Arkansas Judge Overturns Morality

Mountain Journal News ^ | 29 Dec 2004

[steplock]

Arkansas Judge Overturns Morality

Articles / Law & Courts
Dec 29, 2004 - 08:02 PM

---

On December 29, 2004. Judge Tim Fox in Little Rock declared that Arkansas Laws based on the morals of the people are "unconstitutional.

Ruling in a case brought by the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union - ACLU, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox said the state Child Welfare Agency Review board had overstepped its authority by trying to regulate “public morality”. Fox threw out the state's ban against foster parenthood by gay couples or by households that include a gay adult.

TIM FOX
Division 6
401 West Markham/Room 210
Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 340-8416
FAX # (501) 340-6047

---

Definition of Law:

A rule or body of rules of conduct based on the MORALS inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society

---

A Sept. 20, 2004 order by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox removed Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader from the ballot.

Fox ruled that the more than 1,000 people who signed petitions to place Nader's name on the ballot did not formally name him as "their" choice for president.

---

This article is from Mountain Journal News
  http://www.mountainjournalnews.com/

The URL for this story is:
  http://www.mountainjournalnews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=522

[Budge]

Does this really surprise anyone?

[sweetliberty]

"Does this really surprise anyone?"

I have to work with these people and I have to choose placements for children. I wouldn't place a child in a household of queers any more than I would in a household of known pedophiles.

[No Dems 2004]

Hmmmm ... I wonder who appointed this amazing Judge Fox who seems too 'clever' for his own good?? He doesn't even seem to understand what the law is all about. The public morality is rooted in opposition to murder, rape, theft, child abuse, polygamy, bestiality, etc, etc.

In other words, according to our enlightened little judge here, we shouldn't allow any traditional morality to govern anything. I wonder if he would really like the NO RULES society he apparently advocates. Obviously, most people in Arkansas don't agree with him as clear majorities voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Maybe Judge Fox should move to New York to be with his beloved fellow Arkansans Bill and Hillary Clinton.

[pulaskibush]

So how does one impeach a judge in AR? Is it done by the AR Senate?

Has somebody contacted Dave Elswick/Foxnews/Agapepress/the American Family Association/Rush and the rest of the conservative media about this? Conservative/Christian media are probably the only ones that will report this story. I can contact the local AFA guy here and Agapepress. I don't contact radio stations much.

[Dimensio]

Sure, so you say. But I'm sure that we can take the word over people who have never met them than yours.

Also people should note that this law prohibited people from taking in foster children if even one homosexual adult ever lives in that house at any time. One of the plaintiffs is a married heterosexual who cannot foster children because his gay son sometimes lives in the house as well. Anyone who claims that this law was just about preventing homosexuals from taking in foster children is a liar.

[Dimensio]

The judge ruled that the law was invalid because the agency that made the policy, DHS, did not have the authority to make it as the policy did not fall within the grounds of "promoting the health, safety and welfare of children", and the ruling was on the basis that the state was unable to demonstrate that children living in the same household as a homosexual (note, not just raised by a homosexual, as the law forbade foster children from being taken in by a heterosexual couple if there happened to be a homosexual living there at any time) was detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the child. Argue all you want over that, but don't claim that the judge told the entire state what kind of laws are valid, because he did not. He ruled only on the limits of the Arkansas DHS.

[ArGee]

The judge needs to be impeached, removed from office, and never given responsibility over the life of anything more than a pig for the rest of his.

What do you have against pigs?

Shalom.

[ArGee]

IS there a sane way of controlling these immoral idiot judicial activists and lawyers?

I advocate adding an additional check-n-balance to the Constitution (and any state Constitution). Create a way for the legislative and executive branches to join together to overrule the judicial branch. It would be something like a vote of both houses (in bicameral states) issued in conjunction with an executive order shall vacate a judicial ruling. Put a statute of limitations on the law so that you can't go back to 1778 and vacate a ruling from then. Make the vote of the legislature a supermajority if necessary and then put it in the Constitution.

Shalom.

[ohioman]

And you and your gay friends are sick individuals. Don't you get it, most of America (i.e. especially the fighting side) will never give in to the Sodom and Gonorreah agenda.

[pulaskibush]

Since the DHS rule has been removed, what rule right NOW prevents a Michael Jackson/NAMBLA Member/sodomizing ex-con/etc from adopting a child in AR.

If DHS does not make the rules about foster care who does?

Why does a whole policy have to be thrown out for one case?

It's clear that this ruling is designed to advance the lie that homosexual couples are just like heterosexual couples. We already had an amendment vote on that subject, along with an election. The homosexual side lost.

[Dimensio]

Since the DHS rule has been removed, what rule right NOW prevents a Michael Jackson/NAMBLA Member/sodomizing ex-con/etc from adopting a child in AR.

What ruled them out before? If you're honestly going to tell me that the DHS policy against allowing foster children in households with homosexuals was the only thing preventing the above scenario from occuring, then I'll tell you that the Arkansas DHS sucks and this is thier comeuppance for trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer.

Why does a whole policy have to be thrown out for one case?

Because the policy was overbroad. We might as well forbid humans from taking in foster children because some humans are murderers.

It's clear that this ruling is designed to advance the lie that homosexual couples are just like heterosexual couples.

If you need to impose arbitrary and overbearing restrictions on foster parents just to "prove" to yourselves that homosexual couples are inferior to heterosexual couples, then I think that you have some problems with personal insecurity.

We already had an amendment vote on that subject, along with an election. The homosexual side lost.

And so now same-sex couples cannot receive the same legal rights, protections and responsiblities offered to opposite-sex couples. The law on foster children had nothing to do with that.

[pulaskibush]

What ruled them out before? If you're honestly going to tell me that the DHS policy against allowing foster children in households with homosexuals was the only thing preventing the above scenario from occuring, then I'll tell you that the Arkansas DHS sucks and this is thier comeuppance for trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer.

So it's OK to not have a policy that allows child molesters to adopt kids because it's going to happen anyway? Should we allow insane baby killers adopt too? The DHS policy was NOT the only prevention, but apparently prevention of child-endangerment is of no concern to you.

Because the policy was overbroad. We might as well forbid humans from taking in foster children because some humans are murderers.

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children for the same reason anorexics, crack addicts, polygamist, incest people, bestiality people, bulimics, and murderers should not be allowed to adopt children. It exposes the child to a lifestyle of un-natural and harmful behavior. Homosexuality is a behavior, not something one is born with. There is no gay gene.

If you need to impose arbitrary and overbearing restrictions on foster parents just to "prove" to yourselves that homosexual couples are inferior to heterosexual couples, then I think that you have some problems with personal insecurity.

So the majority of Americans are "personally insecure" because we don't allow people that "fist" each other and swap partners every couple of weeks to adopt kids. No wonder your side lost.

And so now same-sex couples cannot receive the same legal rights, protections and responsiblities offered to opposite-sex couples. The law on foster children had nothing to do with that.

Yes it does. It is part of the secular agenda for homosexual privileges. This judicial activism will not be tolerated for much longer. You and your kind may want to pack for Canada or some other secular socialist nation.

[Dimensio]

So it's OK to not have a policy that allows child molesters to adopt kids because it's going to happen anyway?

Why are you bringing up child molesters? The judge ruled that the DHS's prohibition of allowing children to enter foster homes were a homosexual adult was present (even if the homosexual was not one of the foster parents) did not endanger the child's welfare. No mention was ever made of child molesters in the ruling.

Should we allow insane baby killers adopt too?

Actually, I'm not aware of a DHS policy against abortion doctors.

The DHS policy was NOT the only prevention, but apparently prevention of child-endangerment is of no concern to you.

Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children for the same reason anorexics, crack addicts, polygamist, incest people, bestiality people, bulimics, and murderers should not be allowed to adopt children. It exposes the child to a lifestyle of un-natural and harmful behavior. Homosexuality is a behavior, not something one is born with. There is no gay gene.

Homosexuality is sexual attraction toward persons of the same gender exclusively. That is not behaviour, unless you have a strange definition for "behavior". Strawman. I never claimed that child endangerment was not a concern. I agree with the judge in this case: the DHS policy that was overturned did not, in any way, prevent child endangerment.

So the majority of Americans are "personally insecure" because we don't allow people that "fist" each other and swap partners every couple of weeks to adopt kids. No wonder your side lost.

You believe that all homosexuals "fist" each other and swap partners every couple of weeks? No wonder you have an irrational hatred of homosexuals: you don't have a realistic understanding of them.

[pulaskibush]

Why are you bringing up child molesters? The judge ruled that the DHS's prohibition of allowing children to enter foster homes were a homosexual adult was present (even if the homosexual was not one of the foster parents) did not endanger the child's welfare. No mention was ever made of child molesters in the ruling.

You are wrong. The judges ruling does not just deal with this case only. He has removed the policy. Here's the quote, "Fox threw out the state's ban against foster parenthood by gay couples or by households that include a gay adult." Which means unless there is some other rule, a child molester or member of NAMBLA(same thing) can adopt a child.

Homosexuality is sexual attraction toward persons of the same gender exclusively. That is not behaviour, unless you have a strange definition for "behavior". Strawman. I never claimed that child endangerment was not a concern. I agree with the judge in this case: the DHS policy that was overturned did not, in any way, prevent child endangerment.

How did this exlusive gender attraction get passed from generation to generation? Assuming you believe the evolution/natural selection theory, homosexuals would not have lasted very long. Then there are ex-homosexuals. People who practiced homosexuality, later stopped their homosexual behavior, and now lead regular lives.

You believe that all homosexuals "fist" each other and swap partners every couple of weeks? No wonder you have an irrational hatred of homosexuals: you don't have a realistic understanding of them.

Two facts- Homosexuals perform various types of perverted acts. Homosexual relationships do not last very long.

I have a relative that works for the State Health Department. He has yet to hear of a homosexual couple lasting a few years. Nor has my pastor who has counciled many homosexuals. My church takes care of the daughter of a lesbian while she goes to work. She has had a least two boyfriends before she was "born" a lesbian. She has since not dated anybody. I dated someone who had been assaulted by their natural father and was later adopted. Her foster parents think the way I do as does she. And none of the people I mentioned have any hatred of homosexuals, despite what you think. Thank you for telling me and most of America that we don't understand. See you next election.

[Dimensio]

You are wrong. The judges ruling does not just deal with this case only. He has removed the policy. Here's the quote, "Fox threw out the state's ban against foster parenthood by gay couples or by households that include a gay adult." Which means unless there is some other rule, a child molester or member of NAMBLA(same thing) can adopt a child.

So all child molesters are homosexual, and the DHS has no seperate policy against allowing child molesters from adopting children? The rule against homosexuals being in the household was the only protection to keep children out of the hands of molesters? Was the DHS really that out of touch with reality?

How did this exlusive gender attraction get passed from generation to generation? Assuming you believe the evolution/natural selection theory, homosexuals would not have lasted very long.

I never commented on what might cause it, but this statement demonstrates that you are unaware of fundamentals of genetics.

Two facts- Homosexuals perform various types of perverted acts. Homosexual relationships do not last very long.

Heterosexuals also perform various types of perverted acts. I think that if the sexual practices of a couple are going to influence the children, there's something wrong in the household far beyond the sexual orientation of the adults in the household; I don't see any reason for any couple -- opposite or same-sex -- to expose their children to their sexual practices. As for the length of their relationships, well...you'll have to do more than just assert that absolutely every homosexual has a short relationship.

I have a relative that works for the State Health Department. He has yet to hear of a homosexual couple lasting a few years.

How many homosexual couples does he know? Why does he need to know them?

Nor has my pastor who has counciled many homosexuals. My church takes care of the daughter of a lesbian while she goes to work. She has had a least two boyfriends before she was "born" a lesbian. She has since not dated anybody. I dated someone who had been assaulted by their natural father and was later adopted. Her foster parents think the way I do as does she.

I can name heterosexuals in similar situations. Anecdotal evidence is useless here.

And none of the people I mentioned have any hatred of homosexuals, despite what you think.

You are linking homosexuals with child molesters. From that, I can only conclude irrational hatred. I can respect someone who claims to believe that homosexuality is sinful, but when you start shovelling out crap about how every homosexual engages in bizarre sexual acts and how absolutely all of them are child molesters, I question your connection to reality.

Thank you for telling me and most of America that we don't understand.

I've not seen that "most of America" is so delusional as to believe that all child molesters are homosexual (or vice versa).

[af_vet_1981]

What do you have against pigs?

They are unclean and they vote liberal Democrat.

[TheBattman]

You are kidding, right???

A parent, even foster parent, has a responsibility to raise the children in their care in the most moral and positive manner possible. OF course, no parent is perfect, but placing a child in an extremely immoral setting such as a homosexual or pedophile home is not exactly thinking of the best interest of the child.

But of course, the homosexual apologists say that there is nothing wrong with being "gay". That way they can continue to spread their cancer until the public accept it. Notice I used the word "cancer".