Texas Legislators vote to ban gay foster parents

[SuperJerk 0]

Texas House Bill: No Gay Foster Parents

 

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

 

 

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas (search) could become the only state to bar gays from becoming foster parents under legislation passed Wednesday by the House.

 

The ban is part of a bill to revamp the state's Child Protective Services (search) agency. It passed 135-6 with two abstentions and now heads to the Senate.

 

The foster parent amendment is not included in the Senate version of the legislation, but that body could accept the House bill.

 

"It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children, and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual," said Republican Rep. Robert Talton, who introduced the amendment.

 

If the House version of the bill becomes law, Texas would be the only state to prohibit homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (search) Lesbian and Gay Rights project.

 

Arkansas had barred gays from becoming foster parents, but a judge said the law was unconstitutional in December.

 

Under the Texas House bill, anyone who applies to be a foster parent or a foster parent whose performance is being evaluated must say whether he or she is homosexual or bisexual. Anyone who answers yes would be barred from serving as a foster parent. If the person is already a foster parent, the child would be removed from the home.

 

Talton wouldn't comment Wednesday, but during debate on the bill the day before he said, "I don't think it is right for young children to be exposed to this type of behavior when they are young and innocent."

 

Eva Thibaudeau, a social worker, said she and her partner of eight years have adopted four children and have served as foster parents to 75.

 

"I am just so hurt and surprised, especially now (when) we are facing an ongoing crisis of not having enough resources to take care of foster children," she said.

 

Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 children could be affected.

 

"The truth is that a parent's sexual orientation has no negative consequence on the children that are raised in those homes," he said.

 

Republican Gov. Rick Perry does not want the child protection bill to get bogged down with a "side issue," though he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, spokeswoman Kathy Walt said.

 

The bill to overhaul the system follows recent child slayings that occurred after caseworkers investigated suspicions of neglect or abuse and decided the children were safe to remain with their parents.

 

It would give all of Child Protective Services' foster care and case management duties to private companies, which already manage 75 percent of foster homes in Texas.

 

 

credit: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154111,00.html

 

OMG~! Protect the children from the evil homos!

 

Texas: "its like a whole 'nother country."

Unfortunately that country is turning out to be Nazi Germany.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Not allowing gays to be foster parents = The slaughter of millions of Jews.

 

Forgive me if I disagree with that line of thinking, although we are on the same side regarding how stupid this is.

 

So no parents are better than gay parents? Riiiiight...

[Perfxion 0]

I agree this is dumb, but Hitlerish, no. Just no.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Although it would be interesting to see Texas Nazis in cowboy hats and boots. And I always knew there was someting fishy about that line-dancing...

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Well, sonofabitch.

 

And here I thought that line dancing was just some benign form of fun.

 

--Ryan

...browsing and posting when he can...and when the topics don't bore me to tears...

[AndrewTS 0]

I agree this is dumb, but Hitlerish, no. Just no.

Ditto.

 

This makes no sense whatsover. How can it be legally justified?

[sfaJack 0]

How can it be legally justified?

It won't be. As soon as it's challenged in court, it'll get tossed.

 

I just find it funny that with all the problems CPS has down here, the banning of gay foster parents is going to be the only one that gets any attention. I live here and barely knew there was a bill to overhaul CPS until this broke late last night...now it's all that's on the radio today.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

...browsing and posting when he can...and when the topics don't bore me to tears...

I know you're not dissing my Pope Smoke thread -- I'll kick your ass...

[Vyce 0]

This is an absolutely horrific, unconscionable bill. Whoever came up with it should be booted right the hell out of office.

 

Seriously, where the fuck are people's priorities? You got illegals streaming into Texas across the border, with rumors that some of those getting into the country are "OTMs" (Other than Mexicans, i.e. ARAB TERRORISTS), but hell, the real problem is them their gay folks adopting kids. They're the REAL threat to America. Utter bullshit.

 

That said, RJ really blew things a bit out of proportion with the Nazi reference. I hope Jobber or someone comes in here and makes reference to Godwin's law.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I wonder if illegals are allowed to adopt? As long as they're not queer, of course...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Whoa, that's farther right than Bill O'Reilly.

 

 

Goddamn, only Texas could put me and that media whore on the same side of a debate.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm sure California does as well -- just on the other side of the spectrum...

[Guest MikeSC]

Whoa, that's farther right than Bill O'Reilly.

 

 

Goddamn, only Texas could put me and that media whore on the same side of a debate.

So, are you going to boycott Canada now?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't have a lot of state complaints, really. Depends on if you view illegals as a state or federal issue, and I view it as a federal one.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Whoa, that's farther right than Bill O'Reilly.

 

 

Goddamn, only Texas could put me and that media whore on the same side of a debate.

So, are you going to boycott Canada now?

-=Mike

No, I'm just going to lay low and let Bill handle the issue. He'll intimidate and scare away anyone who disagrees with us.

[Guest MikeSC]

Whoa, that's farther right than Bill O'Reilly.

 

 

Goddamn, only Texas could put me and that media whore on the same side of a debate.

So, are you going to boycott Canada now?

-=Mike

No, I'm just going to lay low and let Bill handle the issue. He'll intimidate and scare away anyone who disagrees with us.

Do you at least have some swank "JOTW Factor" gear?

 

A book or two?

 

A girl you employ with whom you have lurid and creepy phone sex with?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Do you at least have some swank "JOTW Factor" gear?

 

A book or two?

 

A girl you employ with whom you have lurid and creepy phone sex with?

-=Mike

No. I have been informed that it is enough that I read your pithy comments and reply with put-downs and slams.

[Guest MikeSC]

Do you at least have some swank "JOTW Factor" gear?

 

A book or two?

 

A girl you employ with whom you have lurid and creepy phone sex with?

      -=Mike

No. I have been informed that it is enough that I read your pithy comments and reply with put-downs and slams.

Well, you have the over-inflated ego about the quality of your work thing down...

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Not allowing gays to be foster parents = The slaughter of millions of Jews.

That said, RJ really blew things a bit out of proportion with the Nazi reference.

 

I agree this is dumb, but Hitlerish, no. Just no.

 

Way to misunderstand my point, people.

 

Did I say Not allowing gay to be foster parents was the same as the Holocaust? No.

 

Did I mention Hitler? No.

 

Are the restrictions on gays beginning to resemble the Nuremberg Laws? Yes.

The comparison to Nazi Germany is definitely valid.

[Guest MikeSC]

Not allowing gays to be foster parents = The slaughter of millions of Jews.

That said, RJ really blew things a bit out of proportion with the Nazi reference.

 

I agree this is dumb, but Hitlerish, no. Just no.

 

Way to misunderstand my point, people.

 

Did I say Not allowing gay to be foster parents was the same as the Holocaust? No.

 

Did I mention Hitler? No.

 

Are the restrictions on gays beginning to resemble the Nuremberg Laws? Yes.

The comparison to Nazi Germany is definitely valid.

No, they really, really don't.

 

Well, unless homosexuals have to sacrifice all of their rights.

 

It's like comparing a low minimum wage with slavery.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Not allowing gays to be foster parents = The slaughter of millions of Jews.

That said, RJ really blew things a bit out of proportion with the Nazi reference.

 

I agree this is dumb, but Hitlerish, no. Just no.

 

Way to misunderstand my point, people.

 

Did I say Not allowing gay to be foster parents was the same as the Holocaust? No.

 

Did I mention Hitler? No.

 

Are the restrictions on gays beginning to resemble the Nuremberg Laws? Yes.

The comparison to Nazi Germany is definitely valid.

No, they really, really don't.

 

Well, unless homosexuals have to sacrifice all of their rights.

This is how it starts.

[Special K 0]

But it's so chic to refer to the Nazis! It automatically wins any argument.

 

Honestly though, removing children from their gay parents and putting them where? Orphanages? straight foster homes that have WAY too many kids? (gay coupled are automatically last on the list as fosters, so if they get a kid, you know there's too many kids) That's frankly cruel and very dictatorial.

 

And while I'm sure it would be easy to lie about, they're saying bisexual people who are in straight relationships are unfit as parents, making it clear once and for all that it's not about providing children with a male and female role model, it's about who sticks their dilly in who's hoo-ha.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Way to misunderstand my point, people.

 

Did I say Not allowing gay to be foster parents was the same as the Holocaust?  No.

 

Did I mention Hitler?  No.

 

Are the restrictions on gays beginning to resemble the Nuremberg Laws?  Yes.

 

The comparison to Nazi Germany is definitely valid.

Now I understand that you are an educator, so perhaps textbooks have changed, but in my day we learned that Hitler (the one in Germany, not our current president -- lol2005) was in charge of Nazi Germany. Does it say in textbooks now that Ewoks ran the Nazi Party instead?

 

And if that were the case, was the Chewbacca defense used in the Nuremberg trials?...

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm not trying to call Texas a fascist dictatorship, so I didn't bring Hitler into this.

 

And I never mentioned this was comparable to the Holocaust.

 

Nazi racial policy changed extensively in the years between 1933 and 1939. The Nazi Party became increasingly extreme in its treatment of the minorities of Germany, particularly Jews.

 

During the years 1933-1934, Nazi policy was fairly moderate, not wishing to scare off voters or moderately-minded politicians. Jews had been disliked for years before, and the Nazi Party used this anger to gain votes. The blame for poverty, unemployment, and the loss of World War I were all placed on the Jews. In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy, but laws were not as rigorously obeyed and were not as devastating as in later years.

 

On 1 April 1933, Jewish doctors, shops, lawyers and stores were boycotted. Only 6 days later, the "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" was passed, banning Jews from government jobs. These laws meant that Jews were now indirectly and directly dissuaded or banned from privileged and superior positions reserved for "Aryan" Germans. From then on, Jews were forced to work at more menial positions, beneath other non-Jews.

 

credit: Wikipedia

 

Replace the word "Jews" with "gays" and the resemblance is uncanny.

[Guest CronoT]

I agree this is dumb, but Hitlerish, no. Just no.

Ditto.

 

This makes no sense whatsover. How can it be legally justified?

"Because, in Texas, there's only two kinds of people: Steers and Queers."

 

When it comes to social development, Texas is the very last in line. I'm glad I live almost in New Mexico. Maybe I should just move there for good.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Replace the word "Jews" with "gays" and the resemblance is uncanny.

 

Wow.

 

So does blacks, hispanics, women, arabs, etc.

 

Damn you Loss and Jobber for making me lose my job.

 

Also, if you replace "Nazi" with "Left-wing academics" and "Jews" with "conservatives" the resemblance is even MORE uncany...

[SuperJerk 0]

Replace the word "Jews" with "gays" and the resemblance is uncanny.

 

Wow.

 

So does blacks, hispanics, women, arabs, etc.

 

Damn you Loss and Jobber for making me lose my job.

 

Also, if you replace "Nazi" with "Left-wing academics" and "Jews" with "conservatives" the resemblance is even MORE uncany...

Bullshit.

 

Conservatives aren't even close to being persecuted the way gays are.

[Special K 0]

No it only works with gays. They're the reason we lost the Great War, after all.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh lord, you're actually being serious regarding this subject. I'm sorry.

 

So what was Hitler's (v. Germany) version of the Patriot Act?

[SuperJerk 0]

Oh lord, you're actually being serious regarding this subject. I'm sorry.

 

So what was Hitler's (v. Germany) version of the Patriot Act?

My metaphor is only applying conditions surrounding the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws to the anti-gay legislation in Texas.