ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

Jan 20, 2009 Full story: www.acluarkansas.org 3,390

"Over A Dozen Families Affected By Act 1 Step Forward To File Lawsuit"

The American Civil Liberties Union [a few weeks ago] filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down a new law that bans any unmarried person who lives with a partner from serving as an adoptive or foster parent in the state of Arkansas.

A link to the entire press release by the ACLU of Arkansas is attached -- and from that press release there is links to other interesting information including biographies of the plaintiff families. Full Story

“T-Warrior”

Level 2

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3470 Apr 20, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals have been forcing people to have gay sex? I've missed that one.
have been attempting to portray homosexual sex as mainstream, and force that "education" in our schools.

“T-Warrior”

Level 2

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3471 Apr 20, 2012
Max wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't have to be, just a right to be treated equally. The government doesn't give rights, or did you miss the entire debate surrounding the formation of our government. Nor is it limited to your interpretation of your what your god wants. In fact, it is precisely that kind of use of the church that got this little country started. Don't like it, move to a country with a state religion.
"endowed by our CREATOR, with certain inalienable rights..."

our rights come from God

any "rights" you get from man can be taken away by man
guest

Paragould, AR

#3472 May 23, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
Government only prohibits ministers from preforming government recognized "marriages"
Emplain how continuing the instutition of marraige under the definition that has served Western Civilization for thousants of years establishes a religion??
Your first sentence seems confused. The government prohibits ministers from performing marriages that are not "government recognized." You seem to be okay with the government jailing ministers for performing marriages that you don't like, dispite your supposed freedom and liberty rants. Freedom and liberty to do what doesn't violate your personal religious beliefs I guess, which isn't freedom and liberty.

Your second sentence is equally confused. Explain how it violates any of your rights for marriages that are prohibited by your religion to be recognized by the government?
guest

Paragould, AR

#3473 May 23, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
"endowed by our CREATOR, with certain inalienable rights..."
our rights come from God
any "rights" you get from man can be taken away by man
That is a quote from the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson (I'm sure you don't want to talk about his beliefs as you have refused to do so in the past). Also, the Declaration of Independence isn't the law. It was before the U.S. Constitution. Such talk was proposed by some of the Founders for the U.S. Constitution and rejected. You won't find God there. Except for the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment, which you reject (and the part about there being no religious tests for holding public office). God didn't write our Constitution. Men did. You can try to take those rights away if you want, but please have the integrity to admit that that is what you want, and good luck.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#3474 May 23, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
"endowed by our CREATOR, with certain inalienable rights..."
our rights come from God
any "rights" you get from man can be taken away by man
What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

Is God going to come down and represent you in court?

Heh.

“T-Warrior”

Level 2

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3475 May 29, 2012
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
Is God going to come down and represent you in court?
Heh.
I reject the 1st Amendment?? You got to be kidding, I am the one saying that ministers should be allowed to preform any cermony thier faith allows, and if they reject thier faith they can even marry homosexuals, with no interference of the government. The government on the other hand sets the criteria in which it recognizes.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#3476 May 30, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
I reject the 1st Amendment?? You got to be kidding, I am the one saying that ministers should be allowed to preform any cermony thier faith allows, and if they reject thier faith they can even marry homosexuals, with no interference of the government. The government on the other hand sets the criteria in which it recognizes.
My post said nothing about that.

I think your reading comprehension is as bad as your spelling.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#3477 May 30, 2012
Anyway, you DO reject the First Amendment, at least in part.

Like most ignorant fundamentalist phucktards, you think you know all about Free Exercise (you don't) and try to pretend the Establishment clause does not exist.

Actually, fundamentalist loonies consistently pretend that things exist that do not, and ignore other aspects of objective reality as they wish.

This is only one way in which they are, to put it mildly, fucking stupid.

“T-Warrior”

Level 2

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3478 Jun 2, 2012
Strel wrote:
Anyway, you DO reject the First Amendment, at least in part.
Like most ignorant fundamentalist phucktards, you think you know all about Free Exercise (you don't) and try to pretend the Establishment clause does not exist.
Actually, fundamentalist loonies consistently pretend that things exist that do not, and ignore other aspects of objective reality as they wish.
This is only one way in which they are, to put it mildly, fucking stupid.
In fact most Christians are fully aware of both religions clauses in the 1st Amendment, it does allow us to freely express our faith, and does ensure that the federal govenment won't establish a "Church of England" here in this country.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#3479 Jun 4, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact most Christians are fully aware of both religions clauses in the 1st Amendment, it does allow us to freely express our faith, and does ensure that the federal govenment won't establish a "Church of England" here in this country.
I don't think you are in any position to talk about what "most Christians" are aware of.

In my DIRECT experience in dealing with this issue, professionally, "most Christians" are just like "most people."

IGNORANT.

Your description of the Establishment clause above is puerile, uninformed, massively incomplete and not even the tip of the iceberg.

Yet, like your fire-breathing ignorant fundamentalist brethren, you will come on Internet message boards like this and preach as if you actually know something about the law.

You don't.
guest

Paragould, AR

#3481 Jun 30, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
have been attempting to portray homosexual sex as mainstream, and force that "education" in our schools.
Ignoring that what you have said is nonsense, you think that government force should be used to stop people from "attempting to portray homosexual sex as mainstream?" Oh please, tell me about how much you are for freedom and liberty again...
Hey

Paragould, AR

#3482 Jul 1, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact most Christians are fully aware of both religions clauses in the 1st Amendment, it does allow us to freely express our faith, and does ensure that the federal govenment won't establish a "Church of England" here in this country.
First of all, the phrase "church of England" isn't in the 1st Amendment.

Secondly, so you disagree with Thomas Jefferson on the content of the 1st Amendment (seperation of church and state)?

Thirdly, what about your blantanly hypocritical stance that you want both the "free exercise" of religios beliefs and you want government force to be used to stop religious leaders from performing same-sex marriages (because that violates your religious beliefs)? Are you wanting your religion "established?" Do you even know what that means?
I have a QUESTION

Paragould, AR

#3483 Jul 6, 2012
Why are some people, like Act 1 advocates, so again the Principles of Freedom and Liberty upon which our Country was Founded as contained in the United States Constitution?

“T-Warrior”

Level 2

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3484 Jul 7, 2012
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you are in any position to talk about what "most Christians" are aware of.
In my DIRECT experience in dealing with this issue, professionally, "most Christians" are just like "most people."
IGNORANT.
Your description of the Establishment clause above is puerile, uninformed, massively incomplete and not even the tip of the iceberg.
Yet, like your fire-breathing ignorant fundamentalist brethren, you will come on Internet message boards like this and preach as if you actually know something about the law.
You don't.
Try reading the Federalist Papers, and the first hand accounts of the founders, you will find that I have their handle on the first amendment.

I don't profess to know all the law, just this Constitution.

Even the best lawyers don't know the law, there are hundreds of millions of laws pages of law, pages of interpertions of law and even those in black robes that have put forth thier idolocial rulings of what they want the law to mean.

“T-Warrior”

Level 2

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3485 Jul 7, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignoring that what you have said is nonsense, you think that government force should be used to stop people from "attempting to portray homosexual sex as mainstream?" Oh please, tell me about how much you are for freedom and liberty again...
Take a look at what kids are being force to learn today exhaulting homosexual lusts

“T-Warrior”

Level 2

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3486 Jul 7, 2012
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, the phrase "church of England" isn't in the 1st Amendment.
Secondly, so you disagree with Thomas Jefferson on the content of the 1st Amendment (seperation of church and state)?
Thirdly, what about your blantanly hypocritical stance that you want both the "free exercise" of religios beliefs and you want government force to be used to stop religious leaders from performing same-sex marriages (because that violates your religious beliefs)? Are you wanting your religion "established?" Do you even know what that means?
First of all the Church of England was the example of what the founders wanted to prevent, you don't have to be that explicit.

Secondly, Jefferson was writting a private letter to a church, relating to my forst statement.

Lastly: you haven't been following me on this, I have never said that the Government should prevent (or force) clergy to preform homoseuxal unions, however if they do they would have no recognition by the government.
guest

Paragould, AR

#3487 Jul 7, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all the Church of England was the example of what the founders wanted to prevent, you don't have to be that explicit.
Secondly, Jefferson was writting a private letter to a church, relating to my forst statement.
Lastly: you haven't been following me on this, I have never said that the Government should prevent (or force) clergy to preform homoseuxal unions, however if they do they would have no recognition by the government.
First of all, the Founders explicitly wrote what they meant to write, and that is explicit.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Secondly, in the referenced letter Thomas Jefferson was asked by a church what the purpose and effect of the 1st Amendment is, and he freely and non-anonymously wrote just that, which was not anything new.

Thomas Jefferson was attacked as an "infidel" by many Christians when he ran for President because of his deist beliefs and the separation of church and state issue. For example, in 1800 (way before the referenced letter) the New England Palladium (a major newspaper) wrote:

"Should the infidel Jefferson be elected to the Presidency, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion, our churches will be prostrated, and some infamous prostitute, under the title of goddess of reason, will preside in the sanctuaries now devoted to the worship of the most High."

Thirdly, you are now claiming to claim that pastors should be allowed to perform same-sex marriages, but then in the very same sentence reject that claim. Baffling! Do you not know what marriage is? Or are you confused about something else? Or what?
WTF

Paragould, AR

#3488 Jul 7, 2012
Where do some people like chief22 get off thinking that "freely expressing their faith" includes being able to use the government to force other people to follow his religious beliefs? It's like he reads the free exercise clause, but not the establishment clause, or rather he very poorly rationalizes it away.

“T-Warrior”

Level 2

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3490 Jul 13, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, the Founders explicitly wrote what they meant to write, and that is explicit.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Secondly, in the referenced letter Thomas Jefferson was asked by a church what the purpose and effect of the 1st Amendment is, and he freely and non-anonymously wrote just that, which was not anything new.
Thomas Jefferson was attacked as an "infidel" by many Christians when he ran for President because of his deist beliefs and the separation of church and state issue. For example, in 1800 (way before the referenced letter) the New England Palladium (a major newspaper) wrote:
"Should the infidel Jefferson be elected to the Presidency, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion, our churches will be prostrated, and some infamous prostitute, under the title of goddess of reason, will preside in the sanctuaries now devoted to the worship of the most High."
Thirdly, you are now claiming to claim that pastors should be allowed to perform same-sex marriages, but then in the very same sentence reject that claim. Baffling! Do you not know what marriage is? Or are you confused about something else? Or what?
I do agree that the Founders wrote exactly what they said keeping the government out of the religion business.

I am not sure that Jefferson was the diest you believe he was, since he along with many others went to weekly Church serves in the Capital Building along with 12 (I believe) other Churches, don't sound like much of a separation during his administration.

I can see why you are baffled, but what a minister does and the government does don't have to be in sync, if a minister (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) wishes to reject the teaching of thier churches that is on them, the government is under no obligation to recognize that "union"

“T-Warrior”

Level 2

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3491 Jul 13, 2012
WTF wrote:
Where do some people like chief22 get off thinking that "freely expressing their faith" includes being able to use the government to force other people to follow his religious beliefs? It's like he reads the free exercise clause, but not the establishment clause, or rather he very poorly rationalizes it away.
Well if the government would stick to what it is Constitutionally obligated to do we all would be better off. and many of the woes of this nation would be gone

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paragould Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
sand creek 31 min help 11
Neon Green Bike 35 min momof10yrold 2
Alphabet Game (Apr '12) 38 min Honest Babe 1,882
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Feb '13) 40 min Honest Babe 1,587
OLD murders in Greene County (Jul '09) 41 min Ragman 499
Eddie and willis hooks Quinn (Jan '14) 41 min Me oh my 45
Keep A Word - Drop A Word (Dec '09) 44 min Honest Babe 16,246
how to pass hair follicle test in 3 hours (Feb '12) 4 hr guest 641
Paragould Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Paragould People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:31 pm PST

NBC Sports12:31PM
Source: Browns interview former Rams coach Mike Martz
NBC Sports 3:14 AM
Rams won't get chance to interview Rob Chudzinski or Alex Van Pelt
Bleacher Report 6:15 PM
Why the St. Louis Rams Must Draft Dorial Green-Beckham
NBC Sports 8:37 AM
Nathaniel Hackett interviewing for Rams offensive coordinator on Thursday
Yahoo! Sports 8:12 AM
The lure of LA for the NFL - mirage or 'must do'?