Cole v. Arkansas - REOIV.com
REOIV.com
submit a link | random images | reoiv.com rss feed rss | reoiv.com rss feed image | contact | FAQ | login | register

Cole v. Arkansas

Politics Rate this link: 1 stars 2 stars 3 stars 4 stars 5 stars
In 2008 Arkansas passed a law preventing unmarried couples from becoming foster parents or adopting children, the ACLU sued the state calling the act unconstitutional.  The case should be going to trial sometime this year.
[ View Last Comment ]
sent in by: darry
last post: darry

reoiv - If i see van helsing i swear to the lord i will slay him!  3/17/2010 10:35:13 AM
Not sure how I feel on this one. Being married provides a lot of legal protection and benefits to a couple so I don't have a problem with requiring couples to be married to adopt a child together.

Though I do have a problem with not allowing everyone to marry at least one partner, regardless of their gender.

So I am at the same time for the law and totally against it.

darry - Some men just want to watch the world burn  3/17/2010 11:36:16 AM
I don't necessarily see the problem with unmarried couples adopting but I agree if you put that into law you have to allow anyone regardless of their gender to marry.  I also don't think the law should apply to willed or private adoptions. For instance, several of the individuals suing the state are fighting for the right to adopt children whose parents have named as guardians. 

Basically if I died and I wanted my two gay friends who've been together for years to be the guardians of my kids they couldn't the way the law is currently written.  This is the same for blood relatives living in a similar situation.

If they want to close "real" adoptions not guardianships I think it is asinine but at least I can sort of understand the reasoning.  But preventing the wishes of a deceased parent regarding the guardianship of their kids is absolutely ridiculous.
gig_the_weasel - A nat 20 is bad?  3/17/2010 11:53:09 AM
This comes down to the same thing as same sex marriage for me.  I just don't believe that the government should be in charge of marriage.  It is a religious/personal thing, so why do we need the government there too?

IMHO, the government should (for tax reasons, etc.) deal with civil unions between any two people.  This is not a marriage and it can be between any two legal adult US Citizens.  An older bachelor brother and sister...Two roommates...A gay couple...whatever.

We could hash out the length of the contract, maybe it is something that once entered is required for 5 years or until death unless a split is done, etc.

This makes adoption easier, this simplifies all the problems to me.  I for one, do not want the government any deeper in my private life than they already are.
darry - Some men just want to watch the world burn  3/18/2010 12:08:46 AM
Honestly I just think it's sad that there are people who are rational, sane, and financially stable who want to adopt kids who can't.  Particularly while we have thousands upon thousands of children in foster care or some other form of state custody. 

You will never convince me that growing up in a group home or a foster home is better for your emotional and mental well-being than growing up with two dads or living with grandma and grandpa just because they're not married.

It's utterly ridiculous and I honestly do not see how it can be considered constitutional.
darry - Some men just want to watch the world burn  3/18/2010 12:24:24 AM
Oh and it's not against single people, single people can adopt but unmarried cohabitating couples cannot.  That is stupid beyond belief.

Go here to see the pictures of some of the kids up for adoption right now in all its depressing glory.  If you check all three boxes you'll see all of the current kids waiting to be adopted from group homes, etc.

Digg This Link! Facebook this Link! Share With MySpace This Link! Stumble Upon Link!
Upload and Image
Comment

Take me back to the links!