Imagine you are hard at work with your partner looking for the proper agency to help you adopt a child and bring them into your home when suddenly your state prohibits you from adopting a child because you practice the "wrong religion." For Gabe and Liz Rutan-Ram this nightmare come to life was the case. The couple from Tennessee was looking to adopt a child from out-of-state; as a result of this they were searching for a foster-care agency that would provide them with the proper training and certification that was required by the state of Tennessee. When Gabe and Liz finally found one of the only agencies that matched their needs, Holston United Methodist Home for Children, they immediately reached out to work with the agency. It seemed like a perfect fit for the couple, but what they weren’t aware of was House Bill 836, a bill that was signed into law by the Governor of Tennessee earlier that year. This bill allowed taxpayer-funded foster care agencies to decide whether or not the family they were working with was the “right religion” or not. According to Holston United Methodist Home for Children, they did not want to work with the couple because the couple’s Jewish faith did not align with the beliefs of the Christian foster care agency.
Not only did Gabe and Liz feel as if they were being discriminated against, but they also believed that their constitutional rights as American citizens were being violated. As a result, the couple decided to reach out to Americans United and filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. In this lawsuit the couple argued that the Department of Children’s Services disregarded the Tennessee Constitution’s religious freedom and equal protection guarantee by using tax dollars to fund an agency partaking in religious discrimination. The main and most important question in this case is whether or not this action performed by the adoption agency is an act of religious discrimination and a violation of the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately for the couple, their case was dismissed by a panel of judges in which the couple alleged adoption bias.
Not only did the couple fear for their own freedoms but for the freedoms of others as well. This agency is not only partaking in religious discrimination, but this religious discrimination is actually being funded by our taxpayer dollars and is approved by the state of Tennessee. A person or a couple should be neither discouraged nor prevented from adopting a child and bringing them into their home solely based off of the person or couple's religion. Not only does this law prevent Jewish couples like Gabe and Liz from adopting from this agency, but it also prevents all members of the LGBTQ+ community and other religions that aren’t Christian from being able to adopt from these types of agencies. Although this law might appear to be facially neutral, it ultimately disparately affects certain groups of people. If the state can approve and influence things like this by using taxpayer dollars we must also question what else can they do by using our money. If the state is able to prevent people from adopting a child because they are the “wrong religion,” we must in-turn question where we can draw the line and where this ends. If the state can religiously discriminate in adoption as we see in this case, then they can surely use this reasoning in other sectors of life as well.
A couple should not be prevented from giving a child in need a loving home solely based off of the fact that they practice a different religion than the agency that they are trying to go through. It should not matter what religion the person or the couple is, but what should matter is that they are a good person/people and that they are qualified to be a parent and to provide a loving and nurturing home for the child or children. People of all religions and religious denominations can be great parents, and a specific religion or set of beliefs should never be forced upon a person and their family. It is ultimately the parent's or parents’ choice to decide whether or not they even want to raise their kid under a religion, and the agency shouldn’t have any say or influence on what the parent or parents decide to do. In this case, we truly see a violation of one’s 1st Amendment rights by the adoption agency refusing to work with the couple due to the differing religious beliefs.
I absolutely agree that this is a violation of First Amendment Rights. This is very clearly not separating Church and State and by using taxpayer dollars to fund these adoption agencies and not private funds it is a public matter, therefore making this practice unconstitutional. There are already so many children in need of homes and having a loving couple in want of a child be denied solely for their religious beliefs is not only shocking but heavily disappointing. However, in a conservative Supreme Court as I believe we currently have, I am unsure if they will allow this to be a legal practice if the couple decides to appeal.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that this is a violation of the First Amendment. I think it would be one thing if the agency were privately funded or if it operated with Methodist values yet still allowed individuals of any religion to adopt children, but a government funded agency refusing to allow a family to adopt a child because of their religion is incredibly discriminatory. I also agree with Alexandra's point above that it is absurd to refuse a well-equipped family a child when there are so many children in abusive foster care situations or in need of homes.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post, Marlee not just because you did a good job, but also because I am interested in adopting a child in the future. I completely agree with you that this is violating the couple's First Amendment Rights. Just like Jillian mentioned, if the agency was privately funded that would be one thing, but it is not. This agency is preventing a child from having a better life. Not only is the line between church and state blurred, but it is also completely selfish.
ReplyDeleteSorry I meant Mike ^
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your argument here. You do a really good job of presenting what the issue at stake is here. This couple not being able to adopt a child because of their religion is definitely violating first amendment rights. Jillian, I also agree with your point about the agency being publicly funded. Taxpayer money is being used to fund the adoption agency which makes it a public entity. It would be a different situation if it was private. Depriving a child of a home due to the religion of the respected parents is completely wrong, especially when the agency is publicly funded.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is a violation of the first amendment. Not only is this agency using taxpayer money and not privately funded, it brings religious neutrality into question. The separation of church and state are violated because by using taxpayer money the agency shouldn’t place biased on religious beliefs. Due to public funding it becomes a public benefit and cannot discriminate on religion. The state is funding an organization that is placing one religion over other religious or non secular beliefs. This one organization should not be exempt from being held to the same standards as other publicly funded agencies and if they want to place children in homes of those who have the same religious beliefs they shouldn’t be seeking public funding. Just how private schools are allowed to have religious affiliations and if students and parents chose to enroll students in those institutions that's their choice and are consenting to those beliefs being taught. If they want a non-secular school they can enroll in public schools that by law must remain neutral to all religions. The same standard should be held here. This is a direct violation of the first amendment and the couple is being discriminated against based on their religious beliefs by a publicly funded agency.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is a violation of the first amendment. This program is publicly funded through taxpayer money given by the government. If the agency was funded through private funds and operated under Methodist values, then it would not violate the first amendment. A family not being allowed to adopt a child based on their religion with a publicly funded is very discriminatory. Foster kids are struggling to find homes, but families aren't allowed to adopt through specific agencies because of their different belief systems.
ReplyDelete