by Charlie Butts, www.OneNewsNow.com
Arkansas voters who signed petitions and then voted to limit adoption strictly to married couples are getting unwelcomed publicity.
Arkansas voters who signed petitions and then voted to limit adoption strictly to married couples are getting unwelcomed publicity.
Some homosexual activists did not like the petition and its success at the ballot box. Jerry Cox is head of the Arkansas Family Council.
Read the full article here.
Get more information from this blog.
Sound familiar, California voters?
What do they hope to achieve by doing this? Most people would not care what people voted for. I think most people find the whole same sex attraction thing just a bit odd.
ReplyDeleteAnd what I find odd is that someone who apparently considers himself a "heretic" is now suggesting that what "most people" think should matter.
ReplyDeleteAffixing one's signature to a petition is a public act in most jurisdictions, and is a matter of public record in Arkansas. The information was provided to http://www.knowthyneighbor.org by the office of the Arkansas Secretary of State itself.
ReplyDeleteThis information is of potential relevance to gay people and their families for a number of reasons, not least of which might include a better understanding of the demographic distribution of same-sex family adoption within a jurisdiction, a parent's interest in gauging the safety of their gay son or daughter in a time when anti-gay physical violence is still a very real danger (some places more than others), and providing opportunity for gay men or women to engage in meaningful dialogue with their neighbors that may have a differing opinions with respect to human rights. None of these is a pernicious act.
Hence, the title of this post seems somewhat sensationalistic -- the petition signatories "exposed" themselves by signing the petition, and no information on http://www.knowthyneighbor.org appears to promote any malicious "targeting" of petition signatories. Rather, one might read the actions of the petition signatories as "targeting" a minority population's human rights and removing that entire minority population from the pool of potential (and by all known measures, completely competent) adoptive parents.
Adrian, I think it is a little naive of you to say that these names were published so parents could protect their gay children or so that they could engage in friendly dialogue with neighbors and co-workers. Certainly, it is possible that some may use the list for those purposes.
ReplyDeleteBut homosexual activists did not purposefully obtain the list from the state and go to great lengths to publish it on the website only to encourage friendly chit-chat. The first amendment gave them the right to do so, but their purpose is to try to humiliate and shame those who signed the petition, and they are asking friends and family of the signers to do the attacking. Hopefully those who signed will not be intimidated by these tactics but will continue to stand up for their belief in the sanctity of marriage and families and their right to freedom of speech.
This is just another example, they're replicating the intimidation tactics used in California against the prop 8 supporters. People have a right to stand up for what they believe, no matter what that belief is. While this intimidation may fall into a legal gray area, it is not part of a moral gray area.
ReplyDelete