Judge: Lesbian couple can be foster parents

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.”

In short; you're insane. See a professional psychologist, work it out, and quit bothering everyone here.

You are such a pleasant Christian man. Just like all your buds, you throw stones all over the place and as soon as some get thrown back you get your panties in a knot and call names.

If you deny Christ as having been BOTH God incarnate (the Messiah), AND the wisest man who ever walked the face of this earth, you are calling him a false prophet, or a fool, and those who follow Him liars.

And there you've just insulted every person of Jewish faith who is part of FR. Do you stop and think of the implications of such things? Why don't you preface your religious beliefs with the words "I believe?" Not everyone believes as we Christians do, so when you say that, anyone who denies Christ was God incarnate is calling him a fool, a false propher, and his followers liars. Does it dawn on you how often you insult people of the Jewish faith by making statements like that, which are true for many of us, but not for them. How about once in a while thinking about other people and start off your religious statements with "I believe," so it's clear you are telling people who don't believe that you are expressing your own religious convictions.

I know you think you set out to help me, and that was certainly most patronizing of you. I am probably older than you, I have certainly been around the block enough that I don't need people like you thinking you are going to rescue me. I have been shot, had head injuries, suffered the loss of a child, watched a few friends die in war, been seperated for lengthy periods from my family on multiple occasions, been traumatized as a kid by so called good babtist preachers, and countless other everyday events too many to count. I've dealt with people like you and the other 8 or 9 parrots my whole life and I'm pretty much used to it. So, excuse me if I don't jump up and down when someone I don't even know presumes he is going to help me. Next time you think you want to help me ask yourself who appointed you my guardian. If you want to get me thrown off FR be my guest. I know that is probably classic behavior for you, to censor that which you don't agree with. There are hundreds of people on FR who don't agree with your view on Gays. I know, I have read a lot of their postings. And, God forbid there are even some of "those immoral gay" people on FR. So, while your crying to the admin, why don't you suggest he have a purge and get everyone off who doesn't support your particular agenda. in the meantime, you are getting boring.

"And there you've just insulted every person of Jewish faith who is part of FR."

Could you at least show a little self-respect by at least ATTEMPTING to be factually honest or logically consistent? You've done nothing here but embarass yourself and your Church. Bet if we told them what your public views are on this, most of them would feel sick to their stomachs.

I never insulted Judaism. Jesus practiced Judaism. I stated that Jesus was both God on this earth, and the wisest man who ever lived. I have utmost respect for Judaism because it was the religion of Christ.

Call me an anti-Semite? You'd best to re-read my posts here, and those on other threads before making that accusation. Little bit of a Zionist bias, if anything, but never an anti-Semite.

You're engaging in slander. Pleased with yourself?

You're a moonbat, mentally weak, a disgrace, and a laughing-stock.

I have no innate disrespect for Judaism. I have no innate disrespect for any of the faiths. I very much disagree with them in that I belive Jesus was the Messiah, and they do not. That's it.

I believe atheists and unrepentant sinners are going to hell. I don't disrespect them as human beings. Some are very good conservative Republicans, and are in other respects fairly reasonable people.

I'm sure you find me patronizing and insulting.

You're a liberal. I consider your personal rejection the highest form of flattery possible. Please keep going!

I have also, no doubt, insulted communists, socialists, sodomites, lesbians, and other people who have a problem hearing the truth when it is pointed out to them. If they don't like it, that's tough. They shouldn't be on this forum any more than you.

Please show ONE place just ONE where I have been factually or morally dishonest, or logically inconsistent in my position.

You can't because you're lying (a liar), and completely out of your cotton-pickin' mind (nuts).

That is the professional judgement of a second-generation mental health professional. Satisfied as to the intellectual authority to make that call?

Patronizing? Not even close. I recognized a wounded faith, and a wounded psyche in a fellow Christian and tried to be a friend. I defended your right to be here when everyone else still discussing the topic advocated for you to be banned.

That's why I've chosen my profession. I like to help people. Makes me feel good, and I think it's what Christ would have me do. Got a problem with that?

Shame on me, indeed, you treasonous ingrate.

The fact that you continue in your effort shows that you have comprehension problems, mental issues, moral issues, and nothing but utter contempt for FR, the ones who run it, your fellow FReepers, America, and Christianity in general, and no desire whatsoever to change and mature personally.

Emotionally and morally, you have the maturity of a 12-year-old.

I treated you with compassion, turned both cheeks, and then gave you exactly what you had coming. Nothing more. Show me where I ever even suggested calling an admin. You can't. Just another of your malicious lies.

As to the rest of your post...

I'm sorry for your hardships, but basically think you've probably gotten just about what you deserved in life (as all of us do). Bringing personal misfortunes into this discussion, that have no bearing on the issue is begging sympathy, and just being a cry-baby.

The fact you're still coming after me shows you're a misanthropic, lying, aggressive, morally-weak fool.

Hope ya' choke on it, bub.

Think I'm being mean? Boo-hoo. Cry me a river, liberal!
(Awww does the poor little liberal want his mommy?)

I don't care what your personal issues are anymore. I'm done coddling you. I'm a strong conservative Christian. Not a liberal wimp.

Grow up. Either have the backbone to protect your friends in the Christian Church, and your nation's constitution, or don't vote. People like you trying to bring both down are traitors, plain-and-simple.

What I've seen out of you so far is nothing but picking trouble with people who have more faith, intelligence, character, intellectual authority, and judgement about this issue in their collective little-pinkies than you have in your whole lying, swollen, addled head and black heart.

You're a morally-polluted, loudmouth simpleton with a vocabulary, and a keyboard who thinks he's something special. Nothing more.

You've brought absolutely nothing to this discussion but your personal excusal of state-mandated and condoned child-abuse based only on your personal sympathy for perverts.

I'm guessing the fact that you obviously consider homosexuals your comrades-in-arms in this matter means that you either lack the personal character to stand up for what's right, or that you yourself have actively engaged in some pretty serious perversions, and are afraid you'll be judged if you take a stand.

No other logic I can see.

Wanna keep going?

I know what it is and I am against it. I don't think parents who don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle should have contrary values forced on them or their children. I would not like teachers to discuss homosexuality in any form, but that is part of my larger view that I don't think sexual orientation or sex-education should be taught in public schools. One of the problems with public schools is that we give teachers the responsibility for teaching things they shouldn't be teaching. I don't think sex education can be free of values or morals and it is both unfair and wrong to ask a teacher to perform that task. I realize some parents won't discuss it with their kids at all (at least that is the argument from sex educationists) but it is not my right to assume what other parents should or should not be telling their kids about sex, or any other value based topic. When I was a kid in school there was a boy who was very different and even though we had no understanding of it then, he was likely gay (I doubt even he understood it). We harrassed him without mercy and called him queer and a lot of other names. I would hope instead of GLSEN, schools could figure out a way to stop that kind of behavior against any child, whether it's for being different or for having a disability.

As to what GLSEN does in the private sector, that is their right and prerogative. I certainly would have no interest at all in sitting through what is essentially propaganda. I think GLSEN is probably claiming they are just teaching the golden rule, but I have no doubt that what they are actually doing is trying to normalize the lifestyle to people who don't consider it normal.

But my answer to all of this is to fight as hard as I can, and lobby, and donate money to get this country to adopt school vouchers. If parents could pull their kids out of bad schools things like GLSEN would simply disappear. Some parents would see it as wrong, and others would see it as a waste of time that could be better devoted to something more important. I think fighting things like GLSEN is a sideshow to the larger problem of lousy public schools and the control of our kid's education by Unionized teachers and government. So, if you want to enlist me in an effort to get vouchers I am there. But, I frankly can't get too excited about some school in San Francisco teacheing GLSEN. It simply deflects from much larger problems.

I can't speak for other parts of the country but if they tried to bring that into our public schools here in Va I doubt they'd get through the front door. My wife or I went to every PTA meeting, every teacher parent night, and any school board venue which allowed us to have our opinions known. There were a lot of other parents like me who wanted our kids competitive for college and any touchy feely classes that didn't promote that were unacceptable. I'd have gotten rid of driver education if I had had my way.

So the point I have been trying to make, and which seems to get lost among the posts, is that while I have no problem with homosexuality, I understand other people do have a problem with it. I don't think I have a right to force anyone to accept a lifestyle they find immoral. It's like passing out condoms to other parent's children. I have many Gay friends because of my wife's work in theatre. I like them, I haven't seen anything in their public behavior that I find offensive, and I've never once heard any of them try and promote their lifestyle to me or anyone. Given that, I am personally offended by terms like sodomites, queers, fags, etc. You all have the right to use those terms, but I have a hard time not calling you (the generic you, not you specifically) on it either. Admittedly, I use some pretty choice words for liberals and Jimmy Carter, so I guess I am as guilty as anyone.

I find your credibility lacking, considering your previous vitriol. Say what you like now, your previous comments went over the line of being tolerant of homosexuality and deep into the territory of promoting homosexuality, and hateful and angry namecalling of those of us who reject outright the homosexual lying agenda.

It's easy to say you don't agree with GLSEN, but it is a huge danger, and your claim that it is not in your school (maybe not, what about all the schools in your district? Your county? Your state?), but it is firmly entrenched in thousands of schools, are your attitude is treating a large bird of prey like an annoying mosquito.

Further note: Only one person on this thread that I recall used the word "sodomite" (which is actually a rather respectable word, being merely a descriptive noun, and was used regularly until the word "homosexual" was coined by a - well, by a homosexual, in Germany, to connote a sense of special community identity), and no one on this thread has used the words "fag" or "queer", which, oddly enough, homosexuals use all the time to describe themselves.

" think we were talking about foster children"

Why should adoption and foster care be handled differently? They both involve custody of children, one permanent one not. Any length of time a child is intentionally exposed to socially unacceptable behavior is in fact child abuse. Any kind of socially unacceptable behavior. Be it strippers, porn, adultery, or homosexuality, among other things. Most rational people, (unfortunately I am afraid not all) would not let a homosexual babysit their children. Or stripper, porn star, or someone involved in any other kind of sexually deviant life style for that matter. And babysitting is less permanent than foster care.

Children are our greatest blessings, and our nations greatest asset, they are not social experiments. We should never take a chance with them that way. If the country, state, or locality have an sincere interest in children, they would not take the chance of exposing children to this type of behavior. To do so damages their development. We don't need to experiment to know that. Placing children with wolves doesn't have to be experimented with to know it would be disastrous for children.

What adults do in their own homes is their business. We don't want to know, and don't care. What is our business, is their insistence in pushing their agenda on the public, via television, exhibitionism parades, in schools, in government, and most of all adoption or foster care.

No other sexual preference is allowed, by law, to be where children are. IE: porn, sexually explicit material, etc, and rightly so. Children are just that, children. Their psyche's are very fragile, and they have to be allowed time to grow socially, learn to relate to people on a social level, on an mental level, on an emotional level, while learning themselves, BEFORE they are ready to relate to people sexually. It is the natural learning/growing process. When children are allowed this natural learning process, without it being interrupted with adult situations they are not ready for, is when they grow into the most well adjusted, emotionally and mentally healthy adults.

Lastly, we all realize these children, most of them, have been abused in some way. It is therefore all the more crucial they be placed in an environment that is as free of all conflict as is humanly possible. And btw, we do not hate homosexuals. I do not approve of say a neighbor who is committing adultery, or watching porn, either. If that neighbor asked me I would tell him/her so, and would say this person is hurting people who love him/her in the process, and being very selfish, but I wouldn't hate him/her because of it. It's no different.

IMO they should reconsider the whole process of applications and approval/denial. The one they have now, excludes very qualified people, and forces them to sign agreement's they are not comfortable with. I know this from family members who tried. Other family members have in fact raised 5 foster kids they later adopted. But the hoops they had to jump through are insane.

No I do not believe singles should adopt. As I said, most of these kids have been through a lot, they need environments that are safe, and as free of any conflict as possible. A lot of structure, also, and their needs on this level are just as important as a safe place to sleep. The answer is not anything but foster homes, it is to regulate the foster homes, group homes, whichever, correctly. State systems, unfortunately too many times, fail these children, by not taking care of the things they should be focused on, and concentrating on things they shouldn't.And there are, some extremely good, safe, and enriching group homes, which should serve as models to the rest.

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.