Arkansas Blog

If Jerry needs some legal help I hear that Fred Phelps is raising a passel of attorney spawn. They wouldn't even have to muffle their beliefs (neither attorney nor client) like regular lawyers.

What interest does the FCAC have that justifies intervention? What threat is there to that interest? I mean, you can't just intervene because you think a law challenged in a case is totally awesome. Generally, you need a pecuniary interest (e.g., a claim that you'd like to interpose in the action) that could be impaired or compromised in the action. A general citizen's interest in the validity of a law shouldn't be enough under the rules of civil procedure. If FCAC can intervene in the case, I should be able to intervene, too, as should anyone else who has an opinion on the law.

Excellent advice 70%er. They might also ask the followers of Tony Alamo to circle the wagons around their building to protect them from The Gays. Max needs to tell us on the blog how we can file a motion against Cox and F-CACK too, then the ACLU can file and then we can file and everyone can just file and file and file! And we will still be stuck with a new law that FK's little kids and people loving enough to give them a home. Do Cox and his goofball followers think they're making Jesus happy so he won't send no earthquake or killer tornado to destroy Arkansas? Is that what the real story is?

Oh well...won't matter, time will take care of Initiated Act 1. Haters win for a little while and then lose forever after that. It's just a matter of time....and didn't Al Hibler sing that so pretty way back when whites and blacks couldn't legally marry in most southern states?

Dear Baby Jesus,
Please let the economy force Family Council to close their doors so Jerry Cox can go get a real job and keep his fucking nose out of other folks beeswax.

Thanks
any*mouse

The "judge not that ye be judged" exhortation in the Bible is going to bite Cox where it hurts one of these days.

He serves no useful purpose that I can see.

There I go judging!!!!!!!!!1 But, aren't we all sinners?

The ONLY reason that this issue generates so much interest is due to the homosexual element. No one that is so vociferous in their opposition is motivated by concern for children but rather how this affects the 'rights' of homosexuals to do whatever they want. I have noticed that NO OTHER issue on this blog generates so much response and such emotional reaction than issues perceived to involve homosexuality. The will of the majority of Arkansans has been expressed. You need to respect that will regardless of your personal idealogy. I have had to accept obama that I consider to be totally inexperienced relative to performing the office of the President.

Should we eradicate the court system? Judging is what they are all about.

strangelove:

The will of the majority be damned, sir.

It was the will of the majority of Arkansas to prevent integration. And the federal courts backed by the US Army shoved it down your throats. The will of an ignorant majority of people cannot usurp the rights protected by the Constitution.

The "will of the majority" has NO weight when it comes to the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Bill of Rights and you need to be reminded of that TIME AND AGAIN. We are a country that is partially based on "majority rule but minority rights." True, the majority can rule but the minority has rights that must be respected. That's the only reason we allow people such as yourself to continue to worship your version of a nut-house God. You're a minority in the country as a whole, and we respect that. But you'll be damned to the hell you preach about if you take away the rights of another minority. And that's precisely what your ilk has attempted to do.

This act is a violation of the Constitution. It takes away rights from US citizens, GAY AND STRAIGHT. Your idiocy not only attempted take away the rights of gay people to just be persons--but in your slobbering, mouth foaming, tent thumping greed you went after unmarried straight people as well. And they deserve the same protection under the Bill of Rights as you and the backward, ignorant, tyrants that think the way you do.

Sir, I am figuratively rolling up a copy of the Constitution (bolstered by the Bill of Rights), and I am pretending to beat, bludgeon, and batter you, the family council, and every other idiot that voted for this shameful document of seething hate--about the head, neck and shoulders. And I, along with other enlighted Arkansawyers will continue to do so until you get the message!

I have said this many times but here I go again. The Bill of Rights are enumerated rights and contain NO right to homosexuality. Madison and Jefferson were very specific about the purpose of the Bill of Rights. They were enacted to protect individuals against the majority BUT the rights are enumerated. Dreaming up things that are not enumerated has no application. The Founders did not intend to protect a practice that was anathema to them. The also didn't include the right to practice bigamy, pedophilia or bestiality. Capite!!!!

Do me a favor. Those of you that have no education in Constitutional law or history need to declare so before you start postulating about something you have a neophyte's understanding of. Then those of us who have paid our dues can skip the nonsense and go on to somebody who does know what they are talking about. I'm old and I have lost patience with people who have slept through their education and learned nothing.

"The Bill of Rights are enumerated rights and contain NO right to homosexuality."

More of your absurdities, and I toss them aside like charred newpaper. Based upon your view, the Bill of Rights contains no right to be black, white, hispanic, Baptist, STRAIGHT, or even strangelove. How convenient you call upon the illustrious views of Mr. Jefferson, a deist and slave owner, to support your bigotry.

"I'm old and I have lost patience with people who have slept through their education and learned nothing" Physician, heal thyself. And find another place to spread your "strangelove."

If you have an argument with the Bill of Rights you need to make them to Madison not to me. He is the author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The don't call it the 'Bill of Blank Checks', they call it the Bill of Rights. Everytime some fad becomes chic someone wants to declare it a 'Right'. The Constitution is not an open ended 'if it feels good do it'. It is an enumeration of rights exercised by a responsible citizenry while living in a collective society of free men. You need to try and channel Mr. Madison to convince him. He didn't see rights in the same way that you do.

Strangelove (with repsect)
I think I figured our some of our differences. And before I say this, understand I'm looking for a bit of common ground.

I see the Constitution (Especially the Bill of Rights) as more elastic, I suppose, than you do (if I understand what you just said). I see it as a document very much based in the present and able to respond to current belief systems, as a living breathing document. I don't see it as a document laid down over 200 years ago which is unchangeable.

I think one reason the Bill of Rights was added is to ensure the Constitution remained more able to respond to modern situations (whatever "modern" happens to be). Enumeration in the Bill of Rights, as I think you define it, is very limited. There are no mentions of current ethical dilemmas in medicine, for instance. The Terry Schiavo debacle was very much a Bill of Rights issue, as is abortion.

"Give me a break with the anecdotal comments." Posted by: strangelove September 26, 2008 10:20 PM

"Then those of us who have paid our dues can skip the nonsense and go on to somebody who does know what they are talking about. I'm old and I have lost patience with people who have slept through their education and learned nothing."
Posted by: strangelove January 6, 2009 09:51 PM

Constitutional scholar strangelove should have learned about the entire Bill of Rights, not just the first eight amendments. The Ninth Amendment, in its entirety, states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Strangelove's argument was known to the Founders. In Federalist No. 84, Hamilton stated his opposition to a bill of rights, arguing that specific enumeration wrongly suggested that the Constitution granted rights that the people already held and that unscrupulous types would attempt to argue that the specific enumeration meant that those rights were all that existed.

We all have plenty of rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. For instance, I vacationed last summer out of state, which is my right. The right to travel is not mentioned in the Constitution to any extent, but it remains, in the words of Justice Potter Stewart, a "right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." Other rights--e.g., privacy and parental rights--are similarly not featured expressly in the Constitution but are recognized nonetheless as protected rights.

The fact that a right is not set forth expressly in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist.

Certainly the bill of rights was not considered by the founders to be exhaustive. In fact, some of the founders were concerned that a power hungry government would try to limit rights not delineated in the bill of rights. The purpose of the constitution is to limit the power and scope of the federal government.

I'm not convinced that the US constitution is the most relevant document in this case. It is the Arkansas state constitution.

Constitution Of The State Of Arkansas Of 1874.
Article 2. Declaration of Rights.
§ 1. Source of power.
"All political power is inherent in the people and government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit; and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same, in such manner as they may think proper."

The complexity of the matter is that there are several parties involved. Jerry Cox can certainly argue that the state has a right to regulate standards for adoptive and foster parents that are in the best interest of the children. Ultimately it is the rights of the children rather than the rights of the prospective parents that will be most relevant in the judges decision. It's not even a matter of gays versus heterosexuals - except to the extent that homos can't legally marry. Single non-cohabitating gays can still adopt/foster. Seems like you libs/gays should have worked harder to prevent the Act 1 from passing.

Severus,

For once, unfortunately, I agree with you. We didn't do enough to counter the outright lies told by the conservative churches and Jerry Cox and company. And again, I agree it is the rights of the children we need to concider. The right for them to grow up in loving, stable homes with people who will love and cherrish them trumps all else. Whether the couple adopting or rendering foster care is gay or straight should not be a factor. And yet it is because groups like the FCAC, FotF, Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, et al., insist on making it so.

The moment you used the word "homo" as a description of LGBT people, your argument lost a large chunk of credibility. I reference a quote from your last post, "It's not even a matter of gays versus heterosexuals - except to the extent that homos can't legally marry." This shows a blatant discriminatory vein in your thinking.

The reasoning behind such discrimination still eludes me. If you can give me a single, NON-RELIGIOUS argument as to why LGBT persons should not be able to A) marry or B) adopt or render foster care to children in need, I would be willing to listen. But to use a religious argument in a legal discussion violates the separation of Church and State that protects both Government from the Church and the Church from the Government. As for the Bill of Rights, Ammendment 9 leaves the door wide open as to what rights we as citizens have, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We on the more progressive side of the fence need to do a better job of not only standing up for the rights of others, but in making our voices heard as well. I didn't see strong opposition in the media to Act 1 until two weeks before election day, and I wouldn't call it very strong with only one television comercial. Part of the success of the Right has been their ability to stir up the religious. Why have we not done the same? In CA, they have begun a campaign of "Get to Know US," where same sex families are standing up saying, "We are a family, this is my spouse and my son or daughter". We need more of the same here. Most of those most staunchly for Act 1 possibly do not know lesbian or gay families. Those of us that do (in fact I know a few who attend our church), can see the Right's argument as nothing more than fearmongering.

That's one of my goals for the upcoming year, to make sure that I do not bow to complicity, but stand up for the rights of others, and challenge people to stop and get to know the people they speak so venomously about. To Strangelove, Severus, Chasv, and everyone, I urge this. Don't jump to conclusions based on your own understandings. Talk to people you discriminate against, and have honest, open conversation. You may be supprised at what you learn.

With Democrats soundly in charge of the Presidency and the congress, here's your once in a lifetime chance to enact civil unions on a national basis. Obama has already promised to let homos serve openly in the military.

ARK. BLOG: Strike one.

Severus,

Again, I ask that you refrain from using the word "homo" to describe gay and lesbian people. It does nothing but show your bias on the issue and further inflames the emotions of the debate.

For the record, while in the service, I knew several Sailors and Marines who were gay, and all showed nothing but integrity, honesty and comittment and were a credit to themselves and their respective services. Allowing them to serve openly I think is their right. A bullet or land mine does not care who you slept with the night before, and all blood spilled in the name of liberty is precious. Best to remember that.

Go to any veteran's hospital and do a quick survey. You'll find that at least 4-6% of those who have served are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual or transgendered. That matches with the percent of the same in the general population. All again served admirably and deserve our respect. Or would you rather tell Ms. Jorgensen's family that her service as a George Jorgensen during WWII is less deserving of honor because she was transgendered?

Again, I challenge you to talk to these people who you seem to hate so much. Actually have conversation with them, not just try to save their souls.

ARK. BLOG: Thank you.