AR Ballot Initiative Act 1 Has Been Overturned!
AR Ballot Initiative Act 1 Has Been Overturned!
by Spencer Hamilton on Friday, April 8, 2011 at 12:06am
The Family Scene
Let me preface this by saying that if I didn't look like my Mom, I would've sworn I was adopted.I was not like my brothers and sisters, and though now we have different relationships I appreciate that my Mom, my sister Cricket and I can watch movies and talk for hours. One memory I have of my sister Cricket and I were when her and I were talking about our boyfriends and our intimates--which is not exactly a conversation I could've ever imagined having with her but we have that kind of relationship.
My sister Cierra and I can talk on the phone for hours too, the difference between Cricket and Cierra is that Cricket and I hang out more than we talk on the phone. Whenever we haven't hung out in a while Cricket will ask: Okay, so when can we kidnap you? Cierra asks the same thing. Family is very important to me. I have always wanted to have kids and adopt one or two--now with one detail changed...all of my children will be adopted.
The Adoption Storyline
One famous example of one who was adopted is Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy's. One example of an adoptive parent I remember is radio host Delilah from 96.1 JOY FM. In California, I know of the Leffew family--on fb their name is GayFamily Values and their youtube channel is depfox (I've shared some of their videos on fb, subscribe if you haven't). They have two beautiful children named Daniel and Selena who are Mexican and the Leffew Fathers Brian and Jay are white. Dan Savage and his boyfriend Terry Miller have an adopted son named DJ. I did some snooping and found this interesting list of adoptees and adoptive parents, I'm not sure how accurate it is but I posted this link: http://celebrities.adoption.com/
Fin
Okay, so...ding dong...Act 1 is dead! Certifiably, absolutely, painstakingly, actually, verifiably dead!...okay so I don't know the exact wording the Munchkin used but I am excited that Arkansas has overturned this discriminatory law. I am reminded of Matt Baume's Don't believe NOM's new DOMA commercial when Matt replies to the 'children need a mother and Father' claim when he says: This is a trick...children need more from their parents than a gender they need love and attention. Most people who say that don't know the adoption landscape and that for some children it's gay parents or no parents.
Backstory
So...in looking into the article, I found out about two cases whose opinions I MUST read: Jegley v. Pecado, which overturned AR sodomy laws 2 years before Lawrence v. Texas. repealed them nationwide. This case has similarities to Gryczan v. Montana. Both cases are what I call 'peremptory suits' in which the plaintiffs didn't have to be arrested and charged under the statute in order to challenge it. It said in both opinions: The plaintiffs say that they have violated the statute and have intent to violate it again in the future. The Defendants in such cases have always said "There's no standing unless such an event occurs" but the court says "They are the targeted group which the statute takes aim, they have standing" Department of Human Services v. Howard is another one. This is what Family Council President Jerry Cox had aimed to overturn, as with Prop 8 did in regard to the verdict in the In re Marriages cases. DHS v. Howard struck down the ban on gay adoption and foster parenting in 2006.
Act 1 on the Ballot: Exposition
Gays and lesbians have been raising children for years. There is a video I commented on and the link is here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnuEIv_sllw) You can see how my opponent pulled a lot of arguments out of his bum when confronted with obvious facts. He couches his argument in what's best for the child because if they have straight parents they won't be made fun of--WRONG! By the end of the 'debate' you can tell that he's simply a homophobe that thinks like many others who are ignorant think: It's contagious--and that is what fueled this very law.
Many court cases have debunked many of the arguments used to ban gay adoption and curb gay rights advances. In re Gill, Department of Human Services v. Howard, Kentucky v. Wasson, Gryczan v. Montana, Lawrence v. Texas, Campbell v. Sandquist. The last four are regarding sodomy laws however, we can look at one simple thing: The claim that if gays are able to live lives like everyone else, everyone else will 'turn gay'. Now, I only pose one question in reply: Weren't all gays raised by straight parents? Even if there are gay parents who have gay children (some bio, some adopted) there is a less than 10% chance o that happening.
Act 1 passes with 57% of the vote.
Challenging Act : The Plot Thickens
The ACLU challenged the law
From Keen News: http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/03/23/arkansas-supreme-court-reconsiders-adoption-ban/
Plaintiffs include a lesbian couple who adopted a special-needs child before Act 1 was passed and wants to adopt another child now; a lesbian grandmother who wants to adopt her grandchild, who is currently in state care; three teenagers in the foster care system awaiting placement; and several married opposite-sex couples whom Act 1 prevents from designating certain friends or relatives to adopt their children in the case of the parents’ deaths.
The plaintiffs say that Act 1 violates their rights to equal protection, due process, and the right to privacy under the state constitution.
The defendants claim that Act 1 is necessary to protect children.
If my sister Cierra and I were living in AR and something happened to her where she wasn't able to take care of my niece Davonna, Act 1 would prevent me from having legal guardianship of her if I were living with a partner.
Strike Down Act 1, Scene 1
The next time I heard of Act 1 it was in Judge Pulaski's court. He struck it down saying that Act 1 forces adults to make the choice between intimate relations outside of marriage and raising a child. No person should have to choose between those two. It is an undue burden on single individuals and some who don't have the desire to get married. I liken it to the cohabitation laws that the Supreme Court struck down in 1963 with McLaughlin v. Florida even though the prohibition was based on race, the spirit of the law was aimed at cohabitation.
Now...let me just say that I want to pose this question to those who seek to retroactively void rulings that advance gay rights: Since the law was voided in DHS v. Howard as an affront to your State Constitution and thrown out, what makes you think a similar measure will pass the State Constitution again? It defeats itself
Curtains For Act 1
Today I got the news that Act 1 is now in the wastebasket of discriminatory laws!
Attorney Garrard Beeney argued that Act 1 violates the right recognized in Jegley v. Picado that intimate relations between consenting adults is protected under the Arkansas State Constitution. He Also argued that Act 1 doesn't stop single people from adopting so the encouraging marriage in Arkansas argument is severely flawed. One video in regard to Act 1 has Jerry Cox saying: we're doing this to protect children and to curb a gay agenda at work in our state. I wonder if he has any idea what this law did or if he's ever adopted any children.
Attorney Byron Babione argued that this is a matter of enhancing their mini-DOMA passed in 2004 and failed to show any evidence that gay and lesbian couples were a harm to children in their state.
Post-Interview
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/arkansas-family-council-blasts-decision-overturn-gay-adoption-ban-anti-child
Jerry Cox had blasted the decision as anti-child and an example of judicial tyranny stating that the ACLU couldn't win in the court of public opinion so they had to go to COURT to overturn the initiative. Honestly, this sounds like a guy who hates the fact that he lost in COURT where you actually have to prove that gay and lesbian parents ARE harmful to children--and we all know that they have had TOO MANY attempts to prove their point and have failed miserably, especially in the Prop 8 case!
Most ballot initiatives like this depend on simple things: Misinformation and tricks, every single NOM commercial that has been dissected on youtube (Matt Baume and Sean Chapin have done so) has used those. In one commercial NOM twists the words of Judge Walker as if he is saying that parents don't need a Mom and a Dad when he says that same sex couples have raised children well as straight couples have. Next, he says that there is no difference between the two. That's a far cry from what NOM said--but we don't expect anything less from them. If you want to find out what Judge Walker wrote, google it. It is a work of legal brilliance and should be required reading for law school students
Critic's Review
Children need more from their parents than gender. Zach Wahls who spoke out against House Joint Resolution 6 which would ban marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships said that gay and lesbian couples can raise a well adjusted child, how does he know? He has two Moms. Studies have shown consistently from the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, numerous child welfare agencies, etc. that gay and lesbian parents are every bit as good as straight parents.
Children need to be in an environment where they can thrive (read the In re Gill opinion). With gay and lesbian parents, they are prepared for the children they adopt, great pains and planning in advance has to occur before they can even think to sign the paperwork. If straight couples had to go through this as a rule, we'd see a lot of unfit parents weeded out of the system. Children are not puppies, as Mike Huckabee once said but none of his children are adopted! Also, who failed the children in the first place? I know no gay couple that got drunk and woke up with paperwork titled: Petition to adopt.
Love You All
Until The Pen Strikes Again
Links:
http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/03/23/arkansas-supreme-court-reconsiders-adoption-ban/
Let me preface this by saying that if I didn't look like my Mom, I would've sworn I was adopted.I was not like my brothers and sisters, and though now we have different relationships I appreciate that my Mom, my sister Cricket and I can watch movies and talk for hours. One memory I have of my sister Cricket and I were when her and I were talking about our boyfriends and our intimates--which is not exactly a conversation I could've ever imagined having with her but we have that kind of relationship.
My sister Cierra and I can talk on the phone for hours too, the difference between Cricket and Cierra is that Cricket and I hang out more than we talk on the phone. Whenever we haven't hung out in a while Cricket will ask: Okay, so when can we kidnap you? Cierra asks the same thing. Family is very important to me. I have always wanted to have kids and adopt one or two--now with one detail changed...all of my children will be adopted.
The Adoption Storyline
One famous example of one who was adopted is Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy's. One example of an adoptive parent I remember is radio host Delilah from 96.1 JOY FM. In California, I know of the Leffew family--on fb their name is GayFamily Values and their youtube channel is depfox (I've shared some of their videos on fb, subscribe if you haven't). They have two beautiful children named Daniel and Selena who are Mexican and the Leffew Fathers Brian and Jay are white. Dan Savage and his boyfriend Terry Miller have an adopted son named DJ. I did some snooping and found this interesting list of adoptees and adoptive parents, I'm not sure how accurate it is but I posted this link: http://celebrities.adoption.com/
Fin
Okay, so...ding dong...Act 1 is dead! Certifiably, absolutely, painstakingly, actually, verifiably dead!...okay so I don't know the exact wording the Munchkin used but I am excited that Arkansas has overturned this discriminatory law. I am reminded of Matt Baume's Don't believe NOM's new DOMA commercial when Matt replies to the 'children need a mother and Father' claim when he says: This is a trick...children need more from their parents than a gender they need love and attention. Most people who say that don't know the adoption landscape and that for some children it's gay parents or no parents.
Backstory
So...in looking into the article, I found out about two cases whose opinions I MUST read: Jegley v. Pecado, which overturned AR sodomy laws 2 years before Lawrence v. Texas. repealed them nationwide. This case has similarities to Gryczan v. Montana. Both cases are what I call 'peremptory suits' in which the plaintiffs didn't have to be arrested and charged under the statute in order to challenge it. It said in both opinions: The plaintiffs say that they have violated the statute and have intent to violate it again in the future. The Defendants in such cases have always said "There's no standing unless such an event occurs" but the court says "They are the targeted group which the statute takes aim, they have standing" Department of Human Services v. Howard is another one. This is what Family Council President Jerry Cox had aimed to overturn, as with Prop 8 did in regard to the verdict in the In re Marriages cases. DHS v. Howard struck down the ban on gay adoption and foster parenting in 2006.
Act 1 on the Ballot: Exposition
Gays and lesbians have been raising children for years. There is a video I commented on and the link is here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnuEIv_sllw) You can see how my opponent pulled a lot of arguments out of his bum when confronted with obvious facts. He couches his argument in what's best for the child because if they have straight parents they won't be made fun of--WRONG! By the end of the 'debate' you can tell that he's simply a homophobe that thinks like many others who are ignorant think: It's contagious--and that is what fueled this very law.
Many court cases have debunked many of the arguments used to ban gay adoption and curb gay rights advances. In re Gill, Department of Human Services v. Howard, Kentucky v. Wasson, Gryczan v. Montana, Lawrence v. Texas, Campbell v. Sandquist. The last four are regarding sodomy laws however, we can look at one simple thing: The claim that if gays are able to live lives like everyone else, everyone else will 'turn gay'. Now, I only pose one question in reply: Weren't all gays raised by straight parents? Even if there are gay parents who have gay children (some bio, some adopted) there is a less than 10% chance o that happening.
Act 1 passes with 57% of the vote.
Challenging Act : The Plot Thickens
The ACLU challenged the law
From Keen News: http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/03/23/arkansas-supreme-court-reconsiders-adoption-ban/
Plaintiffs include a lesbian couple who adopted a special-needs child before Act 1 was passed and wants to adopt another child now; a lesbian grandmother who wants to adopt her grandchild, who is currently in state care; three teenagers in the foster care system awaiting placement; and several married opposite-sex couples whom Act 1 prevents from designating certain friends or relatives to adopt their children in the case of the parents’ deaths.
The plaintiffs say that Act 1 violates their rights to equal protection, due process, and the right to privacy under the state constitution.
The defendants claim that Act 1 is necessary to protect children.
If my sister Cierra and I were living in AR and something happened to her where she wasn't able to take care of my niece Davonna, Act 1 would prevent me from having legal guardianship of her if I were living with a partner.
Strike Down Act 1, Scene 1
The next time I heard of Act 1 it was in Judge Pulaski's court. He struck it down saying that Act 1 forces adults to make the choice between intimate relations outside of marriage and raising a child. No person should have to choose between those two. It is an undue burden on single individuals and some who don't have the desire to get married. I liken it to the cohabitation laws that the Supreme Court struck down in 1963 with McLaughlin v. Florida even though the prohibition was based on race, the spirit of the law was aimed at cohabitation.
Now...let me just say that I want to pose this question to those who seek to retroactively void rulings that advance gay rights: Since the law was voided in DHS v. Howard as an affront to your State Constitution and thrown out, what makes you think a similar measure will pass the State Constitution again? It defeats itself
Curtains For Act 1
Today I got the news that Act 1 is now in the wastebasket of discriminatory laws!
Attorney Garrard Beeney argued that Act 1 violates the right recognized in Jegley v. Picado that intimate relations between consenting adults is protected under the Arkansas State Constitution. He Also argued that Act 1 doesn't stop single people from adopting so the encouraging marriage in Arkansas argument is severely flawed. One video in regard to Act 1 has Jerry Cox saying: we're doing this to protect children and to curb a gay agenda at work in our state. I wonder if he has any idea what this law did or if he's ever adopted any children.
Attorney Byron Babione argued that this is a matter of enhancing their mini-DOMA passed in 2004 and failed to show any evidence that gay and lesbian couples were a harm to children in their state.
Post-Interview
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/arkansas-family-council-blasts-decision-overturn-gay-adoption-ban-anti-child
Jerry Cox had blasted the decision as anti-child and an example of judicial tyranny stating that the ACLU couldn't win in the court of public opinion so they had to go to COURT to overturn the initiative. Honestly, this sounds like a guy who hates the fact that he lost in COURT where you actually have to prove that gay and lesbian parents ARE harmful to children--and we all know that they have had TOO MANY attempts to prove their point and have failed miserably, especially in the Prop 8 case!
Most ballot initiatives like this depend on simple things: Misinformation and tricks, every single NOM commercial that has been dissected on youtube (Matt Baume and Sean Chapin have done so) has used those. In one commercial NOM twists the words of Judge Walker as if he is saying that parents don't need a Mom and a Dad when he says that same sex couples have raised children well as straight couples have. Next, he says that there is no difference between the two. That's a far cry from what NOM said--but we don't expect anything less from them. If you want to find out what Judge Walker wrote, google it. It is a work of legal brilliance and should be required reading for law school students
Critic's Review
Children need more from their parents than gender. Zach Wahls who spoke out against House Joint Resolution 6 which would ban marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships said that gay and lesbian couples can raise a well adjusted child, how does he know? He has two Moms. Studies have shown consistently from the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, numerous child welfare agencies, etc. that gay and lesbian parents are every bit as good as straight parents.
Children need to be in an environment where they can thrive (read the In re Gill opinion). With gay and lesbian parents, they are prepared for the children they adopt, great pains and planning in advance has to occur before they can even think to sign the paperwork. If straight couples had to go through this as a rule, we'd see a lot of unfit parents weeded out of the system. Children are not puppies, as Mike Huckabee once said but none of his children are adopted! Also, who failed the children in the first place? I know no gay couple that got drunk and woke up with paperwork titled: Petition to adopt.
Love You All
Until The Pen Strikes Again
Links:
http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/03/23/arkansas-supreme-court-reconsiders-adoption-ban/
Comments
Post a Comment