Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, August 18, 2017
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
A Few Thoughts on Politics
Those that know me, know that I had turned off the news over a year ago. I do not need it, and I am not further informed by it. I still get plenty of information in other ways. I am still connected to major world issues. I am even still connected to matters of politics, though I tend to tune out most of the noise and talking heads. Lately, as we move ever closer to the ugliness that will be the election, I've been feeling the pessimism and cynicism that I hold towards human nature in general, and politics specifically, rear it's head once more.
In light of some recent mistakes by our government, primarily the NDAA overwhelming passage (hopefully, the Supreme Court will do what they are meant and deem this unconstitutional), and recent talks of SOPA and PIPA (though shelved for now, will probably be resurrected as an add-on to some sure-to-pass spending bill later), this has gotten me thinking again about our role in government. I mean, it is meant to be our representation after all.
I don't really believe our vote matters that much. We should still do it, because it's one of the few powers (however insignificant) that we have, however. With lobbyists' hold on campaign money, and Congresspeople's ability to gerrymander and/or redistrict, you just shouldn't believe that once you vote, your duty is over. Unfortunately, they will need constant reminders who is in charge, and that takes a lot of effort and energy just to get enough people riled up enough to make a voice loud enough for them to hear. And it always--ALWAYS--comes down to money. I don't care what your belief system is, all their motivation (and big business as well) can be determined by looking at the money.
I leave you with a few quotes, the first of which has been somewhat hijacked (an appropriate pun?) in our post-911 world. It was not meant to only be referring to the outside world, to the "Others" that are trying to "take away our freedoms". It was meant for us, the average citizens, to hold our leaders and lawmakers accountable. Use your voice, your vote, your email, your phone, sign petitions--keep the pressure on them all the time. It's exhausting, but it's the cost.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"Those who want to reap the benefits of this great nation must bear the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine
(And finally, to show I'm playing fair): "Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer." - Ronald Reagan
In light of some recent mistakes by our government, primarily the NDAA overwhelming passage (hopefully, the Supreme Court will do what they are meant and deem this unconstitutional), and recent talks of SOPA and PIPA (though shelved for now, will probably be resurrected as an add-on to some sure-to-pass spending bill later), this has gotten me thinking again about our role in government. I mean, it is meant to be our representation after all.
I don't really believe our vote matters that much. We should still do it, because it's one of the few powers (however insignificant) that we have, however. With lobbyists' hold on campaign money, and Congresspeople's ability to gerrymander and/or redistrict, you just shouldn't believe that once you vote, your duty is over. Unfortunately, they will need constant reminders who is in charge, and that takes a lot of effort and energy just to get enough people riled up enough to make a voice loud enough for them to hear. And it always--ALWAYS--comes down to money. I don't care what your belief system is, all their motivation (and big business as well) can be determined by looking at the money.
I leave you with a few quotes, the first of which has been somewhat hijacked (an appropriate pun?) in our post-911 world. It was not meant to only be referring to the outside world, to the "Others" that are trying to "take away our freedoms". It was meant for us, the average citizens, to hold our leaders and lawmakers accountable. Use your voice, your vote, your email, your phone, sign petitions--keep the pressure on them all the time. It's exhausting, but it's the cost.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"Those who want to reap the benefits of this great nation must bear the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine
(And finally, to show I'm playing fair): "Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer." - Ronald Reagan
Friday, April 8, 2011
Arkansas finally comes to it's senses.
http://arkansasnews.com/2011/04/07/state-supreme-court-strikes-down-adoption-ban/
State Supreme Court strikes down adoption ban
Posted on 07 April 2011
By John Lyon
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK — A state law banning unmarried, cohabiting couples from adopting children or becoming foster parents is unconstitutional, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled unanimously today.
The high court upheld a Pulaski County circuit judge’s ruling that the law unconstitutionally burdens fundamental privacy rights.
Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, said the ruling is a relief to more than 1,600 children in the state who are in need of a permanent family.
“This ban wouldn’t even allow a relative — gay or straight — to foster or adopt a child with whom they had a close relationship, so long as that relative was unmarried and living with a partner,” Sklar said. “The court clearly saw that this ban violated the constitutional rights of our clients and thousands of other Arkansans.”
Jerry Cox, president of the Christian conservative Family Council, said the decision “is the worst ever handed down by the Arkansas Supreme Court.”
“This is a classic example of judicial tyranny,” Cox said. “Unfortunately (Thursday’s) ruling puts the rights of adults ahead of the rights of children and their welfare.”
Cox said his group is considering asking voters to adopt the measure as a constitutional amendment.
The law, known as Act 1, was proposed to voters as a ballot initiative by the Family Council in November 2008 and passed with 57 percent of the vote. The Family Council proposed the initiative after Arkansas’ highest court ruled that a state policy against allowing same-sex couples to adopt or foster children was unconstitutional.
In December 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of a group of Arkansas residents. The group included unmarried adults who wanted to adopt or foster children, parents who wanted to choose who would adopt their children in the event of their incapacitation or death, and the children of those parents.
The Family Council later intervened as an additional party in the suit.
In an April 2010 ruling, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza said the law significantly burdens a fundamental privacy right, and therefore to pass constitutional muster it must be narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling state interest and must do so by the least restrictive method available. The law does not meet that standard and instead cast “an unreasonably broad net,” he ruled.
The state and the Family Council argued on appeal that adopting or fostering children is a privilege bestowed by state law and not a fundamental right.
The Supreme Court said the problem with the argument is that the right to engage in private, consensual sexual activity, free from investigation by the state, is a fundamental right, and under Act 1 that right is conditioned on foregoing the privilege of adopting or fostering children.
Cohabiting sexual partners “must choose either to lead a life of private, sexual intimacy with a partner without the opportunity to adopt or foster children, or forego sexual cohabitation and, thereby, attain eligibility to adopt or foster,” Justice Robert Brown wrote in the opinion.
The state and the Family Council also argued that Act 1 is no more an invasion of privacy rights than the non-cohabitation agreements that sometimes are included in court orders in child custody cases.
The Supreme Court said non-cohabitation orders are different because they are based on a case-by-case analysis in which the courts and state agencies look at many different factors and make a determination of what is best for the child.
“Act 1’s blanket ban provides for no such individualized consideration or case-by-case analysis … and makes the assumption that in all cases where adoption or foster care is the issue it is always against the best interest of the child to be placed in a home where an individual is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of marriage,” the court said in the opinion.
The high court also agreed with Piazza that the law is not narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling state interest and does not do so by the least restrictive method available.
“We conclude that the individualized assessments by DHS and our trial courts are effective in addressing issues such as relationship instability, abuse, lack of social support and other factors that could potentially create a risk to the child or otherwise render the applicant unsuitable to be a foster or adoptive parent,” the court said in the opinion.
“By imposing a categorical ban on all persons who cohabit with a sexual partner, Act 1 removes the ability of the state and our courts to conduct these individualized assessments on the individuals, many of whom could qualify and be entirely suitable foster or adoptive parents.”
Gov. Mike Beebe, who opposed Act 1 when it was on the ballot, said Thursday that DHS would continue to carefully consider each foster care and adoption application with the best interest of the child its foremost concern.
“By expanding the pool of potential applicants, (Thursday’s) Supreme Court decision will create more opportunities to match children with loving and supportive homes,” the governor said.
Aaron Sadler, a spokesman for Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, said, “We defended the act, and the court has spoken. Now it will be up to DHS to promulgate rules in accordance with the decision.”
Writing new rules may take a few months, but during the process DHS can go ahead and place children in homes that would not have been able to take children under Act 1, agency spokeswoman Julie Munsell said.
Munsell said she is aware of just one case before DHS that has been affected by Act 1. She said that following Piazza’s ruling, the couple involved in that case was allowed to proceed with the application process with the understanding that, even if the application was approved, no placement could happen until the lawsuit was resolved.
Wendy Rickman, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit who previously adopted a special-needs foster child with her partner of 11 years, Stephanie Huffman, said in a statement, “We look forward to the opportunity to go through the adoption process once more and to welcome another child into our family.”
——-
Reporter Rob Moritz contributed to this report
State Supreme Court strikes down adoption ban
Posted on 07 April 2011
By John Lyon
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK — A state law banning unmarried, cohabiting couples from adopting children or becoming foster parents is unconstitutional, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled unanimously today.
The high court upheld a Pulaski County circuit judge’s ruling that the law unconstitutionally burdens fundamental privacy rights.
Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, said the ruling is a relief to more than 1,600 children in the state who are in need of a permanent family.
“This ban wouldn’t even allow a relative — gay or straight — to foster or adopt a child with whom they had a close relationship, so long as that relative was unmarried and living with a partner,” Sklar said. “The court clearly saw that this ban violated the constitutional rights of our clients and thousands of other Arkansans.”
Jerry Cox, president of the Christian conservative Family Council, said the decision “is the worst ever handed down by the Arkansas Supreme Court.”
“This is a classic example of judicial tyranny,” Cox said. “Unfortunately (Thursday’s) ruling puts the rights of adults ahead of the rights of children and their welfare.”
Cox said his group is considering asking voters to adopt the measure as a constitutional amendment.
The law, known as Act 1, was proposed to voters as a ballot initiative by the Family Council in November 2008 and passed with 57 percent of the vote. The Family Council proposed the initiative after Arkansas’ highest court ruled that a state policy against allowing same-sex couples to adopt or foster children was unconstitutional.
In December 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of a group of Arkansas residents. The group included unmarried adults who wanted to adopt or foster children, parents who wanted to choose who would adopt their children in the event of their incapacitation or death, and the children of those parents.
The Family Council later intervened as an additional party in the suit.
In an April 2010 ruling, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza said the law significantly burdens a fundamental privacy right, and therefore to pass constitutional muster it must be narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling state interest and must do so by the least restrictive method available. The law does not meet that standard and instead cast “an unreasonably broad net,” he ruled.
The state and the Family Council argued on appeal that adopting or fostering children is a privilege bestowed by state law and not a fundamental right.
The Supreme Court said the problem with the argument is that the right to engage in private, consensual sexual activity, free from investigation by the state, is a fundamental right, and under Act 1 that right is conditioned on foregoing the privilege of adopting or fostering children.
Cohabiting sexual partners “must choose either to lead a life of private, sexual intimacy with a partner without the opportunity to adopt or foster children, or forego sexual cohabitation and, thereby, attain eligibility to adopt or foster,” Justice Robert Brown wrote in the opinion.
The state and the Family Council also argued that Act 1 is no more an invasion of privacy rights than the non-cohabitation agreements that sometimes are included in court orders in child custody cases.
The Supreme Court said non-cohabitation orders are different because they are based on a case-by-case analysis in which the courts and state agencies look at many different factors and make a determination of what is best for the child.
“Act 1’s blanket ban provides for no such individualized consideration or case-by-case analysis … and makes the assumption that in all cases where adoption or foster care is the issue it is always against the best interest of the child to be placed in a home where an individual is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of marriage,” the court said in the opinion.
The high court also agreed with Piazza that the law is not narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling state interest and does not do so by the least restrictive method available.
“We conclude that the individualized assessments by DHS and our trial courts are effective in addressing issues such as relationship instability, abuse, lack of social support and other factors that could potentially create a risk to the child or otherwise render the applicant unsuitable to be a foster or adoptive parent,” the court said in the opinion.
“By imposing a categorical ban on all persons who cohabit with a sexual partner, Act 1 removes the ability of the state and our courts to conduct these individualized assessments on the individuals, many of whom could qualify and be entirely suitable foster or adoptive parents.”
Gov. Mike Beebe, who opposed Act 1 when it was on the ballot, said Thursday that DHS would continue to carefully consider each foster care and adoption application with the best interest of the child its foremost concern.
“By expanding the pool of potential applicants, (Thursday’s) Supreme Court decision will create more opportunities to match children with loving and supportive homes,” the governor said.
Aaron Sadler, a spokesman for Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, said, “We defended the act, and the court has spoken. Now it will be up to DHS to promulgate rules in accordance with the decision.”
Writing new rules may take a few months, but during the process DHS can go ahead and place children in homes that would not have been able to take children under Act 1, agency spokeswoman Julie Munsell said.
Munsell said she is aware of just one case before DHS that has been affected by Act 1. She said that following Piazza’s ruling, the couple involved in that case was allowed to proceed with the application process with the understanding that, even if the application was approved, no placement could happen until the lawsuit was resolved.
Wendy Rickman, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit who previously adopted a special-needs foster child with her partner of 11 years, Stephanie Huffman, said in a statement, “We look forward to the opportunity to go through the adoption process once more and to welcome another child into our family.”
——-
Reporter Rob Moritz contributed to this report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)