RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years » Video: Mississippian who made soldier his lifestyle choice seeks freedom based on unchosen orientation » One of America's most anti-gay organizations rallies for the Duggars; because of course they would  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/24/2007

Ark. group hopes locals will adopt the bias they've fostered

by Jeremy Hooper

Gaarkadopt

A measure that would prevent the state's gay couples from adopting kiddies has been presented to the Arkansas Attorney General for approval:

Gay Adoption Ban Proposal Submitted To Arkansas A.G. [365 Gay]

If A.G. Dustin McDaniel gives the measure the go-ahead, the state group that hides its true intent behind the word "family," the Arkansas Family Council, will begin the process of collecting the 61,974 John Hancocks needed to put the offensive bit of cow dung on the 2008 ballot for the voters to decide. And if the ban manages to jump through all of those hoops and becomes law, Arkansas will begin the process of collecting the 61,974 years it will need to wipe this discriminatory pockmark off of its state's tolerant history.

Arkansas gays, we're pulling for ya! Oh, and Arkansas children who could have a loving home but would be robbed of one should this ban pass -- you too!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Brought to you by the same state that now allows infants to get married with parental consent! Boys with girls only, of course!

Posted by: George | Aug 24, 2007 2:10:32 PM

Seems to me that their efforts would be better spent trying to get kids adopted into safe, secure, loving homes instead of putting forth ballot measures to help ensure they remain in orphanages and foster care. Tell me again how this is "pro-family?"

Posted by: Jessica | Aug 24, 2007 2:25:19 PM

Last week I visited my state's social services website, where it listed a total of 879 children in foster care available for adoption. For a child to make it onto the website, it usually means that the state has already exhausted every other means of placement. Slightly under half of those kids are already over 15, which likely means they will never be adopted. It's heartbreaking to read some of these kids' profiles, as many of them have been in foster care their entire lives.

These groups claim to be "pro-family"? Well, they should put their money where their mouth is. Make _them_ adopt these kids if they won't let anyone else who doesn't fit their ideal standard.

Posted by: George | Aug 24, 2007 3:04:18 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails