Digging deeper on SB959

Since I posted my position on SB959 on Friday, my inbox has exploded with arguments on both sides of the issue. I actually enjoy the participation and wish that all legislation got people this fired up. Both sides are armed with legal and biblical arrows and they're being fired without restraint. I'm going to redact names and post a few of the e-mails I've received in the comments section. First, though, let me address a few of the points raised regularly in most of the e-mail I receive:

On the prevention of cohabiting couples from adopting or becoming foster parents: This bill allows for unmarried cohabiting couples to adopt or become foster parents so long as they're not involved sexually. How we're supposed to determine that is beyond me, but it's the epitome of policing your bedroom.

On the necessity of this legislation: According to the Arkansas Supreme Court in DHS v. Howard (link here), no problems with existing law or regulations have been reported (citing the Stipulated Facts of the parties).

On the constitutionality of this bill: The Court in DHS v. Howard (link here) struck down an agency regulation prohibiting conduct similar to that outlined in this legislation as being unconstitutional (on separation of powers grounds) and therefore didn't have to go further to address the other constitutional concerns that were raised. However, the concurring opinion by Justice Robert Brown gives a little insight into how the Court may interpret the constitutionality of SB959, which is almost identical to the agency regulation referenced in the Howard case:

Though I agree that the ruling on the separation-of-powers count is right, the trial court erred in my judgment by not finding equal-protection and privacy violations as well...[this regulation] overtly and significantly burdens the privacy rights of couples engaged in sexual conduct in the bedroom which this court has specifically declared to be impermissible as violative of equal-protection and privacy rights. See Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80 S.W.3d 332 (2002)...And who are the ultimate losers in this? It is the foster children who will be forced to reside in youth homes because an insufficient pool of willing foster parents is available.

On the bill being assigned to Judiciary: As you can see above, this bill is riddled with constitutional issues that are appropriate for Judiciary. Additionally, the committee must consider the "best interests of the child," a legal standard that has been developed through statutory and common law. Further, adoptions themselves are statutory in nature. Last week, the Senate just referred a bill dealing with adoptions to the Senate Judiciary Committee (HB2270) and no questions were raised.

On a bill being removed from a committee by a 2/3 vote: This is true. Rule 69 of the Rules of the House provides that if the speaker does not admit error, a vote of two-thirds of the House membership may remove a bill from a committee. I'm only in my second term, but I haven't seen this maneuver raised in my time in the House.