Texas permits adoption agencies to refuse adoptions based on religion

It seems that religious freedoms and speech are at the forefront of a family oriented issue.  Texas Senate approved a bill that permits private adoption agencies basically to discriminate based on religion.  Obviously we are dealing with 1st amendment and religious establishment clause issues.  However, with the conservative movement that is currently in the United States.

The measure allows publicly funded foster care and adoption agencies to refuse to place children with non-Christian, unmarried or gay prospective parents because of religious objections. This appears to be very discriminatory and very disturbing.  Adoption should be looked at through the children who dont have parents perspective.  They are seeking to find a family to love and cherish them unconditionally as a child with parents.  They are not looking for a religion or whether they are gay or not. I think this law misses the point of what an adoption is in place for.

The bill that passed through the Texas Senate was called “Freedom to serve children Act.” unfortunately, its unclear how denying qualified adoptive parents the opportunity to provide a nurturing family for a child who does not have a family as beneficial is not clear. South Dakota is the only other state that permits religious and gay discrimination for adoption placement.

Civil rights groups have criticized the measure as funding discrimination with public money. The measure is opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and LGBT advocacy groups.

“It is unconscionable that a bill would prioritize discrimination over the best interest of kids in the child welfare system, but Texas lawmakers have done just that,” said Marty Rouse, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign and a foster and adoptive parent.

However, another viewpoint that is being stated is that by narrowing the prospective adoptive parents based on religion and sexual preference will create a larger adoptive parent involvement.  Therefore, by permitting religion into the mix for adopting a child will make more parents available.  This argument seems rather speculative as it is unknown that more adoptive families will show up to adopt foster children.

It seems the logical conclusion would be to permit adoptions to a family who is able to provide a stable loving environment to a child in need.  It doesnt seem that by narrowing the prospective adoptive families that it will help the foster child in need of a home.

Based on my experience in the Juvenile Court system these foster children are often fraught with severe emotional scars from the abuse of their prior home life.  They are not looking for a religious home nor a home that is heterosexual.

The juvenile Court system already is filled with children without homes and without biological parents who have abandoned them or cannot care for them. I think we need to look at the ability of an adoptive family to care for a severely emotionally scarred child than an adoptive family who has a sexual or religious preference.  We need to open the doors to more families that can partake in the adoption process not segregate based on religion or sexual preference.