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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-96 last
To: Ahban
The Professor was a first hand witness to this event whereas the rest of us are just reading stories.

And the judge's ruling is a matter of public record. It's not hard to discover that the Professor is at the very least being misleading about the judge's ruling.

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.

Yes. I ask for reasonable justification while other people are openly comparing all homosexuals to child molesters, rapists and murderers and I'm the one being unreasonable.
51 posted on 12/31/2004 5:28:49 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: Dimensio

Not "all" perhaps- that is you trying to put words in the mouths of others, but a diproportionate number of child molesters ARE homosexuals.

And the judge's ruling is, by definition, the judge's side of the story. With the insanity coming out of the courts these days, I am more inclined to accept the Professor's version.


53 posted on 12/31/2004 10:54:38 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: pjacobs

Save it. A couple of gays cooing over a baby is a far cry from raising a child. I have raised / am raising seven, so I'm qualified to say that.

They need a mother AND a father.......and a moral upbringing. Don't pretend or be naive enough to believe that two gays are capable of that.


54 posted on 12/31/2004 11:00:13 PM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #55 Removed by Moderator

To: pjacobs
First, I'm not "homophobic". That implies "fear", and I am not afraid of gays. It's a stupid word coined by the gay community and liberals.......don't use it here.

Second, I don't have preconceived notions about gays. I know exactly what makes someone gay. It's 100% based upon their sexual preferences for members of their same sex; hardly a reason to celebrate them, and hardly a proper role model in ANY sense for children, especially young children. Kids do need male and female influences in their parents, period. Now do I really have to explain to you why??

56 posted on 01/01/2005 5:35:56 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: steplock

I guess laws prohibiting crime and banning public indecency are also unconstitutional now. As I keep saying, liberal judges are the bane of our society.


57 posted on 01/01/2005 5:40:01 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; steplock

When you get in an argument of morality with someone who has no moral compass, you just can't win, no matter how true and accurate you are.

We know that if God had intended for Homosexuals to have and raise children, they would be biologically capable of doing just that. But guess what - they can't.

I personally am growing tired of this troll/Christian baiting homosexual and this thread. He/It is trying to get us to look like fools when he/she/it already has nothing to loose.

Hope you all have fun....

And to pjacobs - I pray that some day, you will finally come to the realization that you are a sinner (we all are) and that you need something more than your deviant lifestyle to be complete - and that is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who came to this Earth, humbled himself, and died a horrific death to pay for your sins and the sins of the whole world. Without HIM, your short life on this Earth will be followed by an eternity you cannot fathom.


58 posted on 01/01/2005 6:09:28 AM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
Prospero Ano Nuevo, Battman!

I don't mind the trolls. or liberals on this board as long as they are honest about themselves - it gives us a lively discussion.

Only when there is no discussion ands simply trading of "talking points" does it become useless noise. Unfortunately the left wing radicals have been thoroughly dumbed-down by their own propaganda techniques where they cannot think for themselves anymore and can ONLY spout what they have been programmed for.

It used to be called "propaganda", "Brainwashing", now they are calling it "progressive thinking" ... talk about the ultimate oxymoron!!
59 posted on 01/01/2005 7:01:31 AM PST by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator

To: steplock
Arkansas Judge Overturns Morality

Woo-hoo! Party at my house! Bring lots of cute women and alcohol!

61 posted on 01/01/2005 7:29:00 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: goldstategop
I guess laws prohibiting crime and banning public indecency are also unconstitutional now.

Why? The DHS doesn't make those laws.
63 posted on 01/01/2005 12:35:45 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
I personally am growing tired of this troll/Christian baiting homosexual and this thread.

I see this response often, when someone arguing in favor of such mean-spirited and irrational laws is exposed as not having a single logical justification for them. This, followed by an appeal to their religious beliefs, which not everyone in the country shares.
64 posted on 01/01/2005 12:37:28 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

If you can't legislate morality, then ALL laws based on it are constitutionally infirm. Like DUH.


65 posted on 01/01/2005 12:37:57 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Is he federal or state judge?

If he's state and if they elect judges - recall him.

66 posted on 01/01/2005 12:47:00 PM PST by Dan from Michigan ("Don't flatter yourself - peewee!" - Tango and Cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator

To: goldstategop
Judge Fox's ruling was based in part on the fact that the DHS was not given the authority to "regulate morality". That means that he found that the department that made the policy exceeded their authority when making it. He did not rule that the state cannot regulate morality, which means that if the law were written by the state, he would not have been able to use "regulating morality" as a basis for his ruling. Of course, facts seem to be uncomfortable when trying to support indefensible positions such as the now overturned regulation, so I'm not surprised to see so many people claiming that the ruling said something that it did not.
68 posted on 01/01/2005 1:00:01 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Then the State Legislature should rewrite the law. I still dislike judges substituting their own views for the general beliefs of society just to placate the pleadings of special interest groups.


69 posted on 01/01/2005 1:02:53 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GatorPaul
For a matter of fact they were all evil self absorbed dangerous sexual deviants.

Somehow I have a feeling that your perception is based more upon what you want to believe about them rather than reality.

Either that, or you ignore every instance that doesn't fit your prejudices, assuming that anyone who isn't a "self absorbed dangerous sexual deviant" isn't a homosexual.
70 posted on 01/01/2005 1:03:22 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Then the State Legislature should rewrite the law.

Actually, the proposal is to give the DHS the authority to regulate morality. An unfortunate, but expected knee-jerk reaction from idiot lawmakers who don't use logic or reason.

I still dislike judges substituting their own views for the general beliefs of society just to placate the pleadings of special interest groups.

So it's okay for a government agency to make policies that overstep their authority? Maybe the FDA should ban pork to appease Muslims?
71 posted on 01/01/2005 1:05:00 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981

Plant a plaque in his courtroom.


72 posted on 01/01/2005 1:28:42 PM PST by Old Professer (When the fear of dying no longer obtains no act is unimaginable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Hey, go spout your twaddle somewhere else....tell it to the victims of the ped priests praying (excuse me, preying) on innocent victims serving as alter boys.

Tell it to the parents of the child who was sodomized, tortured and ultimately killed by positonal suffocation at the hands of the perps who were "befriending" him. I would not risk having my child in the home of a homosexual. I believe you will find that in Johnson, AR a homosexual father (recently out of the closet) sodomized his own four year old. BTW, the father had AIDS. The mother legally tried to prevent his "father" from having visitation without supervision. The judge said no...I'm sure his wishing now he had done otherwise. The following examples are just a few local from Washington/Benton Co. What else don't we know? And why place the innocent before them to find out?


73 posted on 01/01/2005 2:10:02 PM PST by missanne (Go to work, write letters to the editor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

To: missanne
Hey, go spout your twaddle somewhere else....tell it to the victims of the ped priests praying (excuse me, preying) on innocent victims serving as alter boys.

How would the Arkansas restriction on foster parents prevent this?

Tell it to the parents of the child who was sodomized, tortured and ultimately killed by positonal suffocation at the hands of the perps who were "befriending" him.

How would the Arkasnas restriction on foster parents prevent this?

I would not risk having my child in the home of a homosexual.

Of course not. You're paranoid and delusional.

I believe you will find that in Johnson, AR a homosexual father (recently out of the closet) sodomized his own four year old. BTW, the father had AIDS.

Got a link for the story? And would it have been acceptable were it a father molesting a four year-old daughter? Do you have any evidence that isn't anecdotal, because I can give you anecdotal in response.

I read a story about a homosexual in Indiana who had adopted three brothers who all had long-term mental problems (as a result of fetal alcohol syndrom, nothing that the adoptive father had done), and was planning on adopting their sister (who also suffered from long-term medical issues) when a man named Earl Kimmerling stepped in, wrote letters to the paper and even solicited the aid of a state Representative and managed to circumvent enough red tape to quickly adopt the girl on his own with his wife, thus splitting up the siblings. I think that Kimmerling is a jerk, to say the very least, but you probably regard him as some kind of hero and probably wish that there were more men like Earl Kimmerling out there.
75 posted on 01/01/2005 4:16:28 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Budge; Travelgirl

More twaddle!!! I don't need to post a link. I'm a law enforcement officer and had first hand knowledge of both the cases I gave you. The case of the perps in Rogers, AR was a national case although unless you happened to watch Fox News you wouldn't have known about it.

The case of the perp who performed rape on his four year old son is a perp from Johnson, AR.....my partner worked the case and made the arrest. That four year old could have been saved the pain of what he will bear for the rest of his life...His father sodomized him...his father has AIDS! Did ya get it?!!!

I can assure you I am not paranoid nor delusional....thanks so much for the personal attack! I think anyone with some gray matter will agree homosexual men or women are less than ideal parents compared to the situation of one man and one woman married in stable lifestyles. Life is hard enough on kids without adding another complex relationship they are too young to understand in the name of political correctness.


76 posted on 01/01/2005 6:11:06 PM PST by missanne (Go to work, write letters to the editor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Ahban; TheBattman; RightOnline; goldstategop; steplock

Ping!


77 posted on 01/01/2005 6:15:03 PM PST by missanne (Go to work, write letters to the editor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: steplock; YOUGOTIT; sweetliberty

Ping! AR Freepers ping!


78 posted on 01/01/2005 6:21:11 PM PST by missanne (Go to work, write letters to the editor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: missanne
More twaddle!!! I don't need to post a link. I'm a law enforcement officer and had first hand knowledge of both the cases I gave you.

Ah, so because you work in law enforcement, anecdotal evidence suddenly becomes valid.

Earl Kimmerling makes you proud, doesn't he?
79 posted on 01/01/2005 6:24:46 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: pjacobs
Wow - you can't even live with a sign off with well wishes.

God created the sinner, not the sin. God loves us all, despite our sins. But he gives us a way to overcome our sins and to hold back our sinful nature.

80 posted on 01/01/2005 6:25:28 PM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
This, followed by an appeal to their religious beliefs, which not everyone in the country shares.

And much in the same way you are accusing me of falling into a pattern, you too have fallen into a similar pattern with your statement.

Amazing how the left likes to push a pure democracy until the majority does not agree with them. The overwhelming majority of Americans have a real problem with homosexual's choice of lifestyle. The vast majority of voters oppose gay marriage. And here in Arkansas, the vast majority of citizens (in both political parties) oppose homosexuals being allowed to adopt or be foster parents.

In this case, instead of finding a new argument, you insult other's opinion (and believe it or not, the country is still predominantly Christian).

81 posted on 01/01/2005 6:30:21 PM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

WRONG! DHS can make rules based upon morality. They constantly choose to remove children from homes with abusive, drug addicted, alcoholic, etc. parents. They also won't (if they know about it) place children in homes with the above.

DHS does have authority to determine if a home is suitable and in the child's best interests. There are a lot of subjective factors considered.


82 posted on 01/01/2005 6:33:07 PM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
Amazing how the left likes to push a pure democracy until the majority does not agree with them.

I don't push a "pure democracy". I'm well aware that we don't live in one.

The overwhelming majority of Americans have a real problem with homosexual's choice of lifestyle.

Yes, but then I think that the "overwhelming majority of Americans" are ignorant of homosexuals, to the point of thinking that homosexuality is some kind of "lifestyle".

Not that it matters, because we don't live in a pure democracy.

The vast majority of voters oppose gay marriage.

This isn't about same-sex marriage.

And here in Arkansas, the vast majority of citizens (in both political parties) oppose homosexuals being allowed to adopt or be foster parents.

Then I'm sure that they'll have no problem pushing through a law that will survive a court challenge. As it is, the only regulation that was in place was made by an agency that had no authority to make such a regulation. Rather than focus on that, however, everyone wants to blame the judge for rightly pointing out that fact.

In this case, instead of finding a new argument, you insult other's opinion

I'm merely pointing out that thus far no one has presented a rational argument based upon facts. I've seen appeals to "common sense" (which, while seeming sound, don't have facts backing them up and do keep in mind that "common sense" led to Aristoltilian physics), anecdotes (and I can provide anecdotes for my side of the argument also), vague assertions that all homosexuals are child molesters and assertions that children should be raised in a way consistent with a certain religion's beliefs, without any secular justification.
83 posted on 01/01/2005 6:34:30 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: TheBattman
DHS can make rules based upon morality.

No, they can't.

they constantly choose to remove children from homes with abusive, drug addicted, alcoholic, etc. parents.

This is because it is a policy based upon protecting the children's "well-being", not some vague assertion of "morality". The DHS was given authority, by the state, to regulate based upon a child's "well being". They were not given the authority to determine suitability based upon vague assertions of "morality".

DHS does have authority to determine if a home is suitable and in the child's best interests. There are a lot of subjective factors considered.

And judge Fox found that there is no reason to assume that a household is unsuitable simply because of the presence of a homosexual within it. Because of that, he ruled that the DHS's only justification was "morality", which was overstepping their authority.

I'm sure that you think that the mere presence of a homosexual in a household will cause irreperable harm to a foster child taken in by a heterosexual couple who owns the home, but thus far I've not seen any evidence that your fears are grounded in reality.
85 posted on 01/01/2005 6:38:25 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: ftlpdx
I believe that homosexuality is a neurosis. Neurotic parents - in this case, TWO, not just one - mitigate against a child's well being. How's that?

I don't believe that homosexuality is a neurosis. My empty assertion nullifies yours, and we're back to square one.
87 posted on 01/01/2005 6:47:41 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Dear sir....it is not that I wouldn't like to put up a link for you...I just don't know how to find it, since this occured two years ago..the incident in Johnson, AR occured probably about the same time.

I can see you'd rather be devil's advocate for the homosexual's having foster children versus a better enviroment for the children, so I'll sign off. I agree to disagree with you. That's what makes are country special. God Bless you Happy New Year!


88 posted on 01/01/2005 6:49:33 PM PST by missanne (Go to work, write letters to the editor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

What a dreamer -

My point was that the majority of Americans and Arkansans do not support homosexuality IN ANY WAY. But because of leftist judges, NOTHING dealing with any real moral issue is likely to stand up in court - not because of Constitutional issues, but because judges prefer to judge from their personal political view, not from a "will of the people" and "Constitutional" perspective.

No rational argument yet in this thread against this ruling? You are kidding, right? Of course, the studies that show that stable homes with a MOTHER AND FATHER (not mother + mother, father + father, and even single parent homes) are far better in the long term for children. Of course there are always exceptions - abusive parent, drugs, etc. But as a statistic, the two parent (again, not same-sex) home is better.

But as this doesn't support your view, you will discount it - probably by asking who's study it was.


89 posted on 01/01/2005 6:50:02 PM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: steplock

God will overturn this "Judge" soon enough. Citizens' Arrest anyone ?


90 posted on 01/01/2005 6:52:44 PM PST by Red Sea Swimmer (Tisha5765Bav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981

What do you have against pigs?


91 posted on 01/01/2005 6:55:00 PM PST by T Wayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Yet you again are ignoring something - most people, citizens and DHS employees believe that a homosexual household is detrimental to a child's well-being. Thus it falls into the authority of DHS to make that decision.


92 posted on 01/01/2005 6:55:43 PM PST by TheBattman (Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
My point was that the majority of Americans and Arkansans do not support homosexuality IN ANY WAY.

When the USSC decided Lawrence v. Texas, 60% of the US population supported the ruling. Or were you not referring to the reversal of sodomy laws?

But because of leftist judges, NOTHING dealing with any real moral issue is likely to stand up in court - not because of Constitutional issues, but because judges prefer to judge from their personal political view, not from a "will of the people" and "Constitutional" perspective.

The "will of the people" is irrelevant to the fact that the policy was a result of an agency overstepping its bounds. If the "will of the people" really wants it reinstated, then the "people" should have no trouble doing so. An incorrectly-made policy does not become valid simply because the "majority" supports it.

No rational argument yet in this thread against this ruling? You are kidding, right?

No, not kidding.

Of course, the studies that show that stable homes with a MOTHER AND FATHER (not mother + mother, father + father, and even single parent homes) are far better in the long term for children.

1) This case was about foster care, which is not the same as "long term" care.

2) I'm sure that you can cite case studies, and I an cite case studies that show that children raised by same-sex couples do no worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples (and then you'll claim bias in the studies that I cite while I claim bias in the studies that you cite). Stalemate.

But as this doesn't support your view, you will discount it - probably by asking who's study it was.

Just like you'll dismiss any study that doesn't support your point of view, right?
93 posted on 01/01/2005 6:56:45 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
Yet you again are ignoring something - most people, citizens and DHS employees believe that a homosexual household is detrimental to a child's well-being.

Argument ad numerum. Logical fallacy.

The DHS tried to argue that the presence of homosexuals in a household (why are people ignoring the fact that the ban applied even to heterosexual foster parents if a homosexual just happened to live in the household at times?), which is why the plaintiffs presented evidence from psychologists who said that the DHS's claim was not true.
94 posted on 01/01/2005 6:58:51 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: T Wayne
What do you have against pigs?

I suppose it would be unfair to the pigs to entrust their lives to one of such perverted judgment as this judge.

95 posted on 01/01/2005 6:59:45 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: steplock

BTTT


96 posted on 01/01/2005 7:02:33 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


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