And this is how it went...

The Talton Amendment

Boo Radley — Tue, 03 May 2005 19:02:00 EDT

A hot-button issue in the Texas Legislature at the moment is the Talton Amendment to Senate Bill 6. The amendment was rolled into the bill approved by the House of Representatives that, as expected, would also lower caseloads for investigators and hand over to private agencies some of the duties associated with protecting Texas children. This amendment would use government money to probe into the lives of any potential foster parents to determine their sexuality in an attempt to prohibit homosexual couples from adopting. The bill is now in conference committee and the author of the amendment itself, Rep. Robert Talton (R-Pasadena) has been appointed to it. Committee members opposed to the amendment are Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville), Sen. Jon Lindsay (R-Houston), Sen. Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso), and Rep. Toby Goodman (R-Arlington). Other committee members such as Sen. Kyle Janek (R-Houston), Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo), and Rep. Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio) were unavailable for comment.

However, there is at least one swing voter in the conference committee. Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp (R-Lampasas) feels that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of the government's business; however, if an older child were put into a homosexual foster family, they may already have pre-conceived notions about homosexuality. Her secretary was unsure how the representative planned to vote.

This ridiculous amendment would create heavy costs for children, families and taxpayers. Luckily, Sen. Nelson, the author of the bill designed to overhaul the state's protective service agencies, has come out publicly against Rep. Talton's amendment. Nelson said she is concerned that the ban on gay foster parents would probably become a magnet for lawsuits and that it might cause upheaval for the thousands of children in homes where the foster parents might be gay or bisexual.

The Bottom Line: Do you want your tax dollars spent on investigations that aim to remove children from safe and stable homes?

What is the truth about Terri Schiavo?

Boo Radley — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:15:33 EST

So since there are apparently no other news items in the United States, what are your thoughts on the Terri Schiavo case? I personally think that her husband put her into the state that she's in right now and that's why he wanted her feeding tubes cut.

This is one of the few times that I have ever agreed with Tom DeLay, because I think it's barbaric to wait around for two to four weeks for Terri Schiavo to die. She's obviously not dying and she's not in a coma, so I believe that this crosses the line. In certain cases I can see how cutting the feeding tubes is permissible, such as when the person is in agony, is dying, or is in a permanent coma.

However, the videos show that if Terri were to simply have more therapy, there is hope for her to recover somewhat, even if she isn't able to be the way she once was. She responds to her parents and her parents obviously don't approve of her husband's desire to kill her. I agree with the Schindler family: since Terri's husband already has another fiancee and children, he should just worry about his own family and let them worry about their own. I personally think he's already gotten away with much more than has been let on by his lawyers.

Dan Rather, signing off

Boo Radley — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:34:08 EST

Tonight was Dan Rather's last time to ever host the CBS Evening News. I wasn't a religious viewer of his, but he is a very respectable man that led a long and successful career. Certain people and groups are celebrating his signing off because of recent controversy about memos concerning President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service or lack thereof during the Vietnam War, but the insults have grown childish and are purely mean-spirited. "He is a first-class reporter and an aggressive interviewer," Marvin Kalb said today. The problem that people have is that he is not afraid to ask the questions... people have thought him a poster child of an arrogant press ever since he faced down Richard Nixon. I think that takes, to use one of Mr. Rather's favorite words, courage. Though he'll never see this, I offer this as my simple gift of gratitude to a man that shaped the media for so many years with his authoritative reporting and his twenty-four years of doing his best to make a difference.

Juvenile Death Penalty

Boo Radley — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:07:39 EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

I've actually been sort of happy with the Supreme Court lately. Even though this was a close decision, it shows that the majority of the justices are doing the right thing.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in dissent, said that the further the Court ruled on capital punishment (such as the 1988 outlaw of the execution of those under 15 and the ban on executing the mentally retarded that came just three years ago) the sooner they would be asked to rule on the acceptability of the death penalty itself. He goes on to say that the Court cannot be the sole arbiter of morals.

What strikes me as the most interesting thing is that these same nine Justices made a very different ruling in 1988. It shows that as these Justices are aging or progressing in their thoughts, the pendulum is beginning to swing from a very pro-death penalty Court to one that will outlaw the execution of minors and the mentally retarded.

Maybe we will be lucky and get the death penalty itself overturned one of these days.