ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

Jan 20, 2009 Full story: www.acluarkansas.org 3,389

"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
guest

Paragould, AR

#3492 Jul 22, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
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"
You say that you agree, but then you demonstrate that you don't.

You can't have it both ways.
guest

Paragould, AR

#3493 Jul 22, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Again, where do you get off thinking that "freely expressing your faith" includes being able to use the government to force other people to follow your religious beliefs? It's like you read the free exercise clause, but not the establishment clause, or rather you very poorly rationalizes it away.

Also, the Bill of Rights provides for restrictions on government activity, not for obligations of things that they must do.
Act 1 Unconstitutional

Paragould, AR

#3494 Aug 27, 2012
The Courts have spoken!
guest

Paragould, AR

#3495 Nov 11, 2012
Act 1 was ruled Unconstitutional in Arkansas. Now we just need the "one man one woman" thing in Arkansas ruled Unconstitutional. Obama's reelection may secure that, depending on how many more U.S. Supreme Court justices he gets to appoint. Freedom and liberty will win!
chief22

El Paso, TX

#3496 Nov 23, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>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.
God didn't pen the Constitution, however his finger is all over it. I would love to discuss Jefferson's beliefs, he may have not been the Greatest Christian ever, But, God was in his heart. He knew the importance of God in our new nation, he knew the importance of keeping government out of the Religion business, having witnessed the problems that The Church of England caused. The 2 clauses, establishment and free expression are meant to compliment each other, if the liberal and progressive mentality is used the two clauses contradict.
guest

Paragould, AR

#3497 Nov 23, 2012
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
God didn't pen the Constitution, however his finger is all over it. I would love to discuss Jefferson's beliefs, he may have not been the Greatest Christian ever, But, God was in his heart. He knew the importance of God in our new nation, he knew the importance of keeping government out of the Religion business, having witnessed the problems that The Church of England caused. The 2 clauses, establishment and free expression are meant to compliment each other, if the liberal and progressive mentality is used the two clauses contradict.
You can say whatever you want about the U.S. Constitution, but you can't back it up. I can. Also, Jefferson was a Deist. And the free exercise and establishment clauses don't contradict according to liberals or anyone else, unless you want to spew as much. But you usually seem to want to just ignore both the establishment (use government to force others to follow your religious beliefs) and free exercise (prohibiting pastors from marrying gays) clauses at will. Though that's another issue.
ThomasJ

Paragould, AR

#3498 Nov 23, 2012
In one of his many letters to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (in comparing the supernatural beleifs of Christianity to an Ancient Greek Mythological story where someone grew inside of someone's brain and emerged from their head fully clothed and grown) said:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

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 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."

In response to those attacks:

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
munum

Pittsburgh, PA

#3499 Dec 26, 2012
youtube.com/watch...
Lord strike that poor boy down!
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#3500 Jan 4, 2013
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
God didn't pen the Constitution, however his finger is all over it. I would love to discuss Jefferson's beliefs, he may have not been the Greatest Christian ever, But, God was in his heart. He knew the importance of God in our new nation, he knew the importance of keeping government out of the Religion business, having witnessed the problems that The Church of England caused. The 2 clauses, establishment and free expression are meant to compliment each other, if the liberal and progressive mentality is used the two clauses contradict.
Good Lord, is this thread still going?

Is chief still insisting he is write despite all the law and facts?

Has the median IQ in Paragould actually gone down, again?
Paragouldian

Paragould, AR

#3501 Mar 17, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Lord, is this thread still going?
Is chief still insisting he is write despite all the law and facts?
Has the median IQ in Paragould actually gone down, again?
I'm afraid that it has, again.
you were wrong

Paragould, AR

#3503 Jun 2, 2013
America 1st wrote:
Where in the Bill of Rights (or anywhere in the Constitution) might one find a right to become a foster or adoptive parent?
Hmm....it's not there is it. Therefore, laws setting forth qualifications to become a foster or adoptive parent don't violate the Constitution.
Case closed.
On April 16, 2010, the law was overturned by Circuit Court Judge Chris Piazza.

The ruling was upheld unanimously by the Arkansas Supreme Court on April 7, 2011
guest

Paragould, AR

#3504 Jun 2, 2013
you were wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
On April 16, 2010, the law was overturned by Circuit Court Judge Chris Piazza.
The ruling was upheld unanimously by the Arkansas Supreme Court on April 7, 2011
Good luck getting America 1st to recognize Unanimous U.S. or Arkansas Supreme Court decisions that he doesn't like as legitimate, but don't be surprised when he holds up split decisions that he likes as handed down from God to those learned men in the Majority.
time warp

Paragould, AR

#3505 Jun 2, 2013
The really interesting thing about Act 1 is that it ultimately discriminated on the basis of whether or not one was having sex (because as long as you're weren't having sex with anyone, then your ability to adopt or foster was not affected by Act 1)-- as under the Act 1:

----------

Homosexual single (unmarried and not cohabitating with a sexual partner) wanting to adopt --- an adoption is fine.

Heterosexual single (unmarried and not cohabitating with a sexual partner) wanting to adopt --- an adoption is fine.

Cohabitating roommates that are not having sex, whether they are heteroxexual or homomosexual (or both)--- an adoption is fine.

Under the amendment,(cohabitation + sex)- marriage = no adoption.

----------

The only way to give any effect to this amendment was for the government to peer into the bedroom and see if cohabitating roommates (or presumably even housemates) are having sex or not -- because cohabitating roommates of any sexual orientation who are not having sex could adopt under this Act.

This issue got started when a law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting or fostering was UNANIMOUSLY declared Unconstitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court (in 2005 I believe). In 2006 there was an attempt to get an outright ban on homosexual adopting and fostering passed in the Arkansas legislature AND IT FAILED (with the reasons being that it would be Unconstitutional). And that prompted Act 1 -- which was a thinly veiled attempt to appear to not be blatantly Unconstitutional by sacrificing the rights of some heterosexuals in order to prevent some homosexuals from adopting and fostering.

Here is the flyer that was created by the creators of Act 1 (whos name is on the Petition that the CEO of Wal-Mart signed) and was distributed all over Arkansas (including on my front door):

http://adoptionact.familycouncilactioncommitt...

Notice how there is an entire section that describes how Act 1 was going to "Blunt the Gay Agenda" -- just as it was advertised in every other way that it was advertised. The "Act One Blunts the Gay Agenda" paragraph says (among other things) that "Arkansas has no law to prevent adoptive or foster children from being placed with homosexual couples."

And the case against Act 1 was in no way relegated to homosexuals -- Act 1 violated the exact same rights of "privacy" and "equal protection" and "due process" of the heterosexual cohabitating sexual partners who aren't married as it did with the homosexual ones.

...not to mention the rights of the children that were being violated...
Hillary 2016

Paragould, AR

#3506 Jun 24, 2013
So are you ready?
guest

Paragould, AR

#3508 Sep 14, 2013
time warp wrote:
The really interesting thing about Act 1 is that it ultimately discriminated on the basis of whether or not one was having sex (because as long as you're weren't having sex with anyone, then your ability to adopt or foster was not affected by Act 1)-- as under the Act 1:
----------
Homosexual single (unmarried and not cohabitating with a sexual partner) wanting to adopt --- an adoption is fine.
Heterosexual single (unmarried and not cohabitating with a sexual partner) wanting to adopt --- an adoption is fine.
Cohabitating roommates that are not having sex, whether they are heteroxexual or homomosexual (or both)--- an adoption is fine.
Under the amendment,(cohabitation + sex)- marriage = no adoption.
----------
The only way to give any effect to this amendment was for the government to peer into the bedroom and see if cohabitating roommates (or presumably even housemates) are having sex or not -- because cohabitating roommates of any sexual orientation who are not having sex could adopt under this Act.
This issue got started when a law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting or fostering was UNANIMOUSLY declared Unconstitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court (in 2005 I believe). In 2006 there was an attempt to get an outright ban on homosexual adopting and fostering passed in the Arkansas legislature AND IT FAILED (with the reasons being that it would be Unconstitutional). And that prompted Act 1 -- which was a thinly veiled attempt to appear to not be blatantly Unconstitutional by sacrificing the rights of some heterosexuals in order to prevent some homosexuals from adopting and fostering.
Here is the flyer that was created by the creators of Act 1 (whos name is on the Petition that the CEO of Wal-Mart signed) and was distributed all over Arkansas (including on my front door):
http://adoptionact.familycouncilactioncommitt...
Notice how there is an entire section that describes how Act 1 was going to "Blunt the Gay Agenda" -- just as it was advertised in every other way that it was advertised. The "Act One Blunts the Gay Agenda" paragraph says (among other things) that "Arkansas has no law to prevent adoptive or foster children from being placed with homosexual couples."
And the case against Act 1 was in no way relegated to homosexuals -- Act 1 violated the exact same rights of "privacy" and "equal protection" and "due process" of the heterosexual cohabitating sexual partners who aren't married as it did with the homosexual ones.
...not to mention the rights of the children that were being violated...
Exactly!
bubba

Paragould, AR

#3509 Dec 2, 2013
So what ever happened with Act 1?

“T-Warrior”

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#3510 Jan 15, 2014
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You can say whatever you want about the U.S. Constitution, but you can't back it up. I can. Also, Jefferson was a Deist. And the free exercise and establishment clauses don't contradict according to liberals or anyone else, unless you want to spew as much. But you usually seem to want to just ignore both the establishment (use government to force others to follow your religious beliefs) and free exercise (prohibiting pastors from marrying gays) clauses at will. Though that's another issue.
Denominations prohibit ministers from marrying homosexuals not government, and those who choose to reject thier faiths, not just Christian, but nearly all faiths.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#3511 Jan 17, 2014
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
Denominations prohibit ministers from marrying homosexuals not government, and those who choose to reject thier faiths, not just Christian, but nearly all faiths.
hey that's nice for them.

And no one will force them to do gay marriage (can't be done), despite the dishonest ranting from the Religious Right.

Meanwhile, legal gay marriage is inevitable in all 50 states, sooner or later.
guest

Paragould, AR

#3512 Jan 17, 2014
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
Denominations prohibit ministers from marrying homosexuals not government, and those who choose to reject thier faiths, not just Christian, but nearly all faiths.
What are you talking about? The government prohibits ministers from marrying homosexuals in Arkansas. Denominations could not lift their prohibition without the permission of the government. This is what you advocate. This is the reality in Arkansas. You advocate that the government have that power over denominations and ministers, many of which would marry homosexuals, much as you might not like it.

However, ministers aren't the only people who perform marriages anyways. Now are they?

It comes down to you wanting to use the government to force other people, religious or not, to follow your personal religious beliefs on this issue.
not a secret

Paragould, AR

#3513 Jan 19, 2014
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
hey that's nice for them.
And no one will force them to do gay marriage (can't be done), despite the dishonest ranting from the Religious Right.
Meanwhile, legal gay marriage is inevitable in all 50 states, sooner or later.
Exactly...with the free exercise and establishment protections it will be legal for a pastor to refuse to perform same-sex marriages just like it is still legal for a pastor to refuse to perform interracial marriages.

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.

Parenting Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Judge Byrd reprimanded in Wilson County case (Feb '08) 3 hr Amy Adams 149
GPS Tracking on Your Teenager's Cell Phone (Mar '11) 14 hr suzikata 6
Sex Is Not A Sin: Erotic Art Exhibition (Oct '13) Sep 28 hal 3
Study of single parents' dating, sexual activit... Sep 24 elena23 1
Parents welcome son's diagnosis Sep 23 GrahamB 1
'He was like Jekyll and Hyde but drug means he'... Sep 22 GARDASIL MAIMS KILLS 2
How To Make The Most Of Your 10 Minutes With Te... Sep 20 BlumpyJones 2

Parenting People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE