Why are Arkansas Gays and Arkansas children invisible to DU'ers

[curse of greyface]

Between all the Prop 8 posts one clearly would think that California is the center of the universe and nothing else happened last week. Sure Florida gets a token mention every once and a while. But Arkansas's odious law against adoption gets ignored.

Now I know that people in Arkansas are the "wrong" kind of democrats. Heck they probably are the wrong kind of gays. (too poor, too black and too southern)

The California law will be overturned and we will all celebrate. Meanwhile children will suffer in foster homes and state orphanages while those wanting to be their parents are unable to hold them.

Gay couples in Arkansas don't have TV shows or record contracts. They aren't particularly stylish or with it. Heck they may not be particularly liberal. But they struggle every day to make a peaceful corner for their world. Knowing that their neighbors think they are sinners. They wish to be a family. They wish to help some of the children. They have big hearts and deserve as much love and support as the people of California.

[QC]

1. Proud to be first rec. n/t

[JI7]

2. how did Arkansas DEMOCRATS vote on this ?

in California a large majority voted for Obama . Arkansas did not vote for Obama.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Why is it that it's always the poorest people who most vote against their own best interest? nt

[elleng]

21. Because they are the worst educated

and worst informed. Failing to provide truly equal education simply perpetuates the inequities in the system.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. Which is why Republicans work hard at destroying public schools

It all fits together

[elleng]

26. No need to 'destroy,'

the fact that they tend to be supported by property taxes does that job, and provides reasons for families (like mine) to look elsewhere for schools.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. You're RIGHT! Question for you...

When did this American cultural-political thingie of paying for school with property taxes get started, and who started it?

[elleng]

66. Don't know, but will try to check.

Thinking: its a local thing, that is, each locality takes responsibilities for doing local things (sewers, etc) and 'local schools' were where one of those things, historically.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

70. Thanks. If I find out how it got started, I'll let you know. nt

[apocalypsehow]

73. NO - enough of that weak dodge. Education, or lack of, in and of itself doesn't explain it.

That's a pipe dream too many on the Left grasp to their bosoms like Freepers explaining away last Tuesday's election results.

Culture and the way they were raised in it has much more to do with how people react to societal issues as exemplified in Prop. 8 than the intellectual quality of the faculty on hand at Little Rock High.

I mean, do you think the Jesuits lack education? Or the staff on board at the Cato institute? George Will?

It's a bit more complex than that, I'm afraid.

[liberal texan]

3. the real reason California gets so much coverage here

is that people here do not expect California to be so intolerant.
They expect Arkansas to be intolerant

[justiceischeap]

59. There's a saying... "As California goes, so goes the nation" or something like that

If a law is passed in California claiming that discriminating against gays, simply because we're gay is illegal, that's an argument (precedent) that can then be used in other cases throughout the US. The reason why people are talking about Prop 8 is that they really expected it to be defeated this time around because of Democratic voter turnout. It's not as some suggested that it's a way to bash religion or blacks but a way to further our rights nationally--though I'm not denying some are bashing blacks and religion.

[reggie the dog]

68. bingo

and we forget that there are people suffering because of this intolerance, so even though it is to be expected in certain areas today, it should not be accepted.

[Art_from_Ark]

74. The Arkansas initiative was not directed exclusively at gays

It was directed at people who were not legally married, which includes both gay and unmarried heterosexual couples. Also in Arkansas, at least, kids who are living with two fathers or two mothers will catch no end to grief in school, especially in small towns, where the vast majority of Arkansas' population live.

[Truth2Tell]

75. Two very very poor rationalizations

in one post. I will take a breath and try not to flame you. I will try to assume you are just very poorly informed and not a bigot looking for an excuse. *breath*

1. Do you really think the initiative was not directed at gays? Really? Really?

2. Would your logic about catching grief in school make sense if you applied it to children of interracial couples? Would such a reason justify laws prohibiting blacks and whites marrying? If you don't think it would, then why would you think it would justify this initiative?

3. I would suggest a long hard look in the mirror. *breath*

[Art_from_Ark]

76. Oh, for crying out loud

First of all, I voted in the Arkansas election, and actually read the damn petition.

Second of all, I grew up in the state and understand its quirks. I know a lot of kids get hassled, especially in the small towns, if they are "different". I've seen it up close and personal. I also know someone who committed suicide because of being hassled like this. Don't lecture me about "looking in the mirror". I saw the issue from both sides.

[Truth2Tell]

78. I didn't even BEGIN to lecture you my friend.

And you didn't answer my question. Would you use the same rationale about getting hassled in school to justify banning interracial marriage? Would that make sense to you?

[Art_from_Ark]

80. I understand where you're coming from

I also understand the situation in what is essentially a Bible Belt state. There was a lot of resistance to interracial marriages, but it was an influx of Oriental war brides, rather than legislation, that helped put an end to that. I think people in Arkansas finally accepted interracial marriage because the couple was still composed of male and female. A family headed by two males, or two females married to each other, is still too difficult for most people in the state to accept, I think, and their kids would in all likelihood be hassled in school. And I have seen what can happen in extreme cases. Is it worth it to subject kids to such an environment?

[Truth2Tell]

81. Do you think it's better to leave the kids in foster care

or in an orphanage to grow up with no family whatsoever?

[Truth2Tell]

79. dupe

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. :( More info please. Is there something we should be doing? Petitions? Protests? Web? nt

[readmoreoften]

6. It's not invisible. It's expected and near hopeless at the moment. There's a big difference.

1) If California goes, it all goes.
2) The voters voted for the first time to TAKE AWAY civil rights after a supreme court ruling. That didn't happen in AR.

[curse of greyface]

13. Actually that is exactly what happened in Arkansas

A 2006 Arkansas Supreme Court ruling that declared unconstitutional the state's administrative ban on homosexuals serving as foster parents.

This ballot initiative overturned that.

[readmoreoften]

22. Well then I stand corrected. Then it's likely because no one expects anything less from Arkansas.

[curse of greyface]

71. For a very poor state with a history of voting Democratic

It amazes me how quickly people write it off. (Even the republican Hucklebee was a populist.)

Maybe we do so poorly there because Arkansas senses the feelings of democrats toward it.

[DBoon]

7. because more of us live in CA?

It is a bigger (and more Democratic state), so you would expect more folks on theis board to be intimately involved in CA politics.

[greeneyedboy]

64. exactly. ppl from smaller states have to turn up the volume to make up for the #s. n/t

[elleng]

8. We've been uninformed,

and busy with 'other' things. We CERTAINLY want to help.

[RedCappedBandit]

9. pro-lifers vote to stop adoptions

go figure

[yardwork]

10. I keep mentioning Arkansas and Florida and Arizona.

Four states passed hateful anti-gay legislation on Tuesday. And the one in Arkansas has and will hurt millions of children.

[jonnyblitz]

11. k & r. nt

[Siyahamba]

12. Several states have passed anti-gay laws and amendments

None of them received the attention California did. It's unfortunate, but, two reasons come to mind: first, California's population is massive, so it naturally attracts the spotlight, and second, this was an amendment that broke new ground - it struck down a right to marry that already existed.

[curse of greyface]

15. Arkansas struck down a right to adoption that already existed as well.

This isn't a contest. And I would expect Prop 8 to get more attention. But there are other issues and other states getting lost in the outrage.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

47. "This isn't a contest." Could have fooled me, by your OP.

Nobody hates Arkansas liberals and LGBT. It's an attention deficit thing. California makes more noise, period.

[curse of greyface]

53. Your right it isn't a contest. I wasn't upset because prop 8 posts outnumbered Arkansas posts

I was amazed I hadn't seen one post at all on the situation. (not to say there wasn't one)

I agree California makes more noise. But all Americans deserve rights. And deserve to have thier voices heard. If only for one post.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. I didn't even KNOW about the details on the Arkansas measure until now!

The other news (Obama, Prop 8) just flooded everything. And yes, it's even more hideous. Looks like they're even willing to trample on OTHER people -- against whom they have nothing -- so they could get their hate fix. Denying adoption for singles? What the fucking fuck?

[ColbertWatcher]

20. You are correct, plus the GOP-controlled media is concentrated in CA. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

14. kick,,,

[Duncan Grant]

16. k&r: not forgotten

I've included this in my posts but will do more of it now. Thanks for mentioning it.

[Jamastiene]

17. I would think that it would be a given that if California,

the most liberal state in the Union, doesn't respect civil rights, we should not expect any other state to either. California's Prop H8 was just the thing that set it off, because it was unexpected. In Arkansas, you expect that kind of vote, no matter how hard you fight.

You can rest assured this poor, southern, mixed race, lesbian cares about their rights as well. I will be Recommending this thread because, YES, they matter too.

[ContinentalOp]

27. California is not the most liberal state in the union.

If people realized that they wouldn't be so shocked by the passage of Prop 8. It's appalling but not shocking at all to people who actually live in CA.

[curse of greyface]

37. Nope it isn't. Unfortantly people ignore the areas outside of San Fran and LA at thier own peril. NT

[RoyGBiv]

52. That's a myth ...

Reagan, Nixon? Those names ring a bell?

The overall governmental structure of California does not make it one of the most progressive states in the nation. The people themselves are a mix with highly concentrated areas of liberalism and equally highly concentrated areas of conservatism ... and everything in between.

[RoyGBiv]

18. My first comment on this issue ...

I don't know if I'll be making many more.

Yesterday as I read and then tried to avoid threads about it, I kept thinking a similar thing. I've tried to avoid it because I don't want to be a part of this particular fray.

I did post about it ... four years ago, which is why it is personal and why it, today, pisses me off even more than it did then.

Oklahoma codified bigotry into its state constitution in 2004. Back then, it was one more sad event in a series of sad ones. A gay friend and co-worker and I sat in the break room the day after the election, watching Kerry concede, and the question quickly turned to the recently passed ban on gay marriage in Oklahoma. My eyes started leaking, and he hugged me, and I felt selfish. He'd lost more than I had, and he was comforting me, but then, that's what friends do.

I don't want to relive all that here. Suffice to say it was part of a rant I posted back then, and no one, not ONE person commented on the gay marriage issue, which took up a significant part of the post. There were no threads, no arguments.

It was just expected. It was Oklahoma, after all.

And it's just Arkansas.

Apparently that makes it okay.

We're supposed to believe, I guess, that because it's California, it's more important or because California's electoral votes are going to Obama, that makes it worse ... or better ... depending on your perspective I guess.

Well, there you are. I don't understand the thinking, but then again, I live in flyover country and seem not to be afflicted with the ability to understand that kind of thinking.

I will add this sidenote, which I think I may have mentioned back then, but I can't remember, and the archive of 2004 is hard to access. The company we worked for responded to the Oklahoma ban by sending out a memo and changing its policy on domestic partnership benefits. It *increased* them and standardized them so that they were *identical* to benefits for legally married employees. As frustrating as my company at the time was with some things, I will always respect them for that. The timing of it was a message ...

[roody]

25. We care about Arkansas and Oklahoma. People from there

should post and keep it in front of us.

[RoyGBiv]

29. I understand that ...

That's not the point.

The point is that this firestorm that has erupted here the last few days looks positively crazed from someone with my perspective.

This has been happening for *years* now. And *now* it's a big deal? Why? Because it happened in California?

Seriously, I made peace a long time ago with the fact that if it happens in California or on the East Cost, it's a bigger deal than if it happens out here in the Great American Desert. But that doesn't make it any easier to watch this circular firing squad that's shown up with guns cocked, locked, and ready.

[Chulanowa]

36. It's ALWAYS been a big deal

However, California activists and organizers have much larger support bases, more funding, and are far more visible. Thus Proposition 8 gets more attention simply because they're better able to shine attention onto it.

I had no idea about Arkansas. I'll freely admit that. Not a damn clue. Now I do. If it weren't for this post, on DU, in the lonely depths of hte internet, I likely never would have known.

[Tatiana]

35. You have a good point. ((((HUGS)))) But I'm glad this is getting some attention.

It's reached a boiling point right now. I'm hoping the courts will do the right thing in spite of what the ignorant California voters have done.

[RoyGBiv]

49. A Court Decision ...

This will have to be decided by a court, preferably The Court eventually.

Fundamentally, this is a matter of equal protection under the law. People, on both sides and for their own reasons, want to complicate it, but it doesn't need to be that complicated.

While this particular analogy is dangerous at the moment, I'll use it anyway. It wasn't dangerous two weeks ago, so it make no sense that it is now.

This is the progression of civil rights throughout our history. When slavery, abortion, voting rights, et al were left to state decision, you got a mish-mash of policies, constantly changing policies, arguments over what is legal where and when, etc. Until this is viewed *legally* as a fundamental American right of equal protection, that will continue.

[CTyankee]

62. This is basically my argument. I have said again and again that as long as we

play on "their" turf, which is to portray gay rights as "special" or "new", we progressives will lose. The only turf we should be on is the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which is equal protection for everyone. That is what the CT supreme court basically said in their decision a few weeks ago. Last week we had a ballot question asking if we should hold a constitutional convention (the real intent of which would be to invalidate the earlier ruling, among a hodge podge of other things). CT voters decisively said NO. This week gay couples in CT will start marrying. The earth has not stopped spinning on its axis. There is no armed insurrection in the streets.

I am hopeful that the evolution of the argument, as our state court has demonstrated, will eventually result in this question being resolved on equal protection grounds...

[RoyGBiv]

67. Agreed ...

And, once again, this is one of the reasons it was so vitally important to elect Obama, regardless of his individual opinion or how he qualifies or equivocates. SCOTUS sits on a fine line at the moment regarding privacy and equal protection with outcomes uncertain. The next President will be making appointments that will cause the line to shift one way or the other.

Also, this is really what I'm talking about with the complaint about this whole thing having gone essentially unnoticed as it has been taking place over the last several years. Victories have been had in certain states, but then groups come along and undermine those victories with reversal legislation, or they preempt state level action with amendments to state constitutions so that it never gets that far. That was never going to last, and even if it had, how is this fair or just to those living in those states?

Naturally, it isn't because as you say, it violates the 14th amendment.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. Gay people are rendered invisible by American law.

Whether it's Arkansas law or California law.

[nickgutierrez]

24. Kick and rec - Florida, too.

Such a sad situation. It's really quite simple: People are being denied their basic human rights.

[kiva]

28. Thank you for posting this--

I am embarrassed to admit that I did not know that Arkansas had also revoked a right that the GLBT community had achieved. I am so sorry to hear this, and am especially concerned for the children. I wish you well in Arkansas, and hope this will be changed to keep children from suffering because of bigots.

A couple of years ago a student in my class did a presentation in which he talked about the fact he was a father and also HIV positive. His son's mother was an addict, and he and his partner were raising the boy. My student talked about his concern that, if he died while his son was still a minor, his partner would have no legal right to custody and that the boy's mother (or foster care) would be the result. Every time I hear about issues of gay parents (adoptive or natural) and their children, I think of David and hope he is well.

[curse of greyface]

30. Hugs

:hug:

[kiva]

33. Thank you.

:hug:

[JackBeck]

32. Not ignored by me.

Although when I posted about what transpired on Election Day, I was largely ignored.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x87735

[last_texas_dem]

34. Because they can't blame the AR vote on the blacks and the Mormons.

[crispini]

41. Ding!

[Beacool]

38. Is the law against adoption by gays similar to the one in FL?

I'm sorry if everyone seemed to give more importance to CA than to AR & OK. I'm sure that it was because they didn't expect CA to vote for the ban.

Hang in there!!!

;)

[curse of greyface]

42. Well it overturns a previous court order. It also bans single people from adopting. nt

[Beacool]

43. That's just ridiculous!!!

To ban a segment of the population from adopting a child when there are so many children in the system craving a home is just not right. How does that benefit the children?

Unbeleivable....

[goodgd_yall]

39. California is sexier

:sarcasm: (some self-deprecating humor there)

You're absolutely right to be wondering. I guess Californians are more vocal and have managed to get the attention of other DUers. What happened in Arkansas, in my opinion, was even worse than Prop 8 passing. What an insult to deprive gay couples of adoption rights---somehow it's even more insulting to me to have a state declare you are unfit to be a parent just because you're gay. At least California still has Domestic Partnership legislation which gives some recognition to gay relationships, but Arkansas is basically saying gay people cannot possibly give children a healthy environment to grow up in---which either means the state is saying we have no capacity to love, or it's saying something else is more important than love in raising a child, like being heterosexual. You can beat or neglect your child, but you're straight; god forbid if the child was being raised by a homosexual!

[crispini]

40. Because if you live in a red state, DU doesn't give a shit about you.

(Mostly)

[QC]

44. Bingo! n/t

[gatorboy]

45. I just mentioned this in a thread. I hate that this never got as much press.

This, in my opinion, was a much worse than Prop. 8. If only because the amount of people hurt by this, is double.


Foster children everywhere are celebrating, I'm sure.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. It's all connected.

Until the makeup of the SC can be changed we'll have to fight this state-by-state. I don' think anyone's ignoring anything but the reality is, we'll have a better chance of reversing Prop. 8 in California than reversing Arkansas' anti-gay legislation. Again, this is not going to be settled until it gets to the SC. Unfortunately, the justices Obama will be replacing are older liberals. The right-wing nutsos are all relatively young and healthy. We MIGHT have a chance in Obama's second term.

[yardwork]

48. kicking again. Four states passed hateful legislation last Tuesday.

[Marrah_G]

50. Because it was a consititional amendment REVERSING rights previously granted

It is not much different then if CA voted for a constitutional amendment banning nationalities from being able to marry.

[Bryn]

51. I didn't even know it'd be on ballot until the day I voted here in Arkansas

I voted NO to ban gay people from fostering/adopting children. I was surprised to see it there that day! It wasn't talked about here on DU. We shouldn't ignore red states. ALL STATES must support civil rights for all.

I am blue from blue area in Florida living here in very red state, Arkansas. It's very lovely place here and cheaper to live than Florida. I am sorry that my vote was like a tiny blue drop in Red Sea here, but do not give up.

Next time, don't ignore Red States. Arkansas was blue for Clinton twice so can it be again. People just need to be educated! Not be ignorant. This place is overwhelmingly full of sweating, Evangelical preachers. I truly wish we could VOTE THEM OUT. They're dangerous. It has caused so many "little old ladies" to throw money at them because they think it's a ticket to go to heaven. My mother is going broke because she gave too much money to those TV preachers. I hate to have to support her in near future. Preachers should stick to teaching spiritual stuff, but they don't. Instead they preach hate, bigotry and politics plus telling people to give money so they'd go to heaven. Please focus on this problem. This is ROOT of the problem.

[OneBlueSky]

54. prohibiting gays from adopting or being foster parents is short-sighted and ultimately . . .

expensive, both financially and socially . . .

gays and lesbians are often willing to take in children that no one else wants -- disabled kids, AIDS babies, acting out teens, etc. . . with this block of potential caregivers no longer available, those kids will remain in group homes or be bounced from one foster placement to another until they're 18 and kicked off the system . . . many will end up needing some kind of public assistance for the rest of their lives . . . others will end up in jail or dead . . .

all because stupid people let prejudice and bigotry trump common sense and the Christian charity they claim to practice but seldom do . . .

[stray cat]

55. Singles are often prohibited as well I think

[CoffeeCat]

57. Let me tell you something...

I was adopted at birth, by two "Christian" heterosexuals.

I'd give anything to have been raised by two loving people--gay, lesbian, whatever.

I'd have saved thousands in therapy.

In my dreams, I would have been raised by two amazing gay men! :)

[DemoRabbit]

60. Two close friends of my mom adopted a young troubled teen

... they are two gay men. This boy was someone no one wanted... very troubled and hard to handle. They have given him a loving home and he's come SO far. This is a kid that might have ended up in jail and may now be a productive member of society. Why? Because a couple, two loving and stable men who've been together a long time, decided to give him a chance.

[cali]

61. For reference purposes:

Alabama Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Alaska Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Arizona Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Arkansas Legislation is not clear whether single gays or couples can adopt.

California Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.

Colorado Permits same-sex couple adoption. Also allows grandparents and other individuals helping raise the child to adopt.

Connecticut Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.

Delaware Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

District of Columbia Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.

Florida Prohibits single and joint gay adoption.

Georgia Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Hawaii Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Idaho Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Illinois Permits single GLBT and couples adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.

Indiana Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Iowa Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Kansas Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Kentucky Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Louisiana Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Maine Permits single GLBT adoption. On August 30, 2007 the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously in their favor on grounds that prohibiting the adoption would be counter to Maine’s Adoption Act.

Maryland Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint gay adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Massachusetts Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.

Michigan Permits single GLBT adoption. Prohibits joint adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Minnesota Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint gay adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Mississippi Permits single GLBT adoption. Prohibits joint adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Missouri Single GLBT and joint adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Montana Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Nebraska Single GLBT adoption unclear. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Prohibits second-parent adoption.

Nevada Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

New Hampshire Permits single GLBT adoption. Prohibits joint adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

New Jersey Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.

New Mexico Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

New York Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.

North Carolina Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption unclear.

North Dakota Single GLBT and joint adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Ohio Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption not allowed.

Oklahoma Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Oregon Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Pennsylvania Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption allowed.

Rhode Island Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

South Carolina Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption unclear.

South Dakota Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Tennessee Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Texas Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.

Utah Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint adoption prohibited. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Vermont Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.

Virginia Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Washington Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption in some areas.

West Virginia Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.

Wisconsin Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption prohibited.

Wyoming Permits single GLBT adoption. Joint adoption unclear. Second-parent adoption unclear
http://outgaylife.com/gay-families/adoption-fostering/gay-adoption-laws-state/

[Threedifferentones]

58. It pains me to say this but I think the obvious reason is that

We all take it for granted that gay rights have no chance in Arky for decades to come. In Cali OTOH people expect better.

[greeneyedboy]

63. California is huge. If Arkansas were the size of CA we'd hear as much about it.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

65. I agree with you

however I think the main outrage at California specifically is that it is kind of a beacon for social change, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Arizona... etc... no one really expects there to be any positive progression on GLBT rights in those states... they will bring up the rear as usual.

[JerseygirlCT]

69. It's not that at all. It's that CA is huge. In numbers, in influence

Arkansas is not.

I think the proposition in Arkansas is horrible. Not the least because of what it does to children. How could people vote for something so heartless? I assume every single person voting for that proposition will be welcoming a needy child into their home, right?

Don't be offended by the fuss over CA. For a very long time as CA went, so went the country. That's why the set back there is so upsetting and so shocking. And the bottom line is that moving people to action is a good thing, regardless of which of the several nasty anti-gay propositions voted on Tuesday night last week spur that action.

[yardwork]

72. Kicking again. I've already recommended.

[FreeState]

77. We have a LOT of work to do before GLBT persons are anywhere near equal in this country n/t