General Bebee Re-Reverses Course on Homosexual Foster Parents (Maybe)
Have you ever been around one of those people who parse every word they say and always try to leave themselves wiggle room? Meaningful communication is almost impossible with such people, because they are not trying to communicate, they are trying to get you to think they are saying what you want to hear while in their minds they are avoiding actual commitment to any specific action. Attorney General Mike Bebee is showing himself to be just such a person, a parser par excellence, especially in the issue of homosexual adoption and foster parenting.
Those who follow this blog know that members of a homosexual activist group, the Stonewall Democrats, thought they had a commitment from Bebee to actively fight bills like the Bob Adams/Jim Holt HB 1119 that would prevent homosexual couples from gaining access to children through foster parenting. Nine days after the faux-commitment, the courts told the state that absent a law the state agency tasked with protecting children would not be able to block homosexuals from obtaining access to children. Suddenly, everyone saw the need for a bill like HB 1119 (which was bottled up in Senate committee in 05).
Bebee then went in public and said he too thought homosexuals should be banned from becoming foster parents. The opposite of what he told the activist group in private. The Stonewall Democrats felt they had been deceived, the public felt that Bebee was OK on the issue after all. But now, after some of the glare was off the case, Bebee's spokesman quietly claims that Bebee meant what he said with the Stonewall Democrats, but that what he said simply wasn't what the eight of them thought they heard!
"Zac Wright, a spokesman for Beebe, said Tuesday, “Mike Beebe stands by what he said in the meeting: He will not sign any unconstitutional legislation or be a party to discrimination.”
So, what does that mean? Who knows! They don't want you to know anything! They just want you to have a vague idea that Bebee is on your side, regardless of which side you are on. Does that mean he would or would not sign HB 1119 should it reach his desk as Governor? Would he be for or against that bill? After reams of paper and barrels of ink have been sacrificed to clarify Mr. Bebee's position on the subject the answer is - we still don't know. The guy is as slippery as a catfish in a jar of vaseline.
Based on my observations of the trial-lawyer loophole mindset that Mr. Bebee has displayed in the past (such as "we don't need to overturn Roe v. Wade because subsequent decisions have made the law a shell of its former self".) I believe that it would play out like this: Bebee would be against homosexuals getting their hands on children as foster parents in theory, but sadly, no actual bill ever put before him to do so would ever be "constitutional" as he saw it. No bill on the subject would be pure enough from the tinge of "discrimination" to merit his support.
(continued- click "Wednesday" below and scroll down for rest of article, or if sent straight here just scroll down.)
Those who follow this blog know that members of a homosexual activist group, the Stonewall Democrats, thought they had a commitment from Bebee to actively fight bills like the Bob Adams/Jim Holt HB 1119 that would prevent homosexual couples from gaining access to children through foster parenting. Nine days after the faux-commitment, the courts told the state that absent a law the state agency tasked with protecting children would not be able to block homosexuals from obtaining access to children. Suddenly, everyone saw the need for a bill like HB 1119 (which was bottled up in Senate committee in 05).
Bebee then went in public and said he too thought homosexuals should be banned from becoming foster parents. The opposite of what he told the activist group in private. The Stonewall Democrats felt they had been deceived, the public felt that Bebee was OK on the issue after all. But now, after some of the glare was off the case, Bebee's spokesman quietly claims that Bebee meant what he said with the Stonewall Democrats, but that what he said simply wasn't what the eight of them thought they heard!
"Zac Wright, a spokesman for Beebe, said Tuesday, “Mike Beebe stands by what he said in the meeting: He will not sign any unconstitutional legislation or be a party to discrimination.”
So, what does that mean? Who knows! They don't want you to know anything! They just want you to have a vague idea that Bebee is on your side, regardless of which side you are on. Does that mean he would or would not sign HB 1119 should it reach his desk as Governor? Would he be for or against that bill? After reams of paper and barrels of ink have been sacrificed to clarify Mr. Bebee's position on the subject the answer is - we still don't know. The guy is as slippery as a catfish in a jar of vaseline.
Based on my observations of the trial-lawyer loophole mindset that Mr. Bebee has displayed in the past (such as "we don't need to overturn Roe v. Wade because subsequent decisions have made the law a shell of its former self".) I believe that it would play out like this: Bebee would be against homosexuals getting their hands on children as foster parents in theory, but sadly, no actual bill ever put before him to do so would ever be "constitutional" as he saw it. No bill on the subject would be pure enough from the tinge of "discrimination" to merit his support.
(continued- click "Wednesday" below and scroll down for rest of article, or if sent straight here just scroll down.)
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Wednesday, July 26, 2006
4 Comments:
Now opponent Asa Hutchinson's blog declared that Bebee was either lying to the Stonewall Democrats or lying to the public over the contradiction. In today's Seth Blomeley column, Bebee spokesman Zach Wright retorted, “What is more diff icult to understand is why Mr. Hutchinson personally would make such blatantly false statements,” Wright said. “While we expected negative, false campaigning from [former ] Congressman Hutchinson, it is surprising to see him make purposeful misrepresentation in his personal statements this early in the campaign.”
The only thing the Bebee campaign can make clear statements about is that the other guys are "blatantly false" in their statements. However it is impossible to make a "blatantly false" statement about Mike Bebee's positions, because for something to be a "blatantly false statement", the position the statement is misrepresenting must be "blatantly clear". And close to nothing Mr. Bebee ever says about issues is "blatantly clear". It is all muddied up with triple talk because that is the way he wants it. Would he be for a bill to ban homosexuals from state-supported access to children through foster parenting? Sure, as long as it was "constitutional" and "non-discriminatory" in the mind of Mr. Bebee. Well, what kind of bill would pass that private test hidden in your mind, Mr. Bebee?
Maybe we are simply dealing with two different kinds of people in the two campaigns. The one side holds to absolute truth and tries to figure out what the rules are. These are legalistic minded people, sometimes called "straight shooters". "Well, if you told Fred you are for it, and Wilma you are agaisnt it, then you must have lied to one of them." That is the way a straight shooter thinks. Not so parsers. They don't think in terms of "If this is true then the opposite must be false". Instead, parsers think that anything can be true, and anything can be false, depending on how you look at it. It is not about truth, it is about their desires. Parsers talk endlessly about "what the meaning of "is" is" in an effort to escape being committed to a course of action that could cost them something. They reject the idea of absolute truth, and words mean only what they want them to mean at the time. And words are always flexible enough in their definitions that they did not mean what you thought they meant when it comes crunch time. You always seem to "misunderstand them" if they still want your help, or you are making "purposeful misrepresentations in his personal statements" if you misunderstand them when you are their opponent. It is all just a big misunderstanding you see, and it always will be when dealing with parsers.
As I have said, meaningful communication with such people is impossible, because they do not desire it. Or, in the colorful language of Hutchinson spokesman David Kincade,“Asa stands by the fact that Mike Beebe has problems with giving straight answers — whether it’s gay foster parenting, abortion, taxes, rural schools or any other issue. He has trouble giving clear answers and taking clear positions,”
You've gotten to the heart of it. Either you are for or against homosexuals adopting children. It shouldn't be so difficult to speak your mind clearly.
Keep up the good work. thnx!
»
Your website has a useful information for beginners like me.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home