Posted on 02/17/2006 7:04:20 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
Judge: Lesbian couple can be foster parents By JOHN SHULTZ The Kansas City Star
Missouri cannot block an openly gay Kansas City woman’s efforts to become a foster parent because of her sexual orientation, a Jackson County judge ruled today.
In her decision, Circuit Judge Sandra Midkiff ruled the state arbitrarily denied Lisa Johnston’s petition to become a foster parent because she is a lesbian.
Johnston and partner Dawn Roginski sought to become foster parents in 2003, but their efforts were stymied by an unwritten state social services policy prohibiting gays from becoming foster parents.
The state argued that Johnston lacked the “reputable character” required by state guidelines for approving foster parents because she was in violation of Missouri’s anti-sodomy law.
Midkiff dismissed the argument, citing a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that found a similar law in Texas to be unconstitutional. If the sodomy law was unenforceable, Midkiff ruled, Missouri had no legal basis for denying Johnston’s application. Johnston and Roginiski were found to be exceptional candidates otherwise by the state.
“I’m overwhelmed with joy,” said Johnston, who had yet to discuss the ruling with her attorney. “I feel like we were heard.”
The American Civil Liberties Union had taken up Johnston’s case.
I see you're still trying to change the subject.
Hello, Casloy. Still trying to paint scripter as a bigot because he has the morals God gave a human being -- as opposed to, say, dogs and chickenhawks?
What's remarkable, Casloy? And who's "running"?
Nope, just asked a simple question that he refuses to answer. It's so simple, a yes or no will do. For someone so quick to throw the bible out as the basis for his views, he certainly is having a hard time answering a simple and fundamentally important question. I don't believe I used the word bigot to describe Scripter. Perhaps I might have, and if you will show me where I used it I will certainly apologize. Maybe you can at least explain to me, why no one will answer the question, "if the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, can Jews get to heaven?" It is a valid question, no?
That can get you into trouble with Allstate, you know. They fired a guy -- on the demand of tolerant people like your interlocutor -- because he wrote an op-ed defense of morality and public hygiene in a city newspaper.
Allstate's defense against his righteous litigation for their having discriminated against him for his morality and his political expression is that he never made a religiously-based argument in his piece, and therefore he has no First Amendment protection in the matter.
Your interlocutor can have things both ways, because his argument is basically amoral to begin with, which gives him great tactical flexibility in tormenting other people who are trying to be honest and moral human beings.
Either you're a religious bigot, an American Taliban, or you're subject to firing if they have an "in" with management and can get your job.
Gays have always adored the inside, back-stairs approach. It's so.....delicious. But there is no conspiracy, is there?
For what it's worth, Jesus said the only way to heaven was through Him.
You can't deny you said this, so it's not like I am springing something on you out of the blue.
But that's where you're going, isn't it? Well?
Perhaps I might have, and if you will show me where I used it I will certainly apologize.
Where did I ask you to apologize? You're telling on yourself, but I didn't ask you to apologize for anything. As a troll for the HRC POV, you are beyond apologies. You might as well rejoice in the refulgence of your rottenness as you wallow in moral relativism and taunt people who try to toe a real moral line.
Sodomites and their catamites are the crown of creation -- isn't that what they teach people about homosexuality in Eternal Values lectures? That it is the final flowering of humanity's greatest potential, which is merely pupated in het breeders?
So why don't you lecture us about the moral superiority of chickenhawks? We could talk about that for a while. About how they don't hold back, how they live life to the fullest and refuse to allow themselves to be cramped by convention, by old, moth-eaten, hand-me-down scriptures, or by the retro opinions of crippled minds like scripter's. Show us how far we fall short of your own moral magnificence, your largeness of mind, your......liberality.
Maybe you can at least explain to me, why no one will answer the question, "if the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, can Jews get to heaven?" It is a valid question, no?
Well, I'm not a practicing Christian, and I'm certainly not a biblical authority, but I remember being catechized that Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sins for all of humanity, and that he ushered a great horde of the righteous who had gone before him into the presence of their God, after his own death on the cross. Previously, the righteous dead had waited in limbo, neither suffering nor rejoicing, but waiting patiently for their release with the dissolution of Adam's sin.
Does that get it for you? Or are you still trying to paint anyone to the right of Rosie O'Donnell as a Taliwhacker?
I think the latter. I've been reading your stuff. You've got a nasty edge on you, which I think could be better employed than in trying to carve up honest conservatives in this conservative forum.
Actually, on second thought, it might not be a valid question.
Jews of the first millennium didn't (and still don't AFAIK) believe in "heaven". "Heaven" is an Eastern concept, imported from the Persian Manichaeans, or even farther afield, or possibly by syncretism from paganism, which posited a triple underworld for the dead: Tartarus, or hell, for the wicked; for those in between, the Fields of Asphodel, where time was passed in an everlasting exchange of small talk, commonplaces, and trivial pleasantries; and the Elysian Fields, or Islands of the Blessed, where the heroes dwelt. The Islands of the Blessed were sometimes called Aornos by the Greeks, Avernus in Latin (which preserved the intervocalic "w" sound, but exchanged the "o" for an "e" -- a change in Old Latin preserved in doublets like vortex/vertex), and in the Celtic tongues, Avalon. Avernus/Avalon lay to the west of Europe, across the Ocean Sea. That's our America.
But the ancient Jews didn't believe in any of that. Rather, they lived their lives in accordance with the Law, just to please their Lord and gain His approbation.
Yes, their platform is "heads I win, tails you lose". Any debate will be boiled down to some form of bigoted, unfair hate speech.
If he does go to church, it must be the Metropolitan Community Church [sic].
Very fair question, and thanks for asking. This entire thread began because of the issue of lesbians becoming foster parents. My original point was, as were so many others, that with the shortage or absence of regular husband-wife foster parents that I was ok with lesbian's being foster parents, assuming they could pass a background check. I said then, and I say now, I think married couples should always get first choice as parents, then perhaps single people and then gay couples if the alternative is some sort of group home. The postings pretty much deteriorated from there.
My point of the gay agenda is that whatever that agenda is, homosexuals got there through the same kind of process that every other group with an Agenda uses. They lobbied, spent money, and voted. Further, my point is I don't care what gays do as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights, and so far I can't think of a single case where their agenda has affected me or my family. My children were never exposed to any gay agenda's in school, and no one ever suggested to them they had to accept any kind of sexual orientation in society. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own home as long as there is no victim. The other point that seemed to get lost in the argument was that there is a tendency to presume that gay men are more likely to molest children than non gay men. I question that assumption very much. I view a child molestor as a uniquely sick individual who's particular compulsion is to molest children. Whether he molests boys or girls is of little distinction to me, since in my mind the crime is molesting children, period.
As to the the bible being very clear on this, I don't disagree. On the other hand, once you take it there, then anyone who disagrees with you is arguing on a biblical issue and not a cultural issue. You say you do not claim to be a christian, therefore I assume you can argue against the gay agenda based on cultural, sexual, moral and a whole bunch of other reasons and we can find a lot of common ground. But, the minute you say the bible says it, the argument stops because then we are talking about something on which you or I have to accept on faith.
Abortion is a good example for me. I happen to be extremely opposed to abortion because I think the moment of conception there is a life given to us by God, and we have no right to destroy it. But, secondarily I believe we as a society have an obligation to protect the innocent. There is nothing more innocent than an unborn baby. So, if I am discussing abortion with an agnostic or an atheist I don't try and tell them God doesn't want us to abort babies. I may tell them that is my main reason, but there is no point in trying to convince them of it because it will fall on deaf ears.
And finally, when someone quotes the bible to me as the ultimate word on everything, because it was written by God I have serious questions. While I don't doubt God delivered the scriptures, I would like to know what version they are referring to. Is it the King James version, the Good New for Moderm Man version, some other modern translation, or is it the original Greek texts. The men who translated the original Greek text put their biases and cultural views into it. A direct translation of the Greek texts to the King James bible contains a lot of gaps and mis-translations, whether deliberate or accidental. I don't happen to take the bible literally. In other words, I think it is less important whether there was indeed a Noah and his ark then what that story tells us about our relationship with God. I would not try and dissuade your from believing it, but I would hope we could reach some deeper understanding of the meaning of the event other than God flooded the earth and Noah took two of each animal on a boat. No matter what anyone says on here or anywhere, we all have to accept God and the Bible on faith. No one can prove God exists nor prove the Bible was written by God. In my view, without faith religion holds no appeal.
Lol, perhaps, but you certainly outdid me with this one.
You might as well rejoice in the refulgence of your rottenness as you wallow in moral relativism and taunt people who try to toe a real moral line.
There is nothing so immoral as someone who is sanctimonious about their own morality. So, did scripter put you up to this? Did he even suggest you use a thesaurus so you'd look smarter, or did you think that one up yourself? Refulgence doesn't quite go with rottenness, since rotten things don't usually shine or radiate. But, nice try. Was this a nasty enough edge for you, you sanctimonious twit?
And when it does I will join you in the demonstrations. I wrote many emails to my congressman letting him know my total objection to gay marriage. Unfortunately, I live in a Dem enclave so I suspect it fell on dear ears.
Dig your new tagline. That's a great quote.
He's lying, only posing as someone who would care about the effects of the homosexual agenda. He refuses consistently, nay, undeviatingly, to address even one of the many links that have been provided documenting the infiltration of public schools by homosexual organizations, for starters.
He has not addressed one single solitary point that any of us has made. Nada. Nothing. He just pretends there's no such thing as a radical, agressive homosexual agenda, and then piously asserts that if there were one (of course, he doesn't see it) of course he would be opposed. He's espoused as many viewpoints as there are points on a compass, meanwhile using highly intellectual arguments such as calling us "bigots" and "haters".
Check your freepmail.
Well! It's on now, isn't it?
So what is sanctimony to you? Obeying the laws of nature and nature's God? Does the word "antinomian" hold any resonance for you? It's tough to be a libertine, when so many of them are dying from AIDS, but perhaps you subscribe out of, what, social loyalty? Surely logic doesn't suggest it. So why do you subscribe to, and hack for, the culture of death?
So, did scripter put you up to this?
Yes, he did. So what's it to you?
Did he even suggest you use a thesaurus.....
I am a thesaurus. If you will take some time out from carney-barking for the homosexual conspiracy, you might read about the original purposes of thesauri, as articulated by Roget himself, sometime.
..... so you'd look smarter, or did you think that one up yourself?
I don't have to look smarter. I'm not the one advocating sodomy and attacking Christians on this board.
Refulgence doesn't quite go with rottenness, since rotten things don't usually shine or radiate.
Oh, but they do, Grasshopper. Have you never heard of Sen. Randolph of Virginia, whose eloquence was compared to a rotten mackerel, "shining and stinking in the moonlight"?
You should get out more.
But, nice try. Was this a nasty enough edge for you, you sanctimonious twit?
Bzzzzzt! Personal abuse. Moderator, the hook, please.
He's been name calling since the 100s. Bigot, hater, and the like.
I think he's chewing on his knuckles now that he found out that some on this thread don't go to church. He has to check his script or maybe call his upline to figure out the next tack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.