Arkansas is Ignorant. I’m Taking Back my Razorback Duffel Bag for a Refund.
For years, I lived near Arkansas. And then, I moved to Arkansas. I joined the Democratic party in Arkansas, ran for my county’s executive committee and then was nominated and elected to the Arkansas Democratic Party’s state committee. However, because I moved I only had the chance to attend one meeting. It’s a shame.
Because I would have raised HELL over this “let’s try to prevent children from getting loving homes” initiative that recently passed. I would have ranted, screamed, wrote my editor, held meetings, sent letters, stood outside Wal-Mart - whatever it took so people would know how I felt. Maybe, or maybe not, it would have made a difference.
I’m familiar with the child protection system in Arkansas. It’s pathetic. In 2004, there was 1, ONE, social worker for more than 3 counties. A friend of mine had trouble getting DHS to interview her child when she suspected someone was abusing her child. She had to BEG the state of Arkansas to listen to her. Then, when she was given a lawyer to defend her child, this lawyer never studied the case, never talked to the child, the parent or the witnesses involved. In fact, the day before the case, this lawyer could not even tell a person what the name of the child she was defending was. Pathetic. Arkansas’ system is underfunded and overwhelmed.
And thanks to the bigoted, hateful, backward, ignorant fears of a bunch of rednecks, they are sure to see this problem continue if not worsen.
But, in all of this, I can still find something to laugh at. In 2006, the ACLU won their battle to overturn a previous ban on gay adoption. To try and circumvent their Supreme Court ruling against their homophobic tendencies, the following is how the church going people of Arkansas worded their latest attempt at bigotry:
Section 1: Adoption and foster care of minors.
(a) A minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.
(b) The prohibition of this section applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.
Notice, they don’t ban gay adoption outright . Only two people co-habitating with a sexual partner. They don’t ban single parents who happen to have roommates, unless those roommates are banging each other. (Now granted this initiative still hampers a homosexual couple from adopting together. One partner, technically, could be the adoptive parent. Gay couples shouldn’t have to choose who gets to be ‘the parent’ but play along.)
In other words, the state of Arkansas now has to hire some sort of private investigator to determine if two people living in a household are doing it. I have images of social workers, dressed in black, peering through windows with a flashlight to see if people are doing the hanky panky. Perhaps, they will form a whole department to monitor people’s sexual lives. They could call it Department of Unapproved Mating Acts & Sexual Surveyance or DUMASS for short. And people could apply for the government job of being an DUMASS. (Imagine the resume for that one!)
After all, who better to monitor the sexual mores of more than 2 million people than a DUMASS. It takes a DUMASS to even think this job is necessary. It takes a DUMASS to determine that a child is better off being passed around faster than a football between foster homes and groups than to be given a loving home when that home is shared by two people NOT married but having sex.
So my hats off to the all the DUMASS’ of Arkansas. You’ve got a lotta work ahead of you. Let’s hope ACLU will prevail again and lighten that work load a bit so you can go back to belching loudly and crushing beer cans on your head.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Subscribe for more! 



Griswold v. Connecticut carves out that privacy right pretty deep. Hell, if I recall correctly, sodomy’s even legal in TX now (which is good, because I have a feeling I know what those cattlemen do on long drives.) The right to privacy in the bedroom isn’t quite sitting on bedrock, but it’s pretty solid.
I’m not sure how the state expects to distinguish between roommates and cohabiting lovers.
R.A. Porters last blog post..Friday Night Sketch War: Reconciliation Edition
I know. In one way, it’s a setback and in another way it’s almost ridiculous. It does infringe on right to privacy in a HUGE way. But since they lost the battle to specifically prevent gays from adopting, I guess it seemed their only recourse.