Ark. Gov. Opposes Anti-Gay Adoption Amendment

Posted: October 8, 2007 - 3:00 pm ET
(Little Rock, Arkansas) Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe said Monday that he is opposed to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same- and opposite-sex unmarried couples from adopting children.


Beebe said that he believes the proposal goes to far. Although he opposes gays fostering children or adopting, he said that the proposed amendment would have been better split into two separate initiatives.


The governor, however, said that he would not campaign against the proposed amendment.


Last week Attorney General Dustin McDaniel approved the title of the initiative, by a conservative group, after rejecting an earlier version. (story)


His approval allows the Arkansas Family Council to begin collecting signatures to have the measure placed on next November's ballot.


The group was largely responsible for the passage of an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution banning gay marriage.


The measure would prevent a child from being adopted or placed in a foster home "if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state."


The AFC must collect about 62,000 signatures and submit them by next July 7. The names must then be verified by the state.


The adoption referendum is similar to a bill that died in the Legislature earlier this year.


That legislation failed, after Gov. Beebe had suggested that there were constitutional problems with the bill, although he would no say if he intended to veto it if it were passed.


The bill was introduced following a state Supreme Court ruling last year.
Arkansas’s Child Welfare Agency Review Board had established a policy in 1999 that banned gay people from serving as foster parents, and the Arkansas Supreme Court struck it down after a seven-year legal battle between the state and the ACLU.


Several state and national child welfare groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the court to strike down the exclusion because it worked against the best interests of foster children.


In its unanimous ruling, the court said testimony in the state's appeal demonstrated that "the driving force behind adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."

I guess this "offsets" the hate crime bill.

PN that was hilarious. But I can't agree with this bill. I think that any loving couple has to be better for a child than being bounced around in foster care. Pick your dysfunction.

Aren't these "conservatives" supposed to be against abortion? I know I sure am.

And adoption into a loving homes is one of THE BEST ways to diminish abortion.

So, why are they trying to stop adoptions?


Does not compute.

No, you are wrong here.

Adoption into loving homes has always been an option. Hasn't decreased abortion.

The best way to diminish abortion is to have good, reliable birth control available and to educate people on how to use it.

The best way to diminish abortion is to make it illegal and start throwing pregnant women and doctors in jail for a couple years. Not that I recommend it. But I bet that would cut back on the number of abortions tremendously.

It wouldn't stop a thing FX. All such laws would do would encourage more back alley abortions for the poor, just like it was before abortion was legalized...

Bullshit, there won't be 1,000,000 back alley abortions no matter how bad they want it. There will still be a few, especially in the beginning, but with today's media, and communication network, it would be too risky for a "real" doctor to risk it. And any woman who risks it from whoever IS doing it is a fool.

Notice I said I don't recommend it though before you get carried away.


And.
WELCOME BACK!!!!!

Delude yourself all you wish there FX...But making abortion illegal will in no way stop women from aborting if they don't want to continue on with a pregnancy. Nor will it stop unlicenced, on-the-side doctors/midwives from performing those risky procedures.

Just like before abortion was legalized, women who had the money went to other countries to abort...While those with limited access to funds went to back alleys, used herbal means to abort, or just plain made sure they had an 'accident' to end an unwanted pregnancy...And in the process, many died or were unable to conceive ever again...

So no...What your suggesting was already done in the past and failed miserably...That's why abortion was eventually legalized, to ensure that there were less women killed or maimed from seeking illegal/risky methods to end unwanted pregnancies.

I wanted to add another comment...As to your remark about the media? Seems you are making the same mistake about how the media involvement would effect population response...The same mistake your type thought the media would 'help' in regards to Roe vs. Wade...And the opposite happened, because the media coverage actually promoted SYMPATHY for those who feel they have to abort and worked in favor of the Pro-Choice side of the issue...