The topic of adoption in the United States has been widely discussed and especially prominent during the past decade. Whether parents adopt due to inability to conceive, or the personal desire to bring a child out of the foster-care system, they often face high costs, long waiting lists, and sometimes rejection. But are all cases of denial supported by U.S. Law? In 2018, Oklahoma passed SB 1140, following the path of seven other states this year, giving private adoption agencies discretion when acting in line with moral and religious convictions.
While many see this statute as a step in the direction of religious freedom, opponents have taken it as a sign of underlying discrimination towards same-sex parents and those in the LGBT+ community. Although the laws do not ban same-sex adoption, these bills could prove adoption more difficult for LGBT+ partners. Conversely, allowing private, religious agencies to act on articulable moral convictions paves a way for the free exercise of religion as expressed in the Bill of Rights.
Oklahoma’s SB 1140 was authored by Senator Greg Treat in January 2018, stating in-short that “no private child-placing agency shall be required to… participate in any placement of a child for foster care or adoption when the proposed placement would violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.” (Treat 1). This bill, passed into law in May 2018, allows for adoption agencies to freely exercise religious practices and abide by their own faith-based decisions when placing children in homes by extension of federal law. The media were quick to give the misnomer: “Oklahoma’s Anti-LGBT Law”; however, they fail to recognize that this bill does not specifically target the LGBT community.
127 our experts are availableright now
Removing the headline title from the text, one can infer the intentions of the bill. Not to mention, only being roughly one and a half pages long, those without full knowledge of legislative jargon may easily understand the importance of the law. Oklahoma Catholic leaders Paul S. Coakley and David A. Konderla explain that these faith-based agencies will simply be able to practice “their decades-long tradition” of taking in the state’s needy children (Coakley and Konderla).
The decision to allow discretion is not out of abhorrence to the LGBT community, but what constitutes a healthy, happy, future home for a child, and what is believed to lay a strong foundation of values in a child’s life. The bill falls in line with federal law and would not constitute a ban on same-sex parents. This means that LGBT+ families are still able to be served at different agencies around the state. After signing the bill into law, governor Mary Fallin authored an executive order that provided a comprehensive list of Oklahoma agencies who would serve families regardless of sexual orientation or faith.
Religious advocates and researchers like Glenn T. Stanton, research fellow at the Institute of Marriage in Ontario, argue that the greatest indicator of whether one will live a substantial amount of their life in poverty “is the family form they grow up in and those they go on to form—or fail to form—in their adulthood” (Stanton 341). Children growing up with opposite-sex parents is proven to benefit youth all the way into adulthood. While these agencies may not see LGBT parents suitable, the disengagement extends to homes that show significant inequity in the long run; these homes include single-parent homes, and unmarried co-parents.
OK SB 1140 does not come without opposition. A law like this could bar many children from getting adopted into stable homes. According to the Adoption Network Law Center (ANLC), an adoption-services group offering nationwide legal assistance in domestic adoption, state that “114,556 [children]… are waiting to be adopted” in the United States (Adoption Network Law Center). According to statistics provided by the Oklahoma Fosters Initiative (OFI), Oklahoma holds “nearly 9,600 children in state custody”, almost half of whom are eligible for full adoption (OFI).
If the state has so many youths in need of families, how could any agency so easily refuse a set of parents before giving them a chance to prove their desire and competency to raise a child? With the current state of Oklahoma’s foster care system, there are more children in need of families than there are families who can provide them permanent, and even temporary homes. While infants and young children may spend less time in state custody, many may spend “2-5 years” in the system if they are adopted at all (ANLC). So, with the thousands of children awaiting adoption in mind, how and why would any agency keep anyone from finding a home?
Many who object the law see a clear presentation of being strictly against same-sex couples and LGBT parents. With the passage of the bill in question, it will be easier and legal for agencies to discriminate against willing families. Allie Shinn, Deputy Director at ACLU of Oklahoma, states that the law does not offer aid to those affected, but instead “exploit[s] a culture of fear and hysteria” that has been associated with the LGBT+ community for decades (Fortin). LGBT+ advocates argue that the bill has been passed under the false pretenses of religious freedom and tolerance, but in practice, shows intolerance to families willing to bring disadvantaged children out of the system. Not only is the law discriminatory but will be taxpayer funded. Arguably, the government should not be able to fund religious partisanship in a nation with its own historical aversion to established religion.
Personally, I find it difficult to fall in line on either side. Although religious freedom is a deeply held principle in our nation, I do not find it appropriate for the government to fund agencies that may discriminate against families based on orientation or faith. This is very similar to the issue of same-sex marriage; while the government may grant marriage or adoption, they shouldn’t necessarily have a hand in who can or cannot participate, especially when they are cooperative with all other policies involved.
However, if faith-based agencies did not receive funding, they in turn would not be able to provide service for many families. Unless it were proven that having same-sex non-believing, or interfaith parents had a great negative effect on a child’s upbringing, LGBT people among others must be able to adopt children if they are able to meet the equivalent standards of the opposite-sex, Christian parents who adopt every day in our state.
