Oklahoma needs more, not fewer agencies helping kids

OKLAHOMA has long struggled to place abused and neglected children in foster homes and facilitate adoptions, so it makes no sense to reduce the number of entities providing those services. Yet some activists appear willing to sacrifice the future of many needy children rather than allow them to be placed in homes by religious organizations holding to traditional Christian teachings on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Legislation filed this year would ensure such private organizations are not discouraged from aiding in foster care and adoptive placements. Senate Bill 1140, by Sen. Greg Treat, R-Edmond, states, “To the extent allowed by federal law, no private child-placing agency shall be required to perform, assist, counsel, recommend, consent to, refer, or 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.”

Some activists deride this as discrimination against LGBTQ couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples. But those couples could still adopt or foster children in Oklahoma. They would simply need to use another provider, and such providers are available. That’s not much of a hardship.

On the other hand, true hardship will be created if a measure like SB 1140 is not approved — and needy children, not adults, will be the ones to endure it.

Oklahoma’s Catholic bishops and the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma have voiced support for SB 1140. They note that in some states where legal protections are not provided to faith-based private providers, such as Massachusetts, Illinois and California, faith-based agencies have been forced to close after regulations mandated changes to their adoption criteria in violation of the groups’ religious principles.

Fewer providers means fewer children being placed in safe foster homes and fewer children being adopted. That’s a high price to pay to allow some parties to engage in empty virtue-signaling.

Several states have enacted laws similar to SB 1140, including Michigan, Texas and Virginia. The website of the Human Rights Campaign maintains a list of agencies that are “Leaders in Supporting and Serving LGBTQ Youth and Families.” That list still includes providers in Michigan, Texas and Virginia.

This issue is comparable to “controversies” over the occasional baker who declines to make a specialized wedding cake for a same-sex marriage due to the baker’s religious beliefs. Same-sex couples can easily get a wedding cake elsewhere, so why all the fuss? Do same-sex couples really want to facilitate adoptions through providers who consider the couples’ union to be a sin? One would think those couples would prefer to go elsewhere.

In the meantime, the more providers focused on addressing Oklahoma’s foster care and adoption needs, the better. In the vast majority of cases, the same-sex issue will not even come up. So why unnecessarily reduce the number of adoption service providers?

People like to tout the importance of diversity and tolerance. Well, in a diverse society, people are going to hold diametrically opposite views about same-sex marriages. And in a tolerant society, those differences won’t be used as an excuse to punish children to stifle disagreement among adults.