Sorry to anyone that lives there but seriously, WTF?! They have voted to write into state law that unmarried couples living together cannot be allowed to foster/adopt children. Wow, it must be nice to live in a state where you have so many people willing to foster/adopt that you don't need anymore and can quite effectively ban an entire group of people from parenting children in need.
Is there a shortage of children in the system? Is the rest of the system working so well that there isn't an over abundance of children in the fostercare system like the rest of the nation. I would love to be enlightened on how they have done that.
My favorite part is when proponents for the new law said 'We are concerned for the welfare of the children.' No. I do not believe that you are. You believe that an unmarried couple, by the act of being unmarried, will in some way harm a child that is in their home. Because their married parents who were beating/starving/molesting them we doing such a great job? Oh, didn't you people know that? Yes some of those world class parents are married. Apparently marriage has nothing to do with the safety and welfare of a child.
Let's talk about what this is really about, preventing gay and lesbian couples from foster/adopting children. Since the bill was rejected by the Arkansas courts last year that prevented gay couples from being foster/adoptive parents it was re-worded and introduced again. Regardless of what you believe about gay/lesbian people, it is inherently ridiculous to believe that keeping a child in a state run facility for abused, abandoned, and neglected children is better than in a loving home. That a child will be better served by living in a dormitory, not having his/her own clothes, having multiple staff people instead of parental figures, and living an institutional life, (sounds a bit like prison) is somehow better than living in a home where they can recieve the individual attention they so require to grow and heal, is the most bigotted and ignorant of arguments. This bill was in no way concerned about the welfare of the children and instead will keep some of them in a harmful situation.
I can assure you that any child who is placed in this situation, one that they didn't cause and have no control over, they are least concerend with the sexuality or marital status of the adults in the home. I promise all you people that voted for this disgusting law that a child who has been yanked from their home in the middle of the night, with only the clothes on their backs, and placed into the care of a bunch of people whom they have never seen, is not thinking 'Hey, I don't want to be here, they aren't married.' They are much more concerned with wondering what happend to their parents, will they go back, do they want to go back, will this guy be in my bed tonight, will that lady hit me, do I get to eat.
I was planning on writing a much different post today, but read about this and I'm just disgusted.
Is there a shortage of children in the system? Is the rest of the system working so well that there isn't an over abundance of children in the fostercare system like the rest of the nation. I would love to be enlightened on how they have done that.
My favorite part is when proponents for the new law said 'We are concerned for the welfare of the children.' No. I do not believe that you are. You believe that an unmarried couple, by the act of being unmarried, will in some way harm a child that is in their home. Because their married parents who were beating/starving/molesting them we doing such a great job? Oh, didn't you people know that? Yes some of those world class parents are married. Apparently marriage has nothing to do with the safety and welfare of a child.
Let's talk about what this is really about, preventing gay and lesbian couples from foster/adopting children. Since the bill was rejected by the Arkansas courts last year that prevented gay couples from being foster/adoptive parents it was re-worded and introduced again. Regardless of what you believe about gay/lesbian people, it is inherently ridiculous to believe that keeping a child in a state run facility for abused, abandoned, and neglected children is better than in a loving home. That a child will be better served by living in a dormitory, not having his/her own clothes, having multiple staff people instead of parental figures, and living an institutional life, (sounds a bit like prison) is somehow better than living in a home where they can recieve the individual attention they so require to grow and heal, is the most bigotted and ignorant of arguments. This bill was in no way concerned about the welfare of the children and instead will keep some of them in a harmful situation.
I can assure you that any child who is placed in this situation, one that they didn't cause and have no control over, they are least concerend with the sexuality or marital status of the adults in the home. I promise all you people that voted for this disgusting law that a child who has been yanked from their home in the middle of the night, with only the clothes on their backs, and placed into the care of a bunch of people whom they have never seen, is not thinking 'Hey, I don't want to be here, they aren't married.' They are much more concerned with wondering what happend to their parents, will they go back, do they want to go back, will this guy be in my bed tonight, will that lady hit me, do I get to eat.
I was planning on writing a much different post today, but read about this and I'm just disgusted.
Well said Kristine, well said.
Amen, sister.