Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arkansas Judge Overturns Morality
Mountain Journal News ^ | 29 Dec 2004

Posted on 12/29/2004 6:21:54 PM PST by 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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: children; homosexual; homosexualagenda; perverts; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

1 posted on 12/29/2004 6:21:54 PM PST by steplock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steplock

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.


2 posted on 12/29/2004 6:24:46 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Site Meter

Problem 1 - "Arkansas Judge"...
Sharper Minds Daily...
3 posted on 12/29/2004 6:25:30 PM PST by KMC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Here we have another ACLU judge overruling the people. The people of the state need to impeach this judge and get someone who will rule by law and not by their personal preferences.
4 posted on 12/29/2004 6:27:29 PM PST by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock

Would murder be a public morality law?


5 posted on 12/29/2004 6:33:44 PM PST by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT
not only Impeach Fox, but if our 'illustrious rino' Guv Huckabee does not do something immediately, publicly, and loudly, HE will require impeachment also!
6 posted on 12/29/2004 6:40:55 PM PST by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: steplock

He should be impeached. All law is based on morality.


7 posted on 12/29/2004 6:42:15 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Goldberry; Happy2BMe; 1tin_soldier; Ahban; Amazed1953; AmericanHeroes.com; Amoz; ...

Arkansas ping!


8 posted on 12/29/2004 7:18:38 PM PST by sweetliberty (Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we should.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steplock

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml%3Ftype%3DdomesticNews%26storyID%3D7202774

All related stories per Google News


9 posted on 12/29/2004 7:26:05 PM PST by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock

A county judge making this decision? It might as well be Joe Blow in the street, but we should beware that the ACLU has this kind of idiocy for the whole country.


10 posted on 12/29/2004 7:27:24 PM PST by oyez (¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock

He sounds like a Judge LEARNED HAND wana bee.


11 posted on 12/29/2004 7:29:23 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
So morality has no place in public policy. Okay, by the judge's reasoning then all hate crimes, discrimination laws, and other social services should be ruled unconstitutional. Big government liberalism is an expression of left-wing morality.
12 posted on 12/29/2004 7:29:29 PM PST by Kuksool (RATS are pro-life when their political power is aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
The judge needs to be impeached, .....

He should be but the media will have him on the national news glorifying his opinion.

13 posted on 12/29/2004 7:30:31 PM PST by oyez (¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steplock

Then the Child Welfare Agency shouldn't be judging the morality of 'child abuse.' It is just how people raise their children.


14 posted on 12/29/2004 7:33:22 PM PST by eccentric (aka baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
.....
15 posted on 12/29/2004 7:56:54 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist ©® - Dubya... F**K YEAH!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock; Jim Holt

This is no problem. State Senator Jim Holt will step in on this one and help make it a STATE LAW that homosexuals cannot have foster children. Maybe an agency board can't make that ruling, but the legislature of Arkansas sure can!


16 posted on 12/29/2004 8:11:46 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban

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

I would prefer the power of RECALL & IMPEACHMENT over simply adding a new RESTRICTIVE "law" on liberties.

My personal opinion? declare that within 365 days, ALL laws other than the basic Constitution of Arkansas (or better yet, the USA) will be null and void. PERIOD!

That would give the poiticians one year to figure out what really is important and to realize that their very livelihood is at stake!


17 posted on 12/29/2004 8:31:13 PM PST by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steplock

Yes, the best way would be to throw out the unconstitutional law in Arkansas that says candidates for Judicial positions CANNOT make any statements about where the would stand on any issue or case. We elect our judges, but there is no way that is an informed choice. For example in this last election that elitist twit Collins Kilgore (who wrote the horrendous original Lakeview decision) ran commercials saying he "interprets the law, not makes it". By law, his opponent could not get on the radio and say, "He DOES make up the law, look at his lakeview ruling!".

We should change that law, heat up judicial campaigns, and then let an INFORMED public toss out the elitists.


18 posted on 12/29/2004 8:50:51 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Democracy: a form of government where the majority rules that is unless the minority is the liberal elite in which case they rule and the system becomes a hereditary aristocracy.
19 posted on 12/29/2004 9:05:54 PM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty; steplock; Goldberry; Happy2BMe; 1tin_soldier; Ahban; Amazed1953; ...
Thanks for the ping. Arkansas is blessed with many liberal pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-family ultra-liberal judges appointed by their mentor - the impeached president Bill Clinton and his hag Hillary.

Just another sweet reminder of the Clinton Curse.

20 posted on 12/30/2004 12:12:00 AM PST by Happy2BMe ("Islam fears democracy worse than anything-It castrates their stranglehold at the lowest level.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty

Does this really surprise anyone?


21 posted on 12/30/2004 3:46:57 AM PST by Budge (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Budge
"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.

22 posted on 12/30/2004 4:38:39 AM PST by sweetliberty (Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we should.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: steplock

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.


24 posted on 12/30/2004 10:17:46 AM PST by No Dems 2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steplock
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.

25 posted on 12/30/2004 11:11:07 AM PST by pulaskibush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pjacobs
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.
26 posted on 12/30/2004 11:35:17 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: steplock
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.
27 posted on 12/30/2004 11:39:23 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
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.

28 posted on 12/30/2004 11:48:13 AM PST by ArGee (After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steplock
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.

29 posted on 12/30/2004 11:54:44 AM PST by ArGee (After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pjacobs

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.


30 posted on 12/30/2004 12:22:10 PM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: 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.

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.

32 posted on 12/30/2004 1:01:14 PM PST by pulaskibush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.
33 posted on 12/30/2004 1:14:01 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
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.

34 posted on 12/30/2004 1:54:15 PM PST by pulaskibush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pulaskibush
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.
35 posted on 12/30/2004 2:19:39 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
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.

36 posted on 12/30/2004 3:08:37 PM PST by pulaskibush (Is a strawman better than a gay troll? Or is name calling too childish to care about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pulaskibush
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).
37 posted on 12/30/2004 3:34:33 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
What do you have against pigs?

They are unclean and they vote liberal Democrat.

38 posted on 12/30/2004 5:36:23 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pjacobs

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".


39 posted on 12/30/2004 6:20:15 PM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: pjacobs

While you are saying a prayer for me, you might think about praying for help escaping the lifestyle you have apparently chosen for yourself and/or to condone.

You might choose to read up on the subject in the best handbook for life - called The Bible. IF you don't have one, let me know, I would be glad to get you one.


41 posted on 12/30/2004 8:27:29 PM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: steplock

I was an expert witness supporting the Arkansas regulation prohibiting homosexuals from being foster parents, on the basis of the best interests of the children. But the judge struck down the regulation prohibiting foster parenting by households with a homosexually behaving adult (Howard vs. CWARB case).

I found the trial of Howard v. CWARB to be utterly corrupt because both the plaintiffs and the state were represented by attorneys affiliated with the ACLU. The ACLU brought the plaintiffs case against the state. The state Child Welfare Board was represented by an active ACLU member, namely Kathy Hall.

I know for a fact that the Arkansas Bar has an ongoing investigation of Kathy Hall for this apparent gross conflict of interest. The Arkansas Bar is currently investigating the way in which Kathy Hall very clearly appears to have sabotaged the state's defense.

In another recent Arkansas case involving a homosexual youth, ACLU's Leslie Cooper (plaintiff's lawyer for Howard v. CWARB) and Kathy Hall (defendant's lawyer for Howard v. CWARB) served as co-counsel. I discovered the facts of this on the ACLU website.

I am shocked that Judge Tim Fox did not declare a mistrial because he was notified about this conflict of interest by another attorney in October. The CWARB and the Governor should file for a mistrial because ACLU activist attorneys were representing both the plaintiff and the defendant (the state) in Howard v. CWARB.

Because of their conduct, I just filed suit in Federal Court in Arkansas today against Kathy Hall and the other ACLU attorneys involved in this case.

Unfortunately in his written decision, Judge Tim Fox overlooked the scientific studies I presented as an expert witness in the case that show that the majority of foster children have psychological disorders resulting from their losses and maltreatment, and that any increased source of stress interferes with recovery from psychological disorder. This evidence clearly pertains to the welfare of the foster children which ran counter to the Judge's legal basis for his ruling in which he said the regulation was enforcing morality and did not pertain to the welfare of the child (which is probably why he ignored the scientific evidence I presented).

I hope you can get the truth out to the public on this scandal.

Sincerely,

George A. Rekers, Ph.D.
Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science
University of South Carolina School of Medicine


42 posted on 12/30/2004 8:54:04 PM PST by University Professor (An expert psychological witness on this court case)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: University Professor
What about the testimony of witnesses who said that foster children in the same household as a homosexual adult were no less well adjusted than other foster children? Did you think that it was invalid, or should the judge have disregarded it all in favor of yours simply because you're special?

From the stories that I read, the judge did not just rule on "public morality", but also found that children in such households weren't adversely affected.

It would seem to me that the judge didn't simply "disregard" your testimony, as you claim, but that he took the word of the plaintiff witnesses over yours. It might help your credibility if your tailored your arguments to that fact rather than distorting the nature of the ruling.
43 posted on 12/30/2004 10:51:10 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Anyone who will display their sexual perversions openly and then demand that everone cheer them and declare them normal .....

We would not allow a child to be placed in a heterosexual whorehouse either! What about allowing habitual criminals to adopt? Hey - that's only a "lifestyle", no?

If homosexuals are allowed to adopt children, then where do we stop with the abnormal? well -- bestiality is a choice also is it not? sado-masochists? pedophiles?

You will cry that of course we shouldn't put the children in jeapordy with pedophiles, but what the hell do you think NAMBLA is except homosexuals who want the right to rape little boys - and all the homosexual organizations openly endorse NAMBLA (North America Man-Boy Love Assoc - or something like that).

No - homosexuality is NOT NORMAL - otherwise you could procreate (without the aid of another -gasp!- sex). Nature, unaided, culls out the defective.

I know homosexuals, I have friends who are homosexuals and I respect them as people. They don't hide their partners either. But they do not practice perversion openly and corrupt children. I do not accept that from anyone no matter what their preference is.

We should also never allow people with diminished mental capacity to adopt either. People with mental imbalances are dangerous to children.

Let's take this treasonous judge --- if you do not make laws according to the prevailing morals of the communisty - what do you make laws for?

answer: if you are a politician-lawyer-judge --- for whoever pays the highest price! Until "We, the People" enact the Second Amendment again.


44 posted on 12/31/2004 6:41:06 AM PST by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Anyone who will display their sexual perversions openly and then demand that everone cheer them and declare them normal .....

Huh?

We would not allow a child to be placed in a heterosexual whorehouse either!

Who said putting children in any kind of whorehouse? Why is it that so many people are throwing in these red herrings? Are your arguments against allowing children in foster homes where a homosexual is present so weak and devoid of merit that you have to wave your hands around in an attempt to distract from the real issue?

What about allowing habitual criminals to adopt? Hey - that's only a "lifestyle", no?

Tell you what. Tell me why we shouldn't allow habitual criminals to adopt (note: I agree that habitual criminals should not be allowed to adopt). Then find a way to relate that reasoning to not allowing children to enter foster care where a homosexual is present. Right now, I don't quite see how the two issues are related.

If homosexuals are allowed to adopt children, then where do we stop with the abnormal? well -- bestiality is a choice also is it not? sado-masochists? pedophiles?

Again, is your argument against allowing homosexuals to be present in foster homes so weak that you have to toss in these red herrings?

You will cry that of course we shouldn't put the children in jeapordy with pedophiles, but what the hell do you think NAMBLA is except homosexuals who want the right to rape little boys - and all the homosexual organizations openly endorse NAMBLA (North America Man-Boy Love Assoc - or something like that).

You would help your credibility if you didn't lie and claim that homosexuals universally support NAMBLA.

Do you know what the Rene Guyon Society is? It's a group of heterosexuals who believe that adult-child sexual contact is healthy and normal. By your reasoning, we should keep foster children out of the care of heterosexuals.

No - homosexuality is NOT NORMAL

Left-handedness is also NOT NORMAL. Going from red herrings to irrelevant factiods. The frequency of homosexuality within the population has no bearing on whether or not it poses a direct harm to children.

otherwise you could procreate (without the aid of another -gasp!- sex). Nature, unaided, culls out the defective.

Ah, so homosexuality is now "bad" because two people of the same gender cannot procreate. I'm sorry, I don't see how the lack of procreative ability equals "bad thing". I can't reproduce simply by taking a shower, so should I stop bathing?

I know homosexuals, I have friends who are homosexuals and I respect them as people.

Which is why you associate all homosexuals with NAMBLA, right? Lots of respect there.

They don't hide their partners either.

I don't see why they should.

But they do not practice perversion openly and corrupt children.

And any homosexual who would do this should not be near children, nor should any heterosexual who would do this. This is yet another red herring.

I do not accept that from anyone no matter what their preference is.

Well, you won't get argument from me. Apparently, however, you are under the mistaken impression that this ruling was about "allowing homosexuals to practice their perversion openly and corrupt children".

We should also never allow people with diminished mental capacity to adopt either. People with mental imbalances are dangerous to children.

Red herring.

Let's take this treasonous judge --- if you do not make laws according to the prevailing morals of the communisty - what do you make laws for?

Deliberate evasion of the point. The judge ruled that DHS did not have the authority to regulate morality, not the state. The judge's ruling was based on the fact that DHS did not have the authority to make regulations simply based upon "moral" decisions (not that the state can't make such regulations) and that the state failed to show that children suffer any harm from being in households where homosexuals are present.

answer: if you are a politician-lawyer-judge --- for whoever pays the highest price! Until "We, the People" enact the Second Amendment again.

Is that a death threat? Is your position really so devoid of factual arguments that you're willing to resort to violence to silence any attempt to inject rationality into the matter?
45 posted on 12/31/2004 12:34:12 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ahban

Yes it is a problem..any elected state rep or senator can write a law, but the problem I think is we don't have enough senators and reps with the testicular fortitude to pass it through the committee process and into the chambers for a vote...... We need more Republicans in both chambers and we don't have it.

What we need is a movement of ordinary folks calling their Reps and Senators pushing them to realize this ain't going to happen in AR! Children need a mom and a dad (of the opposite sex)! It going to fall back on us the citizens to make them feel the heat! Support your local county Republican Party! Join it, work it, know who your elected officals are and make sure they KNOW you and your VALUES or we will lose this one.


46 posted on 12/31/2004 3:33:32 PM PST by missanne (Go to work, write letters to the editor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: missanne
We need more Republicans in both chambers and we don't have it.

Actually, as a result of reactionary screeching not based upon logic or reason, there's a push in the Arkansas state legislature to rewrite the law to give DHS the authority "regulate morality" in addition to their other duties and it does have bipartisan support from legislators who could care less about reality and who wish to ignore the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the now overturned restriction in any way "protected children".

Children need a mom and a dad (of the opposite sex)!

So would you support restricting foster children exclusively to households with married couples? I understand that the now overturned restriction originally started with a plan to prevent children from being taken into foster homes by single adults of any sexual orientation, but that much got scrapped.
47 posted on 12/31/2004 3:48:18 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: missanne

I think we do have enough to get it passed once someone confronts them with it. Even Democrats will vote for it once the choice is before them. Sen. Holt has shown that if you stick to your guns on the right issues, you can take a tremendous, vicious, and personal wave of assaults from the print media and still come out highly popular. The other, more timid, legislators were watching.


48 posted on 12/31/2004 4:45:54 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: University Professor

Thanks for that first hand report. It sounds like you have uncovered a serious problem. That is what I love about the Freeper network- we have lot's of reporters on the scene


49 posted on 12/31/2004 4:49:16 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

You sure are quick to accuse others of lying, distorting, etc. The Professor was a first hand witness to this event whereas the rest of us are just reading stories.

Since you are so quick to accuse others of lies and distoritions I am sure you won't mind being held to the same standard- I don't believe anything you say on this issue. I don't trust you on it because it is so clear that you are willing to say anything, and be hateful to any number of people, in an effort to justify this wickedness.


50 posted on 12/31/2004 4:55:37 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson