Archdiocese of Galveston Church-Huston v. HHS

 

The foster care system has always been, to a degree, heartbreaking. Many children never leave the system and therefore never have a forever-home and family. In the state of Texas specifically, over 25 thousand children have yet to find a home. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston Church-Huston had wanted to make efforts to assist these children in finding families, but in 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began enforcing a regulation called the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity laws (SOGI) that forced all foster care systems to assign children to same-sex couples. This rule was a discrimination law that prohibits ”discrimination due to “age, disability, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation as well as same-sex marriage status.” Because this regulation made it so the Archdiocese of Galveston Church had to choose between their religious beliefs and helping kids in need, they filed a lawsuit against HHS, arguing that the regulation broke their First Amendment rights to express religion, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The question at hand is whether the HHS “SOGI” laws unlawfully restricted the Archdiocese of Galveston Church’s ability to exercise their religion freely, or if the HHS had every right to force them to assign children to same-sex couples to protect the minority LGBTQI+ community.

    The Becket article addresses that the SOGI law did not help the children in need, and, in fact, hurt them. The church wanted to care for those in need, as seen through their other work with the less fortunate, like those in poverty, those who lost their spouse, and immigrants. Making it so the church had to choose between their beliefs and helping those in need is a direct violation of the constitution, and the children are not only less likely to find a forever-home, as the SOGI law directly discriminated against religious organizations in efforts to restrict discrimination of the LGBTQI+ community. This discrimination against religion was, in reality hurtful to the children as well.

    The article also addresses that the SOGI law directly contradicted another law that allowed religious organizations, like the church, to refer same-sex couples to other programs that would assign them children. Why would the church be allowed to refer LGBTQI+ couples to another organization for religious reasons, but then also be forced to assign children to them? It did not make sense.

    The SOGI law was facially neutral towards religious institutions and non-religious ones, as it was technically enforceable for all who wanted to assist in the foster care system, religious or not. The Archdiocese of Galveston Church, however, did not believe the laws to actually be neutral because they were direct targets as a religious organization. A non-religious institution would not have a reason to turn down a same-sex couple, so the laws would not apply to them anyway.

    This case is immensely similar to a Supreme Court Case from 2021, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The city prohibited Catholic Social Services (CSS) from being involved in the foster care system because CSS would not allow children to be placed with a same-sex couple. The opinion of the court sided with CSS, addressing that the law the city enacted was actually discriminatory towards Catholics.

    The Archdiocese of Galveston Church-Huston v. HHS case came to its conclusion when the church and the state of Texas filed a complaint federally. In August of 2020, the federal government got rid of the regulations restricting the church from assisting the foster care system. This was mainly for the benefit of the children.

    I personally agree with the decision made to allow religious institutions not pair up foster children with same-sex couples. Restricting people who want to help children in need from doing so is wrong, especially considering how flawed the foster care system already is. Any opportunity for a child to find a home should be allowed, even if it is a program that will not assign them to same-sex couples. Plus, organizations that do assign children to same-sex couples still exist. There are plenty of opportunities for same-sex couples to help these children too.

    The SOGI laws did violate the First Amendment, as the laws were not neutral despite appearing so facially. Religious institutions were specifically targeted, which is against the whole concept of the First Amendment, which is protecting the minority from discrimination. In this case, the Catholics being restricted were the minority, as they are the are presently some of the only people that do not believe same-sex couples should be married.

    Unfortunately, there is currently nothing in the Constitution itself protecting LGBTQI+ rights, while our very first amendment is about protecting religious and non-religious equality. Factually, in the eyes of the law, the Constitution holds more weight than local or state laws, so discrimination against LGBTQI+ people is going to be allowed over discrimination of religious groups. Even though the church is directly discriminating against LGBTQI+ people by not pairing children with them, they are technically allowed to, according to the Constitution.

    The SOGI laws were a direct violation of the Free Exercise Clause in the United States’ Constitution, while also directly affecting children’s lives and well-beings. Creating less chances for children to find a forever-home is wrong. There is great state interest to find these children families and get them out of the foster care system. This was neither the time nor place to target Catholics for not supporting LGBTQI+ rights, as there are so many other ways to express one’s disapproval of the discrimination against same-sex couples. It is the quality of thousands of children’s lives at stake.