 |
 |
 |
« October 2008 | Main | December 2008 »
Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 11:04:59
No more lawsuits for you !
The U.S. Supreme Court lets stand a federal judge's ruling that bars a disabled man from filing any discrimination lawsuits. Of course, he did get away with filing 400 before he was stopped. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Me thinks he doth protest too much."Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 12:10:43
Adoption Information Meeting: Nov 17
I'm on the C.A.L.L.'s mailing list, and they sent this out today: If you voted FOR Act 1 on Nov 4th, be sure to put some action behind that conviction. What is God calling YOU to do to help the over 100 children in foster care and available for adoption in Pulaski County? Come find out... THE C.A.L.L. INFORMATIONAL MEETING FOR VOLUNTEERS AND PROSPECTIVE FOSTER, ADOPTIVE, AND RESPITE CARE PARENTS THIS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17TH, 6:30 - 9:00 P.M. FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD 4501 BURROW ROAD, NORTH LITTLE ROCK Presentation starts promptly at 6:30 p.m. No obligation. To register, e-mail mpederson@thecallinarkansas.org, call 501-225-3979, or just come!What the Ark. Sup. Ct. says about shacking up
The Arkansas Supreme Court decided, 7-0, that there was no rational basis to prevent gay people from being foster parents or adopting through DHS. Now we have an amendment that says, people who are cohabitating, can't be foster parents or adopt. I know that to most people opposed to Act 1, co-habitation is just code word for gay couples. But, the courts see it differently. I'm curious how anyone would challenge act one. I haven't thought it all through yet --- but if feel the Court could probably find there is a rational basis to forbid co-habitation. ( even if I personally disagree) Here, I just want to point out a few cases where the courts have discussed co-habitation in general. To begin, of course, there is no law that says you can't live with someone else, or obviously can't raise children together if you aren't married. In the specific context of custody battles in divorces, co-habitation has traditionally not been looked upon favorably. The Arkansas Supreme Court, has been very careful to show that it is a parent's cohabitation with a romantic partner it is opposed to, not the parent's sexual orientation. It is very common for divorce courts to include language in the custody order that such as "neither parent may have members of the opposite sex to whom they were not married stay overnight while the children were in their care." The Court has frequently held that the purpose of such an order "is to promote a stable environment for the children, and is not imposed merely to monitor a parent's sexual conduct." The emphasis here is stability more than the fear of the child being aware of "unchaste conduct." But, in other cases, Arkansas Courts have also held that " a parent's unmarried cohabitation with a romantic partner, or a parent's promiscuous conduct or lifestyle, in the presence of a child cannot be abided." Again, notice the emphasis on promiscuous conduct. Is a long-term relationship promiscuous? Probably not. In 2007, in Holmes v. Holmes, the Court considered a case where a court awarded custody to a father over his ex-wife, who was a lesbian. The court seemed to go out of its way to say it was not affirming the circuit court because of the mother's sexual orientation. The court ruled in favor of the father because it agreed with the circuit court that "exposure to appellant's sexual partners was detrimental to (the child's) welfare." The facts were that the mother had six different sexual partners in a four-and-a-half year period. She lived with her various partners despite an explicit court order that forbade extramarital cohabitation in front of the child. While in no way does the court overrule a past cases, it made clear that it did not need to consider sexual orientation to make its ruling. The court essentially distinguished its ruling from that in Taylor, which is interesting in itself. In Taylor, a 2003 case, the Ark. Sup. Ct. considered a case where the mother had a female roommate and there was no evidence they were in a romantic or sexual relationship. The father argued that "the mother's homosexuality would adversely affect an otherwise happy and well-adjusted child." But the facts in Taylor were that the mother was not in a sexual relationship with the woman she lived with. The Court also rejected an argument that the fact that the mother lived with a woman would subject the child to teasing, and that the potential for teasing in the future is sufficient to constitute a material change in circumstances. Because the father could not prove there was any harm from the child living with the mother and her roommate, the mother maintained custody. That doesn't mean the court approved of same sex couples at all of course, and the Court re-affirmed that it would not be in a child's best interest for a parent to "continue cohabitating with another adult with whom she admitted being romantically involved." In a different Taylor case from 2001, the Court held: [T]he trial court's use of the non-cohabitation restriction is a material factor to consider when determining custody issues. Such a restriction or prohibition aids in structuring the home place so as to reduce the possibilities (or opportunities) where children may be present and subjected to a single parent's sexual encounters, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. So my only point is that there is a lengthy tradition of the Ark. Sup. Ct. looking disfavorably on co-habitation. There are still significant other issues as to Act 1 that need to be explored more such as equal protection and disparate impact. But, I can barely spell disparate, I'll leave that to the constitutional types.National Adoption Day
November the 15th is National Adoption day, a collective national effort to raise awareness of the 129,000 children in foster care waiting to find permanent, loving families. Remember, Act 1 only addresses co-habitating couples. It does not apply to single people, and regardless of race, sex, or orientation, you can still adopt or be a foster parent. It is unfortunate that Act 1 passed, but the Arkansas Department of Human Services is still looking for parents who want to foster or adopt children. Adoptive homes are needed for children of all races, and especially sibling groups of three or more, and children with special needs to include children with emotional, mental or medical needs. DHS is also seeking foster families for children of all ages who cannot currently live with their birth families due to the risk of neglect, physical or sexual abuse. Many of the children who need to be adopted right now can be found here: http://www.arkansas.gov/dhs/adoption/adoption.html If you are interested, you can contact DHS directly at: https://dhhs.arkansas.gov/wa_FC_adoption/FCA_Inquiry.aspFriday, November 07, 2008 - 13:55:00
What is next for Obama's aunt ?
Days before the election, a small story broke that Obama's aunt, Zeituni Onyango, was in the U.S. illegally.
I'm curious what will happen to her. At the time, a statement given to the AP by Obama's campaign said, "Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed." I've never done an immigration case, but my understanding is that if you are in the country illegally --- there is almost no recourse for you but to go back to your country of origin and apply to be a citizen there. But, I think if you are deported, there is a 10 year minimum wait until you can make that application.
There aren't many details about her status, but I think it was mentioned she had tried to get amnesty after coming to the U.S. on a tourist visa. Her request for amnesty was denied - and I think you only have a year to request amnesty in the first place. After her request for amnesty was denied, she was ordered to leave the U.S. in 2004 - and obviously didn't.
So will she get the same treatment as other undocumented aliens here? Or will she be given special consideration? I'm sympathetic for sure, as we need to find a better way to deal with all undocumented workers, but she shouldn't get special treatment.
Monday, November 03, 2008 - 16:22:42
Which news source best predicts the political future?
Apparently, the award for most accurate political forecast goes to: The Onion. Days before the January 2001 inauguration of President Bush, the Onion ran a story headlined: "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over.' " In the article, Bush promised to take the country into a deep recession, worsen the environment and "end the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton." Of course, that all came true. I just hope we don't make the same mistake again tomorrow.
What, politicians actually keep their promises ?
According to an academic study, politicians actually keep their promises for the most part. Of course, it is the goal of some politicians make their promises as vague as possible. The more obscure their promises, the more believable their claims they kept their promises can be. |
-
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
RSS Feed |
  |
| © 2004 - 07 Arkansas Times. All Rights Reserved. |  |
