Arkansas Blog

Don't you love the Republican majority. Homosexuals, aliens, taxes, and flag burning. And these are the guys who claim the moral high ground.

Now that's character.

And they said Bill used polls.

The Arkansas Chapter of the Stonewall Democrats also issued a statement on July 3, 2006. Here it is.

GOOD HOMES FOR FOSTER CHILDREN

?The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that all children in foster care deserve to be placed in good homes without discriminatory politics or pandering politicians standing in the way,? said the Arkansas Stonewall Democrats.

As state politicians try to detract from the decision made by the Arkansas Supreme Court in a ruling saying that no connection exists between a foster child?s well-being and sexual orientation of a parent, the Stonewall Democrats of Arkansas (SDC) applaud the court?s decision. Any attempt to deny foster children a home headed by a gay family was ruled unconstitutional.

?The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that all children in foster care deserve to be placed in good homes without discrimination standing in the way,? said Jada Walker, SDC President. ?Every child welfare organization has said for years that sexual orientation has no impact on a person?s ability to be a good parent. There is no valid scientific basis to conclude that life with gay and lesbian parents is a disadvantage for children. Every prominent pediatric, psychological, psychiatric, and child welfare organization, including the American Medical Association, has determined that no child welfare basis exists for categorically excluding lesbians and gay men from adopting or fostering children.?

Despite statements released by several Democratic candidates criticizing the court?s decision, the Stonewall Democrats remain firm in their commitment to inform and educate officials in the state on issues related to the gay community. ?Public policy cannot be based on fear,? said Walker, ?We have a moral obligation to provide families for Arkansas?s most vulnerable children. It is immoral to deny children access to all available loving families, leaving them in institutional settings or inappropriate placements, just because some people do not understand or approve of gay people.?

We are saddened by the lack of leadership by our Democratic officials on this issue. The Arkansas Democratic Party says it, ?[opposes] discrimination or deprivation of rights on the basis of race, gender, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation or socio-economic status, disability or any other characteristic unrelated to ability.? It is disheartening to see Democratic leaders unable or unwilling to stand up for a minority community. In past years the Democratic Party cared about people; that clearly now only means some people.

In 1999, the Arkansas Child Welfare Agency Review Board adopted a regulation barring private child welfare agencies and the state Department of Human Services from allowing gay and lesbian people to serve as foster parents. In December 2004, however, an Arkansas court ruled that this regulation was unconstitutional. It said that this regulation could be harmful to children because it excludes a pool of effective foster parents and Arkansas does not have enough foster parents to go around. The state?s highest court affirmed the lower court?s ruling on June 29, 2006.

Mike Beebe should listen to his conscience on this issue instead of his handlers.

A good number of liberals will vote for Rod Bryan or Jim Lendall based on Beebe's "please-the-bigots" stance on this issue combined with Beebe's problematic record on the environment and catering to special interests.

Mark Pryor could take some Republlican positions in 2002 and still get liberal support precisely because he is Mark Pryor.

As one of Beebe's numbskull campaign staff put it a few months back, Mike Beebe is not Mark Pryor.

Mike Beebe apparently believes he can write off the votes of the homosexual community in Arkansas and still win. I believe he is wrong. He will lose the votes of this community plus the votes of their families and friends, and that could give the election to Asa. Bad move, Mike.

Right, Pavel. The number of homosexual voters Beebe stands to lose is small compared to the number of reasonable heterosexual voters whose support he has already lost. Bad move on Mike's part and bad for Democrats; great opportunity for Greens, Independents, and Republicans.

Yeah, I can see the gay community voting for Asa! That's going to be a big advantage for the Republicans.

Everyone knows this is a Republican issue.

"Yeah, I can see the gay community voting for Asa! That's going to be a big advantage for the Republicans."

The idea that a gay person who doesn't vote for Beebe votes instead for Asa! is a false premise. There are other options--voting for Rod Bryan, voting for Lendall if he gets on the ballot or not voting at all in the governor's race.

Asa! could win if enough liberals stay home or vote for a third party, or no party, candidate. Not an appealing prospect, but neither is voting for someone whose positions are based on a political weather vane rather than principle.

No, the homosexual community will not vote for Asa, but they may vote for Bryan or Lendall or they may not vote at all. Each action is a vote Mike Beebe will not receive, and he will need all the votes he can get. Bad move, Mike.

The NCCJ statement is consistent with its history and vision of what the US and Arkansas should strive to become. What is sad is the continuing balancing of the books on the backs of the outcasts - be they in our march through history on the poor, the black, the brown, the red, the gays, etc. etc. And we wonder why people don't vote, don't care, don't change. What a shit hole we are in where we can't even find one good man or woman.

America is a two party system. It was specifically set up that way, like it or not. Personally, I would love to see a new party take the place of one of these, either one. This issue shows pretty clearly they have become too much alike.

All that said, this year you have a choice, one choice, don't waste your vote if its close. If it not, sure, vote for the best man, otherwise you've got to pick from these two.

Isn't it odd how Dustin McDaniel played up his "liberal" tendencies to win the nomination, then he sides with the GOP on this issue?

Can you show me where Dustin McDaniel has sided with the GOP on the issue? I would like to see his response to this ruling.

I understood from Sunday's paper that Beebe, McDaniel and Halter were all against gay foster parents. Will no one stand up for the rights of minorities anymore? By the way, someone also told me that gay people were not a big percentage of the voters. If this is also true, get your people out there!

Legislation is seen rising from ruling on gays giving care
BY JAKE BLEED AND CHARLOTTE TUBBS ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
Gov. Mike Huckabee said Friday that he expects state lawmakers to consider legislation in response to Thursday?s ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court that struck down a state policy prohibiting gays from serving as foster parents.
Speaking just hours after returning from a two-week trip to Asia, the governor said he was disappointed with the court?s ruling. But he said the decision probably doesn?t require an urgent response and a special session of the Legislature.
?We don?t know whether yet [the ruling] will be appealed; there are a lot of issues that will need to be sorted through with the lawyers,? Huckabee said. ?So it will be a little premature to talk special session.?
The Legislature?s next scheduled session begins January 2007.
The court upheld a lower court decision from 2004 that the ban on gay foster parents sought to regulate ?public morality,? something the Legislature did not give the board authority to do. The court stated that no connection exists between a foster child?s well-being and the sexual orientation of the child?s foster parents.
The state Department of Health and Human Services still prohibits unmarried cohabiting couples from being foster parents. The Child Welfare Agency Review Board changed its policy barring gays from becoming foster parents to barring unmarried couples after the 2004 lower court ruling.
Department spokesman Julie Munsell said the agency has not decided whether it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The governor tried to connect the ruling with the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Now Amendment 83, that measure passed in 2004 with 753,770 votes in favor and 251,914 against.
The governor said the ruling defied ?the very vote that put that provision in the constitution.?
That amendment had the effect of banning gay marriage. It did not address whether gays could be foster parents.
Huckabee said the amend- ment and the state?s policy against gay foster parents are separate issues, but both are at ?the heart of a family environment for children.?
Huckabee said he didn?t know if the court?s ruling would become an issue in the 2007 legislative session.
The governor questioned whether politics, rather than the well-being of foster children, were behind the lawsuit. The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Department of Health and Human Services and the Child Welfare Agency Review Board on behalf of a gay couple, a lesbian, and a heterosexual man who could not be a foster parent because he lives with his son, who is gay.
?Was the purpose for their filing suit because they felt very, very compelled to become foster parents or because the ACLU used them as the vehicle to make a political point in the court?? Huckabee asked.
Rita Sklar, executive director of the Arkansas chapter of the ACLU, said she wished the governor would read the court?s opinion.
?It talks all about what is best for the health, safety and welfare of children,? Sklar said. ?I can?t repeat it enough times, that?s what this is about. A policy that is supposed to support the health, safety and welfare of children. And the court found that [the state?s policy] did not.?
She said she expected lawmakers to propose legislation in response to the ruling.
Sklar said ?she was not prepared to say anything at this point? as to whether Thursday?s ruling should have any effect on the state policy regarding unmarried couples.
James Balcom, chairman of the Child Welfare Agency Review Board, could not be reached for comment on whether the court?s decision will cause the board to reconsider that policy.
Matt DeCample, spokesman for Attorney General Mike Beebe?s office, said the office could not comment on how Assistant Attorney General Larry Crane would advise the board on the decision?s implications. The board?s next meeting is July 20.
Sen. Jack Critcher, D-Batesville, the Senate pro temporedesignate for the 2007 legislative session, and Rep. Benny Petrus, D-Stuttgart, the speaker of the House-designate for the session, said they were willing to consider a legislative response to the ruling.
Critcher said lawmakers support the policy of limiting foster care to married couples.
?Understanding that, I would think that there?s probably substantial support in the Legislature for a law that would authorize [the Department of Health and Human Services] to enact the policy they had in place,? Critcher said.
Huckabee said the state?s policy may mean new laws aren?t needed.
Lawmakers in 1999, 2001 and 2005 tried but failed to pass bills that would have prohibited gays from being foster parents. In 2005, Rep. Bob Adams, D-Sheridan, introduced House Bill 1119 of 2005 in response to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox?s 2004 ruling.
That bill originally banned gays from being foster parents but was later amended to prohibit all unmarried couples. It passed in the House but died in a Senate committee.
Adams is term-limited and will not be back in 2007. He said he believed 80 percent of lawmakers supported his legislation.
State political candidates? reaction ranged from concern to ?extreme? disappointment in the court?s decision.
Beebe, who also is the Democratic nominee for governor, is opposed to allowing gays to be foster parents, said Zac Wright, a spokesman for Beebe?s campaign.
?I don?t think, given today?s society and the controversy, it would be in the best interest of the child to be? placed in a home with a gay foster parent, Beebe said, according to a message sent and explained by Wright.
Beebe?s position is that the state should enact a law banning foster parenting by homosexuals, making sure it?s a constitutional law, Wright said.
Beebe of Searcy issued a statement Thursday in response to the court?s ruling saying he believes ?marriage is between a man and a woman? and that ?every young person, whether born into a loving home or put into foster care, has a chance at the American Dream.?
Republican gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson of Little Rock, a former congressman who served as undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said he wants a law prohibiting gays from being foster parents.
He said he didn?t know exactly what that law should say, only that he believes foster parenting should be restricted to married couples.
?That should be what we should be striving for, and I don?t think two people, even heterosexuals, living together without the benefit of marriage, are ideal foster parents,? Hutchinson said Friday.
Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Bill Halter, a business consultant who lives in North Little Rock, said he wants to read the ruling before talking about it in detail.
?Clearly, there is a controversy here. I would like to have people not try to use this for any sort of political gain,? Halter said.
?I want to look at the ruling in order to get a better understanding of what was on the court?s mind, but also dig into some of the basic facts. ... There seems to be a dispute about the same facts.?
Republican lieutenant governor candidate Jim Holt, a state senator from Springdale, said he was ?pretty upset? by the ruling and plans to push for legislation to bar gays from being foster parents. Holt said it?s ?rather odd to me? that threefourths of Arkansans voted for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2004, ?but now we are going to put a child in that environment, who has no say whatsoever.?
?Once again, the Supreme Court has run over the will of the people,? he said.
Attorney general candidate Gunner DeLay, an attorney from Fort Smith, said Thursday that he was ?extremely disappointed? by the decision and disagreed with the court?s findings that no connection exists between the sexual orientation of foster parents and the wellbeing of a child.
?The fact is that a child has the best chance for proper development with the presence of a mother and father in the home,? said DeLay, a Republican. ?There is no substitute for what God and nature intended.
?I fully support the state?s policy and pledge to work with the Legislature in adopting a law that will embrace the values of Arkansas as well as pass constitutional muster,? DeLay said.
Democratic attorney general candidate Dustin McDaniel of Jonesboro, currently a state representative, said Friday that the ruling concerned him.
He said he supports the state policy of banning unmarried couples who live together from applying to become foster parents. He would like to see the Legislature pass a bill similar to House Bill 1119 from the 2005 General Assembly, which would put the current policy into law. McDaniel voted for the House bill in 2005.
He said he suspects the Legislature will take up the issue in the next session, adding that any law should be established with the best interest of foster children in mind.
Foster children, who are typically coming from a crisis situation, may not be ?equipped to understand? the environment of a same-sex household, Mc-Daniel said.
Information for this article was contributed by Michael Wickline.
This story was published Saturday, July 01, 2006

"America is a two party system. It was specifically set up that way, like it or not."

The latter statement is categorically false. The Founders envisioned a nation without any political parties.

Federalist No. 10 by James Madison indicates that the Founders intended the government to be nonpartisan.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s19.html

George Washington in his Farewell Address warned against "the spirit of party."

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

Not a big % of voters, huh? Compared to what?

In exit polls in 2004, 4 percent of all voters identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the same percentage as four years earlier. By comparison, 11 percent of voters were black, 9 percent were Latino, 2 percent were Asian, and 3 percent were Jewish. In 1996, 5 percent of the electorate self-identified as gay.

Jada, Sugar, your comments are wayyyy to long and wayyy boring. Keep them to about three words or so.

"Not a big % of voters, huh?

I can assure you that there are many straight people who are turned off by such politcal pandering.

Just as I would never vote for a racist, I will not vote for a bigot. Some might be surprised at how many voters feel the same way.

I was wondering.

If Dick and Mary Cheney had had a younger child and her sister, openely gay was still in the house - would that mean that Dick and Mary should be required to throw the gay daughter out because she would be a bad influnence on her little sister? And does this also mean that Dick and Mary were bad parents, because you know - being gay is a choice - and maybe because they let their kid be gay - both kids should be whisked out of the house. Just wondering.

Dustin McDaniel and his campaign manager, Melissa Moody, have both stated that children should not be placed in gay homes. Dustin will pander to whomever necessary to get elected and it will only get worse if he actually wins.

Why is it that when a democrat takes a more conservative stance on an issue it has to be pandering?

Because it's Dustin McDaniel.

Years ago the Young Men's Christian Association lost its way and is now simply the YMCA, a health club with non-profit status. Similarly, the NCCJ lost its original purpose of reconciling Christians and Jews and eliminating Christian bigotry against Jews based on common beliefs and values. Now it is just the NCCJ, another amorphous liberal organization with a mushy modern feel-good philosophy that says anything goes.

Anonymous 06:31 --

Did you ever think that might because there is much less Christian bigotry than there used to be? And what values could be more common between these two great religions that community and justice?

Anony-mouse 4:56, who says Jada's comments are way to (sic) long, should probably note that her post was a Democrat article (not her comments).

Whatsa matter? Too much for you to read?

Thanks for some good input, Jada.

I've been pondering Dustin McDaniel's final comment in that article. "Foster children, who are typically coming from a crisis situation may not be equipped to understand the environment of a same-sex household, Mc-Daniel said."

Unfortunately for them, some of the foster children in question are better equipped to understand the environment of a same-sex household than the legislators who will argue the point.

I'm sure if P wasn't all up into smoking and tackled this subject she'd pull out facts and figures that prove that once upon a time not very long ago a black couple in Arkansas wouldn't have been allowed to be foster parents to a little white child.

Probably further back she'd find that Jews and Catholic couples weren't allow to take in a little Baptist child. And heaven forbid if an atheist couple ever wanted to care for a little Christian child. As it says above, sex addicts living in sin cannot qualify to be foster parents...oh lord god mercy no....I see unmarried couples dry-humping in the isles of Wal-Mart nearly daily! Gotta have a ring, gotta have a ring, gotta have some papers!

We've been slicing and dicing people into little groups since time began. It's easier to hate if we all divide into groups ya know. I think the key word in all this talk is QUALIFIED. As many kids as there are needing to be in a foster home, we should be glad when anyone wants to go to all the trouble to be known as qualified to take them in. I couldn't do it because I'd never want to give them back.

They don't just toss these foster kids out the windows of moving cars at anyone. With a careful review process any couple who qualifies should be allowed to be foster parents. Let's at long last evolve.

Can anyone hook me up to the Dustin McDaniel article that's being spoken of?

"NCCJ lost its original purpose of reconciling Christians and Jews and eliminating Christian bigotry against Jews based on common beliefs and values. Now it is just the NCCJ, another amorphous liberal organization with a mushy modern feel-good philosophy that says anything goes.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2006 06:31 PM"

You do not know your history friend. The NCCJ, despite its name, was always concerned and did work on what its founding covenant called "race, ethnic, and class distinctions". As a nation of immigrants in 1927 at its founding the creators understood the need to foster understanding, respect and cooperation in making our democracy function. Certainly those goals were fostered in the interreligious arena especially with Father Coughlin's and the advent of Nazi Germany. But the founders, significant citizens in US history [Jane Addams, Charles Evans Hughes, Benjamin Cardozo, Newton Baker, Eugene O'Neil, etc.] had the vision to see the need for an organization which would support the healthy development of democracy amongst ALL the diversity which existed in the US in the 20's and certainly exists more so in the 21st century. NCCJ remains true to their founders' mission whatever more inclusive name they have chosen to work under. [You might ask yourself Anonymous, how respectful it was to have an organization named Christian and Jew; when Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and even agnostics and atheists wanted to serve on their boards and promote understanding, respect and cooperation. Perhaps you don't think people out of these traditions can have shared values with Christians and Jews?]

You also fail to understand the lesson of history regarding the role the US has played among nations. We are the original Liberal society having taken the progressive ideals and ideas of the Enlightenment and, not without steps backward, applied them to the growing universe of our pluralist society. When we have been at our best we have been expanding the rights and freedoms of this society. That is the opposite motif from the Conservatives. The progress we have made is in no small measure the results of the work of organizations like the NCCJ which was the first to conduct racially integrated teacher training in the South in the late 1940's. NCCJ was did not have a presence here in Arkansas in 1957, but I cannot help to think that Central High would have unfolded differently had there been such a cadre of civic leaders pledged to promoting understanding, respect and cooperation. One gets an inkling of that possibility when, in 1964/65, with the new NCCJ's help in Little Rock, the department store lunch counters were integrated without incident. Other establishments in the city quietly followed suit.

What you like to deride as "mushy feel good" is just the opposite. It is holding a mirror up to all of us so we can each ask, "Am I responding to civic challenges in the best interests of my society? Am I acting out of ignorance and fear? Are my actions advancing a community with justice for all?" NCCJ is not saying "anything goes." Rather it is saying that bias, bigotry and racism don't go --- they have no place in a pluralist democracy.

Here here! Well said, Janus.

Liberaltopher- This is from a June 30th Arkansas News Bureau article.

"Melissa Moody, a spokeswoman for Democratic attorney general candidate Dustin McDaniel, declined Thursday to comment on the Supreme Court decision but said McDaniel voted for a bill during the 2005 legislative session that would have banned gay adoption. McDaniel is a first-term House member.

"His position then and now is that the standard for adoption should always be what is in the best interest of the child," Moody said."

Because he pandered to the gay community during his runoff, he has avoided directly answering the question. But actions speak louder than words, or lack thereof. He voted to keep gay couples from adopting chidlren. Enough said.

If you are truly liberal, you will be disappointed in Dustin McDaniel. He will say or do anything to get elected.