On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Urges Commonwealth of Virginia Not to Discriminate Against Faith-Based Organizations in Adoption Agency Regulations
RICHMOND, Va.— The Rutherford Institute is cautioning the Virginia Department of Social Services against adopting any regulations that would prohibit child placement agencies—including faith-based organizations—from “discriminating” against applicants by considering gender, age, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, disability or family status in placing children for adoption. In testimony before the Virginia Department of Social Services on Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011, Rutherford Institute attorney Rita Dunaway warned that if such “anti-discrimination” requirements were adopted, the regulation would constitute a significant infringement upon the rights of faith-based adoption agencies to exercise their religious beliefs, and would thus violate both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The Institute issued a public comment on the proposed regulations in October 2011.
The Rutherford Institute’s public comment on the proposed regulations is available here.
“It is absolutely beyond the legitimate authority of any government agency to force faith-based agencies to choose between abandoning their adoption ministries or violating their sincerely-held religious beliefs,” said attorney Rita Dunaway of The Rutherford Institute. “If the Establishment Clause means anything, it means that government agencies may not dictate what spiritual issues can be considered by religious organizations to be significant in determining what would serve as the best long-term placement for a child.”
The Virginia Department of Social Services’ (VDSS) current guidelines do not prohibit persons of any certain gender, age, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, disability or family status from adopting a child in Virginia. Moreover, individuals and groups who believe such factors to be irrelevant to adoption decisions are free to operate their own adoption agencies according to that belief. However, the proposed VDSS rules would prohibit faith-based agencies from following the dictates of their conscience in determining what homes are healthy and safe for adoptive and foster children. In weighing in on the issue before the VDSS, Rutherford Institute attorney Rita Dunaway warns that should the proposed "anti-discrimination" provisions be included without a religious exemption for faith-based child-placement agencies, many of these organizations would undoubtedly choose to abandon their adoption ministries altogether rather than participate in a system that forces them to violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs regarding the definition of a healthy family. Groups such as the ACLU have pushed for the inclusion of the so-called anti-discrimination provisions, asserting that if a private organization—even a private religiously-affiliated organization—assists with activities that can be classified as "secular," such as certifying adoptive parents or placing children in foster care, it must be held to the same standard as if the state had itself performed the activities. However, as The Rutherford Institute points out, this kind of logic could also force religious groups to conform to government-approved norms in performing a number of functions that are also performed or regulated by the state—including, for instance, education. Moreover, as the Institute noted in its public comments on the issue, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids government agencies from dictating religious positions on doctrinal issues, including the definition of a healthy family.
