was at one time an emergency foster parent. They closed the office in Boone County and have only one couple in Harrison that takes care of foster children (I think they're Republican).

People need to fix everything else about the foster care system before they get hysterical about the sexual orientation of the foster parents.

Unrelated: In other news directly related to Harrison news, J.E. Dunlap publisher of the Harrison Daily Times passed away yesterday.

Max, you ever on Arkansas Week with JE? I wasn't sure if you had posted that tidbit on the blog already or not.

"The Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts was contracted by the State of Mass. (a PUBLIC entity) to place the STATE'S foster children. They were supposed to conform to anti-discrimination laws because they were operating in a public capacity. Catholic agencies, when operating privately, can refuse to place kids with gay families. The distinction is vital, and not understood by most Americans."

"...wasn't it the Catholic agency that decided to CEASE OPERATING rather than follow the state's anti-discrimination policy, which it was bound to by law?"

Thank you Kevin, a double portion.

Asa is right, the EXPERTS at DHS (hardly a haven for conservatives) said that it was not in the best interest of the child. But some liberals on the court knew better than child psychologists and pushed their agenda on us - again...

ARK. BLOG That statement is utter B.S. Read the opinion.

The court's decision cited the utter absence of evidence that being raised by homosexual foster parents harms children. If the DHHS experts had evidence to the contrary, they apparently missed a good opportunity to present it. No one is trying to kid anyone about this.

Now that we have one candidates opinion, you ought solicit other campaigns' opinions, like Bryan and Beebe's.

Did Mike Beebe or his office represent the state in this matter?
If so, how well did he represent the state's interests?

ARK. BLOG In that the state agency in question clearly violated the Constitution, the state's lawyers didn't have much to work with.

For more information on the case go to the url. It will bring you to the national ACLU website, and has links to various documents. Thanks to all those who join us in celebrating this great victory!

Sen. Jack Critcher, who will serve as the Senate's president in the 2007 session, said he expected lawmakers would try and push for the ban through legislation. Critcher said he supported the ban.

"I think had the majority of the legislators not agreed with the action by the board earlier, they certainly would have made it known," Critcher, D-Batesville.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AR_GAY_FOSTER_PARENTS_AROL-?SITE=ARMOU&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-06-29-10-59-10

Hey Rita-

You're a democrat. Did you candidate for Governor agree with you and the others dems on this board on this issue?

ARK. BLOG:

That statement is utter B.S. Read the opinion.

I did read the opinion and I stand by my statement. The Board took the staff recommendation and applied the standard of best interest of the child. Did they also insert thier, common sense, experiences, and religious beliefs - sure but they applied the standard based on the evidence available to them. The court just ignored that and thought they knew better. This is an example of the arrogance of the courts.

ARK. BLOG That isn't what the opinion said about evidence of impact on welfare of the child from either side. The state offered no evidence of harm. The plaintiffs offered detailed professional testimony on lack of harm. And there was explicit testimony from board members that they acted out of moral feelings about homosexuality. The board acted outside the authority granted by statute. That's a violation of separation of powers. It was a slam dunk. You had two Huckabee appointees and at least one Huckabee-backed conservative who joined the majority on this point.

Max-

You are reporting Asa's position on this issue. Good journalism would tell you to get the opinion of the other 2 candidates. Are you getting them?

State Supreme Court Says Homosexuals Can Be Foster Parents
KARK Little Rock Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:53 AM PDT
Thursday The State Supreme court overturned a regulation adopted by the state`s child welfare agency review board barring homosexuals from being foster parents.

Ark. high court backs gay foster parents
AP via Yahoo! News Thu, 29 Jun 2006 9:07 AM PDT
Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child's well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday.

Ark. High Court Backs Gay Foster Parents
San Francisco Chronicle Thu, 29 Jun 2006 8:24 AM PDT
Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child's well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday. The court also said testimony in the case showed that the ban was...

Ark. High Court Backs Gay Foster Parents
phillyburbs.com Thu, 29 Jun 2006 7:51 AM PDT
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court's ruling that a policy banning homosexuals from becoming foster parents is unconstitutional.

Ark. High Court Backs Gay Foster Parents
Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune Thu, 29 Jun 2006 7:41 AM PDT
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court's ruling that a policy banning homosexuals from becoming foster parents is unconstitutional. The high court said no connection exists between a foster child's well-being and the sexual orientation of that child's foster parents. "There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children

Arkansas' high court affirms gay right to become foster parents
Fort Wayne News Channel 15 Thu, 29 Jun 2006 8:39 AM PDT
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. The Arkansas Supreme Court is affirming the right of homosexuals to become foster parents.

Arkansas high court throws out state's ban on gay foster parents
KARE 11 Minneapolis-St. Paul Thu, 29 Jun 2006 9:17 AM PDT
Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child's well-being, the state's

Arkansas' high court affirms gay right to become foster parents
WSMV Nashville Thu, 29 Jun 2006 8:51 AM PDT
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. The Arkansas Supreme Court is affirming the right of homosexuals to become foster parents. The state's high court says there's no connection between a foster...

Arkansas' high court affirms gay right to become foster parents
KBCI Boise Thu, 29 Jun 2006 9:37 AM PDT
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. The Arkansas Supreme Court is affirming the right of homosexuals to become foster parents. The state's high court says there's no connection between a foster child's well-being and the sexual orientation of the foster parents.

Asa! is a graduate of Bob Jones University in South Carolina, which until unfavorable publicity during the 2000 election banned interracial dating and regularly spewed forth anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic drivel.

Asa! continued in the tradition of his alma mater with today's comments. As the previous poster said, if Asa! thinks a gay person is not an appropriate foster parent, Asa! should become a foster parent himself to an unwanted child.

This is great news. I hope General Beebe will come out and support the gay community!

IT'S NOT ASA WHO DOESN'T THINK HOMOSEXUALS SHOULDN'T BE FOSTER PARENTS - IT IS OUR STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES WHO REACHED THAT CONCLUSION.

Asa is just supporting the state agency who is charged with protecting our children not pusing the homosexual agenda.

This very topic came up during a conversation with a friend recently. He was apalled at the idea of homosexual people being foster parents. I asked why, and he gave the expected 'abuse' (ir)rationalization. I said being gay doesn't make you a deviant; he argued it did. When I asked if he'd ever used the backdoor, he gasped, then fumbled that it wasn't any of my business. I said exactly. He shut up.

When I was growing up in the Baptist Church the old guys who would have gladly shot and killed black folks, Indians, Catholics, and most certainly gays assuming they even knew there was such a thing, were called old moss backs.

These old folks just loved to say aaaammmeeennn in their deepest voice during the service, they just loved the old testament with all the killings and cruelty and stuff. Even in the early 60s they thought it was a sin if you could see a woman's ankles, probably cussed that bobbed hair, thought the only good baptism was in a creek. Old moss backs.

Asa may sport a mod hairdo and wear all those snazzy plaid shirts with his striped sports coats and all, but Asa is an old moss back who would dearly like to see the days of the old testament come back in style. Hate the sin, hate the sinner is his motto, unless of course the sinner will invest in his penny stocks.

We could make this easy for our Republican friends, have a legislative compromise that makes every one happy. And I think I know just what would do it.

I recommend that Jim Medley and Dennie Altes of Fort Smith enter a bill that would take all the regular white kids trapped in state care and hand them out to nice Republican foster parents across the state. The same bill would give all non-white children to Democrat foster parents and finally....and here is the part that will make everyone happy.....the 3rd part of the bill will direct all really messed up, retarded, physically challenged, blind, deaf and dumb, the mentally deficient and the criminally insane children, especially of darker skin tone, be parceled out to the gay people who wish to be foster parents.

That should empty out all the beds, and heck, let's throw in the boys at the Lord's Ranch too. That alone would save the state 8.5 million dollars a year and a lot of jet fuel. And who said there wasn't a compromise that would make everybody happy? Move over Jim Lendall, I might run for Governor now!

Max-

If you ignore this comment (I see that you are responding to comments on this thread) I can only assume that you are dodging this question:

"What do the other 2 candidates think about gays now being able to act as foster parents?"

You are the one that first asked what one candidate thought on this issue.

I disagree with the characterzation of this ruling as "pro-gay". Yes, this ruling definately opens doors for homosexuals and foster children needing a temporary home, but, it is not "pro-gay". (I am not raining on the parade, but such characterzations are misleading)

The Supreme Court (and the trial court) found an obvious violation of the seperation of powers. The legislature did not grant the authority to the board to enact a regulation based on "morality" .....if I am not mistaken they tried to add this term but it never made it out of committee.

The Huckster should be proud that his appointments followed the arkansas constitution!

I take pride in really being a compassionate conservative....it iritates me to hear Asa! (if this really happened) disagree with the court before he has even read the opinion.....if he wants to lash out against Brown's concurrence....then that is a different story.

It will be interesting to see whether the board sets a regulation limiting foster parents to established married couples.

In response to "HUH", are you Rethuglicans so desparate for votes with a flawed candidate that you are willing to lie and bend the truth? Are you whores for a vote so much that you would have us believe Asa Hutchinson's ONLY reason for this stance is because it's policy?

Criminey, give us a break, and be honest.

If the law of the land is all that Asa Hutchinson seeks to uphold, then why is he not pro-choice? Why does he have an anti-choice stance?

If the law and precedent is all he seeks to uphold, then tell me why he voted against a Minimum Wage Increase but he supported and voted for a "Cost Of Living Adjustment" when he was a member of Congress?

If Asa Hutchinson is such a great moderate, then why does he have such a conservative vote record?

Asa Hutchinson is anti-choice, anti-minimum wage, anti-civil liberties and supports the attempt to cloud the distinction between Church and State.

Look call a spade a spade and a far right conservative what Asa Hutchinson is...a far right conservative.

Oh and one last thing....this pandering and trying to play the game of how many african-americans that Asa Hutchinson can be seen with is sickening and grtoesque.

Its like me posing for pictures with the 700 Club, Mormons, and the KKK!

Spirit...answer this....If you had $100,000 in cash and a house worth $200,000 resulting in an estate valued at $300,000 and you were killed, and you believe in the death tax, as you do, then it would be ok if the government demands that your kids give $150,000 to the IRS. They would be $50,000 short of enough cash so they have to sell your house to finish up paying what you owe. Don't you agree with this? If a millionaire has to pay half then you should also have to pay half of your estate. Can you deny this?

This is just what The Three Stooges were hoping for. Hutchinson, Holt, and DeLay will ride the tide of hatred and ignorance to victory this November. Next topic, please.

If something happens to me Pritt can raise my kids around a bunch of flag burners now.

Great.

Pritt just wants to be a daddy.

Gross.

"Mike Beebe, you ask? We asked some time ago for the reaction of the attorney general and Democratic candidate for governor. Nothing so far."

Is that good enough for you? You make a big deal out of wanting to know Asa's position on the issue, even speculating before he gives a position, but Beebe's dodge is no problem for you?

Are you going to ask Rod Bryan?

Children who want/need to be adopted or provided foster care are not too overly concerned with the sexuality of thier parents. I often share this mantra with others: family is not necessariy those with whom you share a bloodline; it is that community of people who love and support you; those who encourage you; those who institute discipline, with love and compassion; those who will not abandon you. I am convinced gays/homosexuals can give the same level of love as the majority(nonhomosexual). Conservative politicans(oxymoronic) are masterfully clever when it comes to introducing red herrings during elections.

BEEBE'S DODGING YOU. HE COMMENTED TO THE PRESS EARLIER:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AR_GOVERNORS_RACE_BUSINESS_AROL-?SITE=ARMOU&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-06-29-18-55-11

I suspect the Supreme Court's ruling...provided it isn't appealed and/or provided the legislature or voters don't take matters into their own hands...will reveal two truths:
1. There are probably very few gay couples who desire to become foster parents and 2. Kids will be cruel to the children placed in these homes once word gets out that they have two mommies or two daddies. Truth hurts.

Aint no truth to be found in 1 or 2.

Outside of the hysterical liberals of the AT, Arkansans are not supportive of turning children over to people who practice peversion. The left has played games for years with common sense and morality but citizens of this state do not want innocent children exposed to this sickness of the soul. Wrong is wrong and no matter how many ways that baby boomers reinvent the truth most people know that this is not in the best interests of the children.

"Kids will be cruel to the children placed in these homes once word gets out that they have two mommies or two daddies. Truth hurts."

Is that what you're preachin' to young 'uns, Truth?

"Make fun of those happy kids if they have two mommies or two daddies?"

I know a lot of kids with two mommies AND two daddies...trump.

Or maybe you are one of those folks that sits in the front pew and promises to be good that week, forgive me for acting like a bigot last week...only to say some crap like this...

"Make fun of those kids with NO parents...or those kids WITH parents, but show up with bruises everyday...or those kids that aren't white...or those kids with only ONE parent...or those kids that haven't had a bath..."

Trample on some basic humanity, Truth...go ahead...

This ruling supports homosexual rights and constitutional rights. That doesn't mean it can't contradict common sense.

But it is much ado about nothing as I suspect there aren't enough gays interested in becomming foster parents to have much impact on the backlog of kids needing homes.

Here is what killed the State's case: Counsel for the Board conceded that there was no evidence of a single instance where a kid sustained any harm by being exposed to a gay foster parent. Secondly, the State allows gay people to ADOPT for God's sake. The decision on the part of teh Board to exclude gays from being foster parents was based on something other than a rational basis or substantial evidence. And that's how the trial court and the Supreme Court got to their decisons. Courts make decisions based upon the evidence of record. The State didn't have any to offer. Dur!

"much ado about nothing as I suspect there aren't enough gays interested..."

Fair enough...who knows a number? I sure don't...

I would say this issue is about individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution...don't restrict someone's rights because you don't believe in the same thing...

"much ado about nothing as I suspect there aren't enough gays interested..."

Tell that to the Gay Foster Care agency right here in Little Rock. It's call.....get this....."Integrity"

I here they are pretty happy about this.

You "here"?

Blog people: would you mind making the link in the 6:21pm post by Anonymous shorter? It's so long it's causing me (and probably others) to have to scroll to the right to read the end of every line of text.

Here are a couple of shorter options that redirect to the link given by the commenter:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2583495D

http://tinyurl.com/zflmt

Commenters: When possible, would you please go to either http://www.makeashorterlink.com or http://tinyurl.com whenever you have a long link to share? Those sites will create a shorter link for you that will redirect to the site you actually want us to visit. It makes reading the blog much easier when none of the links are so long that they cause the page to be so wide that some of us to have to scroll horizontally to read the post and comments. Thanks!

Based on the number of folks who don't want gays to be foster parents due to the 'harm to the children from being exposed to that lifestyle', obviously a lot of people believe that nurture plays a bigger part in sexual preference than nature. If that's the case, is it Dick or Lynn Cheney's fault that Mary is gay? I can hardly believe that she grew up in a household where good conservative values were lacking. So what happened to her? What did Mr. and Mrs. Gingrich do to turn their daughter Candace the "wrong" way, but have Newt turn out "right"??

I'm just curious....

This is a TERRIBLE decision, and I'm dead serious... what a shame, supreme court, what a shame.

No worries, we will see an AR constitutional amendment to fix this drivel in november!

This is not a pro-gay ruling. It is a judicial interpretation of the Constitution. If you are old enough to remember the civil rights movement, some very similar phrases to some of the ones on this thread were uttered against what racists called, and I'll be polite about the term, "black lovers."

But the civil rights enactments were not pro-black, either.

It's about the Constitution.

It's about the neutrality of freedom.

I suspect that "anonymous" is correct. There will be a move afoot to amend the damn State Constitution to address t