Times Editorial : Attention Arkansas
Posted on Sunday, June 17, 2007
Fighting to keep homosexuals from
becoming foster parents is a nonsensical way to
spend one’s time, especially when you consider that other indicators are far more important. For starters, there’s the stark reality that about 4, 000 young people are in state care. Lots of these children are living in foster homes, but many are not. All of them deserve a great place to grow up — and shouldn’t be denied a million pleasant childhood memories just because a prospective parent happens to be gay. Secondly, it’s more realistic that Arkansas consider a person’s character, as well as their ability to provide financial support for the child, before they’re judged on the basis of who their partner is. Chances are children living life in dire straights care less about an adult’s sexuality than knowing that the people helping to raise them are always going to love them, care for them, sacrifice for them, and generally give everything they know to give to make sure things work out. That ought to be the test about who becomes a foster parent in this state. Others feel differently. Jerry Cox, executive director of the Family Council, said last week that his group will try to bring an amendment before Arkansas voters in 2008, one that would ban homosexual adoption and foster parenting. The General Assembly defeated a bill that would have accomplished many of the same aims in March. Senate Bill 959 was a response to an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling handed down in June 2006 that said a state regulation banning gays from becoming foster parents was unconstitutional. But, it did not say the state could not pass such a ban in the future — merely that the Child Welfare Agency Review Board had overstepped its bounds. Thus the failed legislation this spring. And thus a proposal to ban gays from becoming fosters parents which, we fear, may became law next fall. For those folks out there who fear someone’s homosexuality might “ rub off” on these kids, perhaps they should consider this: How many kids from so-called good, God-fearing families have emerged as homosexuals ? Was that the parents’ doing ? What’s really most important in all of this is that the state has exemplary people and processes in place to find and support the people who offer the greatest potential for having a positive influence on kids who need it desperately. Now, for some Arkansans, that statement automatically disqualifies anyone who is gay. It shouldn’t. The system has got to find good, decent, compassionate people to help with the kids who have become the state’s responsibility. With what many of these kids have faced, a foster parent’s choice of a mate isn’t really going to be the top concern on their lists. Living safe lives with some prospect for experiencing joy, the kind kids should be able to feel every day, deserves to be the state’s primary goal for the kids. People need to understand that just because someone is straight doesn’t necessarily mean the same individual will be a wonderful parent. Read a newspaper. Straight people are busy setting a bad example all the time. The greatest tragedy will be when the state’s adoption and foster parenting system gets dragged into a fight over whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Yes, there’s a place to debate that — and debate it and debate it — but it’s not in a circumstance that leaves the state’s most vulnerable children cowering in the corner as adults argue over the issue, which is one Arkansas definitely won’t answer, ever. Listen, our preference would indeed be that the state had an ample supply of married, malefemale foster and adoptive parents available for all the kids in need. It doesn’t. The question becomes which is better for them: Continued hovering in overwhelmed state facilities with an uncertain future, or the introduction into their lives of positive, upstanding adults who can focus their care and attention on the kids in their charge. For some that will be translated as “ You’re saying homosexuality is something to be embraced as ‘ normal ’” What we’re saying, however, is that the contentious debate over that issue belongs in another venue, one that doesn’t use children as pawns.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online