Why not just say "to ban g**s from" in these constitutional amendments instead of dancing around it?

Question

A proposal aimed at effectively banning g**s and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents was cleared Monday to appear on this fall's ballot in Arkansas.

The measure would prohibit unmarried couples living together from fostering or adopting children, and Arkansas doesn't allow g**s to marry or recognize g*y marriages conducted elsewhere.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_re_us/gay_foster_ban

Answer 1

I guess as a state, they have that right. As a parent, I believe a natural environment is a much safer and healthier environment to grow up in than one that could not be considered natural by anyone other than the partners involved.

Answer 2

I agree... I don't think anyone that is single or unmarried should be raising a kid... :/ and I am sorry but I have seen kids that are raised by "g*y" couples and they are the most angry and confused kids I have ever seen... they may be the rule and they maybe the exception I don't really know... but it's just sad how much turmoil those kids are going through because of their parents choices...

And further more (as bigoted and ignorant as one is libal to say this is) if homosexuality were "natural" and not a choice then why the h**l can they not procreate and then why aren't we all just evolved into transgendered or asexual beings?

Besides Holy Cow, I think there are more states in the Union that have a law similar to that considering adoption.... and if that is the case then wouldn't the other 48 states that do not recognize g*y marriage be in the same boat as Arkansas?

Answer 3

Great idea!

Answer 4

g**s can't be parents and shouldn't be able to adopt either.

Answer 5

I'm moving to Arkansas. Sounds like a good place to raise children.

Answer 6

GOD does not have a problem with it.  I take it your g*y.

Answer 7

Well, I don't think unmarried couples, even a man and a woman, should be adopting kids either.  If they can't commit to each other, they should be committing to a kid.

This is not a g*y issue.

Edit: oops, I meant "they should not be committing to a kid."

Answer 8

Constitution is well protected from idiots and  is not easy to change.

Answer 9

Doing this doesn't "ban g**s from" adopting. It banns unmarried couples. This could include any sexual preference. My guess is that this is an attempt to avoid an ACLU law suit for hetero-sexism. This way even heterosexual couples that are not married can fall under this law. Personally I think it is stupid. Foster homes are crowded and it is difficult to adopt without all these extra rules. It's unfortunate for the children who need a loving home, regardless of parents sexual orientation.

Answer 10

Because then they'd be exposed as bigots.

Answer 11

I believe this is in response to the court striking down a previous law in Arkansas that specifically prohibited g**s and lesbians from being foster parents. They wrote it this way so they could pretend it isn't discriminatory, rather it is in the best interests of the children. Apparently it is in a child's best interests to not be adopted by anyone rather than be adopted by a loving same-s*x couple.

Answer 12

I like the sound of "unmarried couples" better... but thanks for the suggestion.

Answer 13

Then it would not apply to heterosexual roommates.  The drafters to not want to have a trial over whether someone is g*y, especially because there is no legal definition that that word.  Go ahead and try to define it in terms that would include everyone you want included, and exclude everyone you want excluded.  I bet you will fail.  

Answer 14

Isn't it amazing the love for children that conservatives have?  They'd rather see them institutionalized with no family rather than have them go to a loving home that might include g**s or even heterosexual singles for that matter.  

Maybe you conservatives should make it consistent and insist that no single people of any persuasion be allowed to raise children.  You should probably start taking those children away from their sole parent right now for those that lost a parent to death or were perhaps a soldier who was killed in the service of their country.  After all, as many of you have said, children shouldn't be raised in a single parent household.

Answer 15

I would be fine with that.

Answer 16

Me'un Slick love g**s.

Answer 17

Because it bans heterosexuals that are not married from fostering or adopting children too.  

Answer 18

g*y fággots are an obomination to GOD, they dont deserve ANY rights.

(edit) YEAH keep the thumbs down coming you p***y liberals

Answer 19

Well, it affects "straight" couples as well.  Anyways, statistics show that a father and mother household is indeed the best for a child.  Sad that our society is disintegrating though.  I applaud Arkansas. Why not let them? If California can shove stuff down their citizens throats then let each state decide for itself huh?