Arkansas Blog

This stupid amendment is a direct consequence of term limits -- another stupid amendment.

Full time pay for full time legislators. Maybe they can spend the taxpayers money promoting their own amendments like Halter did. Find some lobby trying to push an issue and sign on. For the next few years you are set getting paid by the state and whatever comes your way. Let them be known as 'Lobbyboys".

Personally, I can't believe it took them this long to adopt annual sessions. Do you realize how much can change in 2 years?

Perfect example: It was almost a year and three months after the 9/11 attacks before our legislature met in a regular session.

Another example: Look at how much the economic forecast can change in just a matter of weeks...

"I've received anecdotal accounts that suggest confusion on the part of voters on Initiated Act 1. Maybe. I'm not ready to alibi just yet."

When you had the AP stating it was banning "Gay adoption", yeah, there was mass confusion, so maybe it could get chunked on that.

I voted unhesitatingly for Amendment 2. Nobody with a grain of sense should try to budget for two years. I'm betting Arkansas Times doesn't do it.

I should have asked before, if my daughter should die and could her single brother adopt her children?

He is not gay but........

Alligatorgar, that's something I was wondering too. Well, not your case in particular, but...

I just don't believe it will survive the first court case that comes up against it. There are too many variables. What if something, heaven forbid, were to happen to my husband and I and our daughter needed a guardian? The idea that someone of my choice might not be allowed to raise my child... bothers the heck out of me.

I just wonder how many people heard "it's about gay adoption" and voted without really understanding the concept.

That's so easy. You just ask him if he is gay. If he says no, you ask his neighbors. If they say no, you ask his coworkers. If they say no, you ask around if anyone "thinks he might be gay"

If any answer yes, then he is toast.

Saywhat, "spend the taxpayers money promoting their own amendments like Halter did." His own amendment? Really? What percent of the voters thought is was "their" amendment too. Celebrate when you are in the majority, but wake up and realize when you are in the minority.

Having the legislature meet every year is a plot by Bobby Roberts to help occupancy at his friends Little Rock hotels......don't you think?

My reasonably astute coworker was chagrined to learn that she had voted opposite of her intentions on the 'gay adoption' issue. She thought she was voting 'for' gay adoption, instead of a law prohibiting it. So, your 'alibi' is not baseless.

The way Act 1 read to me was that any person(s) wanting to adopt or foster could not be living in a cohabitating relationship with another person. Meaning, it doesn't specifically ban singles, only singles who are cohabitating. So in response to Alligatorgar, my understanding would be yes he could adopt, as long as he is not cohabitating with someone else - straight or gay.

The way Act 1 read to me was that any person(s) wanting to adopt or foster could not be living in a cohabitating relationship with another person. Meaning, it doesn't specifically ban singles, only singles who are cohabitating. So in response to Alligatorgar, my understanding would be yes he could adopt, as long as he is not cohabitating with someone else - straight or gay.

It's going to be interesting to see how the brilliant writers of Act 1 determine who is cohabitating. Can 2 adults live together in the same house or apartment without cohabiting? Sometimes a roommate is simply another person with the same address. Perhaps they can inspect beds and sheets to determine these things. Cameras may need to be installed. Also, how many nights a month can a single person have an overnight guest before this individual will be deemed by the Morality Police to be indeed "living in sin". If a single person has several overnight guests a month, but each one a different person, will the same rules apply? Once again, the cameras will come in very handy in these cases.

Here's an idea for the next round of hate filled legislation: No member of the Family Council can be allowed to foster or adopt any children ever. Jerry Cocks needs some intense therapy to find out why this guy is so DEEPLY obsessed with gay folks. Sometimes it takes a long time for an individual to figure out what everyone else can see immediently.

(posted to another thread before I saw this one...)

Of the few people I've spoken with at the Chiro's & bank, NONE of them understood the annual Ledge act NOR the foster children deal (Dr. C did get the latter)!! We need to have 'regular folk' pass on the wording and especially the TITLES of these ballot items in the future. I've yet to find one person who thinks the annual Ledge is a GOOD thing...

We need to start a PLAIN LANGUAGE ballot initiative for next time to keep these Morons & miscreants AT HOME as long as possible - do NOT believe the people really WANTED this!!
|

Has anyone else noticed that most every proposal on the ballot is approved these days? It is a change from former days when everything was defeated. I think that it has something to do with measures being stricken from the ballot by the courts a few years ago. Someone should check it out and see if I am once again delusional.

What happens if a single gay person adopts a child and later finds that he can't cope without help, so (a year later) he starts cohabitating. Is the child then removed from the household and the adoption declared invalid?

FortSmithBoy,

There are no excuses for all the amendments and initiated act passing except the intelligence and lack of desire to be well-informed on political issues.

I think we saw a lot of voters who did not care enough to find out for themselves and who listened to others because, to them, it was easier to go along with what you're told than it is make your own decision on the facts.

Thinking hurts.

You just ask him if he is gay. If he says no, you ask his neighbors. If they say no, you ask his coworkers. If they say no, you ask around if anyone "thinks he might be gay". If any answer yes, then he is toast. -Posted by: mudturtle
********
Gee, I looked through the act again, I guess I missed seeing why he would be toast.

In both California and Florida, a much higher percentage of black voters opposed gay marriage than did white voters. In fact more white voters in California supported gay marriage than opposed it. 70 percent of blacks voted for the ban.

Of all the days in history for this to be true.

We can throw insults or hurl poo at each others' position on Cocks' prohibition act or

how it will be enforced, which it cannot be with any fairness and uniformity. Those

are two standards the court will use to decide if the law is to stand. We should be

debating who is going to pull the court challenge trigger first.

It may well be a lovely, 65 yr old granny living in a paid-for double wide in a rural part
of the county who wants a boyfriend around for whatever reason. If she remarries she
may lose the pension her late hubby left her. But nonetheless she will adopt her recently
orphaned grandchild one way or another.

She could be attending a church near you too.

Cocks has screwed with our private family arrangements. It may seem like a moral victory for
some but this is not going away without a serious challenge.

Y'betcha!
.

Best idea of the idea of the day, plain language proposed amendments and acts. How the hell do you expect busy folks to understand the confusing language of Referred, Constitutional and Initiative Acts/Amendments. Enough to drive a lawyer insane. Why can't they just be named Question 1,2,3......and written simply?

I propose a new English course, to be required in all high schools: Reading Comprehension for Voters. Students will learn to cut through the legalese to learn what the writers of these initiatives really mean. Because Lord knows the lobbyists and special interest groups behind all of these things rarely have the balls and respect to stand up and tell their true motives.

Such a class will do more to improve our nation than any nonsense No Child Left Behind program ever will.

Arkansas voters showed their stupidity this election. Whether it's the stupidity of "I don't know what I was voting on" or the stupidity of "I think McCain and Palin are great and damn those single gays who think they can be parents" is yet to be determined. I'm sure it's a combination of both.

"Gee, I looked through the act again, I guess I missed seeing why he would be toast." Don Keyhote

Don, you know as well as I do that this was ONLY written because the State Supreme Court overturned the ban on denying LGBT people from adopting or caring for foster kids.
1. Now a couple can't adopt or care for foster kids unless they are married
+ 1. Arkansas constitution now not only bans gay marriage, but also civil unions
= LGBT couples can not adopt...ever.

In Mr. Cox attempt to keep gay cooties off of our kids, he and his friends have effectively kept a great many children out of loving homes. I know gay and lesbian couples that are raising kids. They are normal, well adjusted childeren in happy, stable, loving homes. What "my friends" is wrong with that? The couples have been together for a good while (one having been married in Canada has been together for over 20 years) and again are stable loving homes. How many heterosexual families can say the same?

Funny thing is that the wording of the law says "unmarried co-habiting couples in a sexual relationship" So who is the burden of proof on? Are you going to put cameras in our bedrooms to make sure people aren't doing the horizontal mambo? Will couples have to bring the courts to their homes to show the separate bedrooms? This law is so flawed on so many levels it will be easy to kill in court, which I hope happens soon.

dowhat,
I don't think you got my point when you said: "wake up and realize when you are in the minority" . I voted for the lottery question although I don't think it is the job of an elected official to push an amendment on the state dime.
I have always been an advocate of a lottery but I would have voted against this one. The reason I changed my vote was to vote against the Governor's vote. It is not the state's purpose to look out for how poor people spend their money. Everybody knows the best way out of poverty is education. By voting "NO" was Beebe trying to keep the poor from escaping their situation?

"unmarried co-habiting couples in a sexual relationship"

How could they possibly prove the last part? I know two gay guys that live together. I have no idea if they have sex. Anyone ignorant enough to vote for such a stupid law has no business having kids.

Maybe they should ban adoption by heterosexuals over 50 who ARE NOT in a sexual relationship.

That's what I keep wondering. How on earth are they gonna know if folks are having sex? Spy on them? Ask the children? The neighbors?

Unbelievable.

It was rather confusing though.

saywhat, thanks for the clarification. My point was that Halter showed leadership in helping get something on the ballot that two thirds of Arkansans favored. However, I agree with the rest of your comments completely.

It looks the the courts will have a go at straightening out the adoption prohibition issue. Isn't it a bit ironic that the courts also put the kibosh on all of the wet/dry initiatives that were pending in the more backward areas of our state?

Don, you know as well as I do that this was ONLY written because the State Supreme Court overturned the ban on denying LGBT people from adopting or caring for foster kids-Posted by: Arkansas Hillbilly
********
Sorry ArkHB, you can't tell me what I know because you don't know what I know. The folks I have talked with that are close to the adoption/foster care process have uniformly said that cohabiting breeders are problems equal to cohabiting gays.

I just wonder how many people heard "it's about gay adoption" and voted without really understanding the concept.-Posted by: Kat Robinson
********
Wasn't one of the amendments an act that restored the rights of idiots to vote?

What a perfect illustration of why that law should have stayed on the books. . .

Cocks' . . . Cocks.-Posted by: eLwood (and others that are similar)
********
Just curious - when folks post here using names that aren't humorous but are intentionally offensive, is this done for some kind of mutual circle-jerk gratification? I must be the odd duck looking for some occasional enlightenment into how others think (differently). Some name calling is humorous, makes a point or is sometimes pretty off base. But, egregious slurs like this just tell me "skip this one and go on" since the writer can't even compose an insult with a modicum of class. So the rest of the comment probably reflects the same thinking.

Of course, if I am just unaware that this mutual stroking is the true purpose of a blog, then I remain out of step and all I can say is, never mind. . .