Just received an update on the ACLU's lawsuit regarding Arkansas' Act 1. For those playing the home game, this is the law that Jerry Cox (apt name) and the Arkansas Family Council had passed in the last election to ban all unmarried cohabiting couples from adopting or caring for foster children. This was of course a smokescreen to get around the State Supreme Court decision that discriminating against LGBT persons in adoption and foster care was unconstitutional, as they told many of the churches in Arkansas. In an update from the ACLU website, it looks like Cox and Friends are trying to insert themselves into the court case:
"FCAC and Cox are seeking to insert themselves as parties into the instant case,
which broadly challenges the constitutionality of the Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act
(“Act 1”). Movants first assert that this Court is required to allow their intervention as
defendants because the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas cannot
adequately defend Act 1. This assertion—which must be proven to allow intervention “as of
right”—is simply false. As the Attorney General has made clear in his response to the motion to
intervene, and as evidenced by his actions to date in this litigation, there is no reason to believe
that the Attorney General will not fulfill his legal and ethical duty to fully and vigorously defend the constitutionality of Act 1."
which broadly challenges the constitutionality of the Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act
(“Act 1”). Movants first assert that this Court is required to allow their intervention as
defendants because the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas cannot
adequately defend Act 1. This assertion—which must be proven to allow intervention “as of
right”—is simply false. As the Attorney General has made clear in his response to the motion to
intervene, and as evidenced by his actions to date in this litigation, there is no reason to believe
that the Attorney General will not fulfill his legal and ethical duty to fully and vigorously defend the constitutionality of Act 1."
Also for those of you paying attention, here's a better run down of the legal rangling:
"Plaintiffs in this case are children, families, and couples who are harmed by Act 1.
Defendants in this case include the state of Arkansas, the Department of Human Services, the
Child Welfare Agency Review Board, and other government officials charged with the
responsibility of enforcing Act 1. Act 1 on its face requires Defendants to categorically exclude
all persons in unmarried cohabitating relationships, including gay persons who are not permitted to marry in Arkansas, from providing foster or adoptive homes to children in state care or even to their own relatives notwithstanding the wishes of the children’s parents. The effects of Act 1 on the Plaintiffs in this case are real and concrete. For plaintiff-children, Act 1 bars Defendants from acting in plaintiff-children’s best interests and approving or recommending them for foster care or adoption with a family, solely because of the cohabiting status of the potential parents.
For the adult-plaintiffs, Act 1 categorically bars some from serving as foster or adoptive parents without any individualized assessment of whether they are qualified. For the other adult plaintiffs, Act 1 requires Defendants to disregard those adult-plaintiffs’ parental judgment that, in the event of their death or incapacity it would be in the best interests of their child to be adopted by a close relative or godparent, solely because that person is living with an unmarried partner."
Defendants in this case include the state of Arkansas, the Department of Human Services, the
Child Welfare Agency Review Board, and other government officials charged with the
responsibility of enforcing Act 1. Act 1 on its face requires Defendants to categorically exclude
all persons in unmarried cohabitating relationships, including gay persons who are not permitted to marry in Arkansas, from providing foster or adoptive homes to children in state care or even to their own relatives notwithstanding the wishes of the children’s parents. The effects of Act 1 on the Plaintiffs in this case are real and concrete. For plaintiff-children, Act 1 bars Defendants from acting in plaintiff-children’s best interests and approving or recommending them for foster care or adoption with a family, solely because of the cohabiting status of the potential parents.
For the adult-plaintiffs, Act 1 categorically bars some from serving as foster or adoptive parents without any individualized assessment of whether they are qualified. For the other adult plaintiffs, Act 1 requires Defendants to disregard those adult-plaintiffs’ parental judgment that, in the event of their death or incapacity it would be in the best interests of their child to be adopted by a close relative or godparent, solely because that person is living with an unmarried partner."
The full legal brief filed by the ACLU can be found here.
By now you should know my position on this. That has not changed. Act 1 keeps children who need loving, stable homes from having them for fear of "gay cooties". It also takes away OUR right to say who WE want raising OUR children should something happen to my wife and me. What Cox and Friends have effectively done is tell Arkansans that we don't know what is best for our youngsters. In my mind, this is pure arrogance.
Just who is this FCAC (Family Council Action Committee)? Let's see what their website says:
"Since 1989, Family Council has been at the forefront promoting, protecting, and strengthening traditional family values in Arkansas. We are part of a nation-wide network of family policy councils associated with Focus on the Family and Dr. James Dobson. Our mission involves shaping public opinion through media interviews, producing voter’s guides for elections, and shaping public polices through the legislative process. Family Council is a conservative education and research organization based in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Education Alliance and the Arkansas Physicians Resource Council are division of our work dedicated to promoting home schooling and to enabling Arkansas physicians to address social and moral issues that impact medical ethics."
In other words, they are a PAC affiliated with James Dobson. They keep busy by working on:
Abortion* Firmly against.
End of Life Issues* Against
Stem Cell Research* Against
Human Cloning* Against, and as an aside, still decades away from actually happening
Physician-Assisted Suicide* Against
Same-Sex Marriage* Against. Activly worked to pass the DOM ammendment and Act 1
Religious Liberty* As long as its their religion.
Homosexuality* See the entry for Same-Sex Marriage
Gambling* Against everything from a state lottery to Bingo in the church foyer
Judicial Activism* Want only conservative judges.
Education Choice* Inteligent Design instead of Evolution, "Christian" prayer in schools, abstinence education, you know the drill.
Home Schooling* What better way to indoctrinate our youth?
Divorce* Fall right in line with Rick Warren and SBC on this one. Unless it's adultry, forget it.
Taxes* The usual Republican line here...Against the Inheritance Tax, Lower taxes on the wealthy...
Health Care * See anti abortion, anti-stem cell research, euthanasia, birth control, etc.
Sounds like a fun bunch of folks doesn't it. It really burns my bacon when a group of people try to push their own idea of what is good and right down my throat. As a free society, we are able to make these choices for ourselves. These pharisees want nothing more than to establish a theocracy.
This flies in the face of our constitution and what the Founding Fathers wanted. While they agreed that people needed some form of moral compass in order for our government to work, they also wanted a separation of Church and State. This doesn't just protect religious institutions from government interference, it also protects the government and the people from religious interference. The Church of England and Roman Catholic Church were still in the minds of men like Jefferson and Adams when they began this Grand Experiment. To avoid that, they constructed a wall to keep the two separate.
That's my rant for this week. Maybe I'll be in better spirits next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment