Saturday, February 18, 2006

Gay Foster Parents in Jackson County, Missouri - For How Long?

In a move that garnered much less attention in the bar world yesterday than the stoppage of "defective equipment" pleas, Judge Sandra Midkiff overturned the state's refusal to allow a gay couple to serve as foster parents.
In the first such case in Missouri, a Jackson County judge ruled Friday that the state could not deny a lesbian a foster parent license.

There was no dispute that Lisa Johnston was well qualified, but the state contended she lacked “reputable character” because her sexual relationship with another woman broke state law. So the state denied the license.

But Missouri’s law against same-sex sodomy between consenting adults is unenforceable, Jackson County Judge Sandra Midkiff ruled Friday.
This ruling is a wonderful one, both in terms of legal clarity and policy results, so a part of me just wants to enjoy the moment. Unfortunately, the forces of Missouri Moronity are already working on clouding the sunshine.

Attorney General Jay "Worst Democrat in the World" Nixon has pledged an appeal. (To those who would defend this pandering jackass as "only doing his job", don't even start. He actually allowed his lawyers to argue that "living with an openly homosexual parent places a child in an immoral environment that will impede a child’s moral development." That kind of idiocy is not acceptable in polite company.)

Even if the decision stands up to Nixon's best lawyering in the Court of Appeals (if he was stupid enough to make that argument to a judge like Midkiff, who prefers legal arguments to neanderthal posturing, who knows if he can put together a winning brief for the higher courts?), I wonder how this will play out long-term. I can easily picture the Missouri Moronity working to change the law through the legislature, or seeking to pass another anti-human rights amendment. Their hatred of anyone different than themselves will certainly force them to try something, anything, to avoid this result.

God forbid that a loving home be opened to a hurt and needful child.


Blogger Tony said...

I just can't imagine anyone opposed to this . . . just seems wrong to deny good parents a chance to take some of the burden off the state and provide a good home.

However, I'm also disappointed by the lesbians in this story. They are not as hot as lesbians in my imagination and porn collection. A little make-up and some high heels makes lesbians a little more appealing and might make some grown men want to be "adopted."

2/18/2006 5:32 PM  
Anonymous anonymous me said...

Only one thought:

Your quote:
"He actually allowed his lawyers to argue that "living with an openly homosexual parent places a child in an immoral environment that will impede a child’s moral development." THAT KIND OF IDIOCY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN POOLITE COMANY." (emphasis mine).

While I agree with the law (if not the moral issue), I do take issue with that last statment. Are you saying that persons in "polite company" are not permitted to express opinions you disagree with on this subject? How intolerant of you!!

Since when are you, or anyone else, permitted to define what opinions are permissible. While there may be some positions so extreme as to fit that definition(denial of the Holocaust; insistence that there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, for example), I doubt very much that the opinion you deride so vehemently is on the fringes of society; in fact, it may well be a majority. Certainly, such an opinion would garner substantial support in Missouri, as well as most other states. Expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions has failed everywhere it has come to a vote, for example, and it hasn't even been close.

This is one issue where the law is well ahead (if you can call it that) of where society is. That is reality, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

Again, all that said, I still agree with the law, as a matter of law.

See - you know agreeing with me would not last long!!

2/20/2006 10:58 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous Me:

People in polite company often express opinions I disagree with. But, in polite company, they do not voice ignorant bigotry. They may voice it in Republican get-togethers, but I don't consider that to be polite company.

2/20/2006 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous me said...

Dan -

YOU define that position as "ignorant bigotry." Many, if not most, would not.

2/21/2006 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"YOU define that position as "ignorant bigotry." Many, if not most, would not."

That may be true, however, that doesn't make it any less "ignorant", nor any less bigotry.

2/21/2006 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You people are wrong dead wrong homosexual people should not be allowed to adopt children and homosexual people should not be given custody of children end of story so you go on with your justifications all you want, but my 7 and 9 year old sons are living in a homosexual lesbian house and are already showing emotional problems confusion about morals and getting ridiculed by thier classmates and this is only the start of the devastation as they have been living in this evil immoral situation just one year. I think that if you choose to live a immoral life with a homosexual partner you should keep the innocent children out of it you are only justifying such deviant sexual behavior in order to serve your own disgraceful desires and purposes. I suppose you would be in favor of paedophiles being foster parents as well.

4/03/2006 11:25 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Are you a troll, or are you serious? If you're serious, do you think there's a possibility that the kids' problems might have just a little bit to do with you and your attitudes?

I am sincerely sorry your kids are having a tough time, and I hope it gets better for them.

Why in the world would I think that pedophiles should be allowed to adopt, and why do you equate the two?

4/03/2006 11:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home