Back to Arkansas

I just re-read the Arkansas Supreme Court decision regarding gays and lesbians serving as foster parents (seek my previous post on the subject) and feel compelled to list the factual findings:

10. The defendants are aware of “homosexuals,” as defined, who have served
as foster parents in Arkansas (Stipulated Facts, #27).
11. The defendants are not aware of any child whose health, safety, and/or
welfare has been endangered by the fact that such child’s foster parent, or
other household member, was “homosexual”, as defined (Stipulated Facts,
#28).
12. The State has no statistics indicating that gays are more prone to violence
than heterosexuals or that gay households are more unhealthy than
heterosexual households (Stipulated Facts, #30).
13. Based on its foster care statistics the defendants do not know of any reason
that lesbians and gay men would be unsuitable to be foster parents (Stipulated
Facts #31).
. . . .
23. The blanket exclusion may be harmful to promoting children’s healthy
adjustment because it excludes a pool of effective foster parents.
. . . .
29. Being raised by gay parents does not increase the risk of problems in
adjustment for children.
30. Being raised by gay parents does not increase the risk of psychological
problems for children.
31. Being raised by gay parents does not increase the risk of behavioral
problems.
32. Being raised by gay parents does not prevent children from forming
healthy relationships with their peers or others.
33. Being raised by gay parents does not cause academic problems.
34. Being raised by gay parents does not cause gender identity problems.
. . . .
37. Children of lesbian or gay parents are equivalently adjusted to children of
heterosexual parents.
38. There is no factual basis for making the statement that heterosexual
parents might be better able to guide their children through adolescence than
gay parents.
39. There is no factual basis for making the statement that the sexual
orientation of a parent or foster parent can predict children’s adjustment.
40. There is no factual basis for making the statement that being raised by
lesbian or gay parents has a negative effect on children’s adjustment.
41. There is no reason in which the health, safety, or welfare of a foster child
might be negatively impacted by being placed with a heterosexual foster parent
who has an adult gay family member residing in that home.
. . . .
46. There is no evidence that gay people, as a group, are more likely to engage
in domestic violence than heterosexuals.
47. There is no evidence that gay people, as a group, are more likely to
sexually abuse children than heterosexuals

Book Review: The Lynchings In Duluth by Michael Fedo

A brief account of the lynching of Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson, and Isaac McGhie in Duluth, MN, in June 1920. I don’t agree that Fedo has “dug deeply” into this story, but that he did the best with the scant information that was available at the time. Also, I’m not clear how Duluth at the time was “at the forefront of civil rights” because the book discusses the underlying racism that existed and lead to the lynchings.

The account is predictably disturbing because it is difficult to imagine 86 years later that such events even occurred.

My version of the book (1979) bears the title They Was Just Niggers (an apparent quote from a mob participant) and has a picture of the lynching on the front cover. The title and picture instantly convey the shock and horror of that terrible June day.

A memorial was recently erected across the street from the site of the lynchings and grave markers were recently placed in the cemetery where the men are buried. www.claytonjacksonmcghie.org. It is better to acknowledge and publicly discuss a terrible event like this than pretend it never happened.

Another Defeat For Gay Marriage

On July 26th the Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on gay marriage.

“The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents,”
Wow. If the purpose of marriage is procreation then couldn’t a state pass a law requiring married couples to have at least one child or a law banning women incapable of conceiving from getting married?
“This is the right thing for our children, families and our communities,” “It is good public policy for the state to encourage marriage between a man and a woman.” – State Senator Val Stevens.
Really? I certainly won’t teach my son that discrimination is right.

Writing Discrimination Into Nebraska’s Constitution

The same year Alabama voters decided to erase discrimination from their constitution (see my June 29th post on this subject), Nebraska voters decided to write discrimination into theirs. The 2000 amendment to the Nebraska constitution banned same-sex marriage AND barred same-sex couples from legal protections afforded to heterosexual couples.
On Friday the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the amendment against a federal constitutional challenge.
That’s not surprising. Although sodomy laws were held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, I know of only one successful challenge to a law banning same-sex marriage (Mass. Supreme Court).
And Nebraska isn’t alone. Many states have laws banning same-sex marriage and others are working to get such laws on the books. The California Supreme Court heard arguments on California’s discriminatory law last Monday.
This is a battle that has to be fought at the legislative and initiative level. Like all discrimination, it is fought daily in our conversations and interactions with others.

Way To Go Arkansas!

Yesterday the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the state’s child welfare board could not ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents. Department of Human Services And Child Welfare Agency Review Board v. Matthew Lee Howard, et al. (No. 05-814, June 29, 2006). The board instituted the ban in 1999. The court noted that “the driving force behind adoption of the regulation 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.”

The battle in Arkansas is probably not over. The court’s decision rested upon the separation of powers doctrine. The board was essentially legislating, which it is not allowed to do.

The opinion is worth reading, especially the factual findings of the lower court.

In response to the decision the Arkansas Family Council (ha!) said it would push for legislation to reimpose the ban and would consider campaigning for a constitutional amendment in 2008.

Bring it on!

Alabama’s Ban On Interracial Marriage

This is an old legal story, but one I followed closely at the time.
In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. The decision came out on June 12 1967, and Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the Court’s short opinion.
The State of Alabama’s Constitution prohibited interracial marriage, but, given the decision in Loving, the law was not enforced (and even in the several years before 1967 it probably wasn’t being enforced). In 2000, a proposition was placed on the Alabama ballot to repeal the law and erase discrimination from Alabama’s constitution. Alabama was the last state to still have such a law.
I don’t know the final tally (except that, thankfully, the proposition passed), but come election night, with 58 percent of the vote counted, 41 percent of the voters wanted the law to remain on the books!! When I followed this story in 2000 I found it, at first, humorous. Pretty quickly, though, I found it shocking instead.

It’s Official

I am now licensed to practice law in Minnesota.