Posted on 06/15/2006 7:36:44 PM PDT by DBeers
LITTLE ROCK - Saying it's in Arkansas' interest to protect the moral and spiritual welfare of foster children, a state attorney on Thursday defended before the Arkansas Supreme Court a policy that bans gays from becoming foster parents.
The Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services is appealing a 2004 decision by Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox, who said it was unconstitutional for the state's Child Welfare Agency Review Board to bar homosexuals from becoming foster parents.
Kathy L. Hall, an attorney for the state agency, told justices that the state already bans unmarried couples who live together from becoming foster parents. Because Arkansas banned gay marriage, a homosexual couple is ineligible to have foster children, she said.
The health, safety and welfare of foster children is of the utmost concern to the state, Hall said, "and that can't happen in a home where unmarried sex occurs."
But Associate Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber pointed out that the state allows single heterosexual individuals to be foster parents, but bans single homosexuals.
Hall said that a single heterosexual parent is allowed to be a foster parent because he or she "has the potential" to find a spouse; whereas a gay individual does not.
"So you're saying ... the agency is also going to be asking a heterosexual how they behave in the bedroom," Imber said.
Leslie Cooper, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the state's policy amounts to discrimination.
She said there was "overwhelming evidence" that the ban does nothing to protect children. The ban, Cooper said, hurts children by reducing the number of eligible foster parents.
"The blanket exclusion couldn't possibly do anything to protect the interest of children," she said.
The child welfare board instituted the ban in March 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they are more likely to thrive in that environment.
Four Arkansans sued, saying homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents had been discriminated against. They contended the ban violated their right to privacy and equal protection under the state and U.S. constitutions.
Hall told justices Thursday there were no reliable studies showing what effect gay foster parents could have on a child. She said the state shouldn't "leave it for chance for the children of Arkansas to be guinea pigs to find out if it is harmful" to be raised in a home with gay foster parents.
"Your argument is speculative," Associate Justice Donald Corbin told Hall. "You're wanting us to speculate that a child cannot be raised by gay foster parents."
Hall argued that foster children are already vulnerable and moving them into a home with gay foster parents could subject them to "a culture shock that these kids just don't need."
The ACLU's Cooper said the state can't ban gays from becoming foster parents simply because of perceived societal prejudice.
Each side relied on recent court rulings regarding homosexuality. The ACLU cited a 2002 Arkansas Supreme Court ruling that overturned the state's ban on sodomy.
"We agree that the police power may not be used to enforce a majority morality on persons whose conduct does not harm others," the court said in the ruling written by Imber. "The Arkansas Equal Rights Amendment serves to protect minorities at the hands of majorities."
The ACLU also cited a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law.
But the state referenced an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld a Florida law that bans gays from adopting.
In his 2004 decision ruling the state ban unconstitutional, Fox wrote that "some of the cherished societal mores of our present may very well one day become the regretted bigotry of the past.
"Things change, sometimes too fast for those who are comfortable in the skin of the status quo, sometimes excruciatingly slow for those waiting their time under the sun," the judge wrote
I always thought arguments against legal precedence (Status Quo) were presumed speculative and required to meet the burden of proof?
Interesting, how did you happen to come across an article in the Pine Bluff Commercial?
After what two homos did to a neighbor boy in Rogers, Ark a few years ago I would NEVER allow them to be anywhere near kids!
I have connections...
;-)
(actually, I just happened to read it on google news)
Actually, there was legislation a year or so ago that came down to CPS stating that homosexuals could not be excluded as foster parents because of their homosexuality, however, policy prohibits any cohabitating partners from foster parenting. Besides, most of the people I know who are responsible for placing foster children would not place their children with a known homosexual. I certainly wouldn't. If they didn't feel it necessary to announce their perversion to the world, it would be a non-issue.
Am I understanding you correctly? So long as we don't know whether potential adopters are homosexual or not, we could allow them to become foster parents.
If that is what you believe, have you considered in-depth background checks on all potential foster parents? The lives and well-being of children are serious concerns. The innocents of society deserve normal lives.
No, that is not what I meant. What I meant was that the way the law stands, single, non-cohabitating individuals are allowed to be foster parents, providing they meet all other criteria. The only way that screeners would necessarily know that a single, prospective foster parent was homosexual would be if the individual felt it necessary to announce it, and I would propose that those who feel the need to do that have a different motivation for wanting to become foster parents than the welfare of children. These militant queers go out of their way to make inroads in places where they are traditionally, and correctly, prohibited. They are all about promoting the homosexual agenda.
That said, background checks are done on all prospective foster parents. These include local and state criminal record checks, central registry checks for any history of child abuse or neglect, driver's license checks and FBI checks. The system is far from perfect and there are those who slip through who shouldn't, but typically, an individual with so much as a DUI on his record is excluded.
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.