Civil Rights Up for Vote

[obucard]

What does prop 8 mean for California couples who were already married?

That's a very good question.

I read on another forum that the status of the already married are protected under California law.

Also, FWIW, the Arkansas adoption ban covers all unmarried couples, both gay and straight.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Arkansas' ban was on all cohabitating couples outside of marriage, not just homosexuals.

http://www.arelections.org/index.php?ac ... ontestid=5

[sighyoung]

Arkansas' ban was on all cohabitating couples outside of marriage, not just homosexuals.

http://www.arelections.org/index.php?ac ... ontestid=5

Nevertheless, part of the rationale behind the ban was to explicitly prevent homosexual couples from adopting, while also arguing that such a ban on unmarried cohabitating couples would create a groundswell of married heterosexual couples to take up the adoption slack:

http://adoptionact.familycouncilactionc ... p?PageID=2

Which, to me, is tantamount to saying that a governmental foster care system is preferable for many children than private homes.

[JCShutout]

++ to this rant. Just terrible.

If one of us is chained, none of us are free.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Which, to me, is tantamount to saying that a governmental foster care system is preferable for many children than private homes.

I would agree with that statement, actually. These kids have been dealt a bad plot in life and likely have already developed issues and they need to be in an environment that will help them deal with that. Why do people adopt foster children? There's not many reasons:

1) Salt of the earth, light of the world type people do it out of the kindness of their heart to help children that are truly in an atrocious and horrible situation. Not to say cohabitating and gay couples can't be this way.

2) For evil. Be it simply greed or lust, the kids are there for a reason and are not getting the love and nurturing they deserve.

IMO, in case #2, they are better off in a state system. And, while not all the people banned from adopting or hosting foster children by any means are like that, I think this law does a lot to get rid of those types of people.

[Freed Roger]

Tempering my excitement about Obama's victory is the continued bashing of gay people in the electorate...., yet it was largely the African American (and to a lesser extent Latino) voters who put Proposition 8 over the top. Talk about irony.

So we have 51% of the population of a state deciding that something they are able to do is not going to be permitted for less than 5% of the state's population

Its all very sad Clem. And I agree wholeheartedly, its very wrong - to have civil rights issues put up for a vote.

I have a hard time understanding the stats on the African American vote - a few guesses - some blacks may feel their struggle is trivialized and diminished by anothers. No group likes to be lowest on the totem pole, so it could be a mentality to put others down, so you can move up. This coupled with religious views. ...still it doesn't make sense.

Wedge issues continue to be used as political tools to garner votes of ignorant fools. (rhymes)

[clement]

Which, to me, is tantamount to saying that a governmental foster care system is preferable for many children than private homes.

I would agree with that statement, actually. These kids have been dealt a bad plot in life and likely have already developed issues and they need to be in an environment that will help them deal with that. Why do people adopt foster children? There's not many reasons:

1) Salt of the earth, light of the world type people do it out of the kindness of their heart to help children that are truly in an atrocious and horrible situation. Not to say cohabitating and gay couples can't be this way.

2) For evil. Be it simply greed or lust, the kids are there for a reason and are not getting the love and nurturing they deserve.

IMO, in case #2, they are better off in a state system. And, while not all the people banned from adopting or hosting foster children by any means are like that, I think this law does a lot to get rid of those types of people.

Would you care to explain the logic your using to reach this conclusion?

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Which, to me, is tantamount to saying that a governmental foster care system is preferable for many children than private homes.

I would agree with that statement, actually. These kids have been dealt a bad plot in life and likely have already developed issues and they need to be in an environment that will help them deal with that. Why do people adopt foster children? There's not many reasons:

1) Salt of the earth, light of the world type people do it out of the kindness of their heart to help children that are truly in an atrocious and horrible situation. Not to say cohabitating and gay couples can't be this way.

2) For evil. Be it simply greed or lust, the kids are there for a reason and are not getting the love and nurturing they deserve.

IMO, in case #2, they are better off in a state system. And, while not all the people banned from adopting or hosting foster children by any means are like that, I think this law does a lot to get rid of those types of people.

Would you care to explain the logic your using to reach this conclusion?

Married couples I would say are less likely to adopt children with the intent of sexually abusing them. Maybe not.

[tothebeach08]

Too many people are too concerned with what other people are doing in their own private lives. Dictating who can marry who is silly. Who cares. I think there are alot of people who fear anything which is different from what they are used to or from what they are. Fear is a horrible thing and when you make another group of human beings pay the price for your own fear, then that is wrong.

[heyzeus]

Every state does as much vetting and background/reference checking as possible before allowing a couple to adopt. I don't see why it matters whether the couple is gay, married, or unmarried. The same factors can be investigated to determine if this is a good home environment or not.

As for the states and their ballot propositions banning same sex union: It's disappointing, and it's saddening for all of the loving couples that won't get to have the right to do so for the time being. But like the civil rights struggle in the US has always shown, it's a long battle.

I'm optimistic, to near certain, that in our lifetimes a US Supreme Court decision will take up civil unions and rule, on due process and equal protection grounds, that you can't deny the myriad rights that come with marriage to homosexuals. It's just a question of when.