Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Ark. High Court Backs Gay Foster Parents"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 11:44 AM
Original message
"Ark. High Court Backs Gay Foster Parents"
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - 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 agreed with a lower court judge that the state's child welfare board had improperly tried to regulate public morality. The ban also violated the separation of powers doctrine, the justices said.

The board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.

Four residents sued, claiming discrimination and privacy violations against homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20060629/D8IHVM1O0.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Arkansas is going blue!
WOOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. funny that
you're good enough to adopt and be foster parents but you can't get married or have any legal contract that approximates marriage to safeguard that family.

Does it get any more schizophrenic than that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. Excellent.
It's wonderful to read stories like these where reasoning wins out over claims that have no basis in reality. Of course, this judge will be labeled dangerous, radical, activist, far-left.....etc. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. it was the high court, not judge
Edited on Thu Jun-29-06 11:56 AM by jsamuel
The justices agreed Thursday, saying the ban was "an attempt to legislate for the General Assembly with respect to public morality."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Thanks.
My comment doesn't apply then; unless to all the justices. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. good news deserves a kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC