Similarly to
Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado
Civil Rights Commission, Dumont v. Lyon is based on the argument that same
sex couples and the LGBTQ community are being unconstitutionally discriminated
against. Dumont v. Lyon is a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in
September of 2017 against Michigan’s health and children’s services agencies on
the grounds that the establishment clause of the first amendment and the equal
protection clause of the fourteenth amendment are being violated by government
funding for religiously affiliated adoption agencies. The lawsuit was filed in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
Since, in December of 2017, there has been a motion to dismiss by Herman Mccall. Even more recently,
this month, the plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion
to dismiss.
The lawsuit was filed in response to the Public Act 53. In the eyes of the
ACLU, the act is respecting an establishment of religion. The Public Act 53 was
instituted in 2015 in Michigan to protect state partnerships with religious
adoption agencies, and allow these religious agencies to exercise their beliefs
when screening possible parents. The ACLU claims that this act was created in a
discriminatory fashion in order to prevent homosexuals from gaining rights in
the adoption realm. The lawsuit in question is a result of Kristy Dumont and
her wife Dana being denied as possible parents by two religiously affiliated
adoption agencies in Michigan. The goal of the lawsuit is to stop taxpayer
funding for religious adoption agencies that deny same-sex couples from
fostering or adopting children.
The ADF is
opposing the lawsuit and has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in federal court
in Jan of 2018 on behalf of Michigan legislators who support the Public Act 53.
Twenty-five to thirty percent of Michigan’s foster care adoptions are a direct
result of religious adoption agencies. If this lawsuit wins, ADF claims that it
will be “harder for thousands of foster kids to find permanent homes”.
Additionally, Michigan has one of the highest national state percentages for
adoption-placement rates, partially as a result from religious non-profit
agencies, such as Bethany Christian Services and Michigan Catholic Charities. Senate
Majority Leader, Arlan Meekhof has spoken out on this
case saying, “Support of faith-based adoption does not diminish the role of all
other private agencies in Michigan”.
If you remove the impact that the ACLU winning
the lawsuit would have on children in need of adoption and foster care in
Michigan, I believe that the state needs to cut funding for religiously
affiliated adoption programs. My opinion is grounded in the fact that Public
Act 53 infringes upon the establishment clause and the equal protection clause.
To top it off these organizations are being trusted to perform a service,
adoption and foster care, for the general public by the government, yet the
state is allowing them to discriminate against certain citizens because of
their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the decision is not so simple. There
are children involved. I believe the youth should be the first priority of our
nation. An ideal solution in my eyes would be Michigan figuring out a new
solution for the children who would be displaced before completely cutting
taxpayer funding from the religious adoption agencies.
4 comments:
Additional Resources:
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/michigan-legislators-seek-to-keep-children-first-in-adoption-foster-care
https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-michigan-adoption-lawsuit/michigan-sued-for-rejecting-same-sex-foster-care-adoptions-idUSKCN1BV27K
I would argue that if the court decides that these religious adoption agencies do not have the right to offer adoption services consistent with their organization's values, they are forcing these agencies to choose between violating their conscience or closing their doors. I would argue further that there is even a compelling state interest in preventing these qualified and experienced adoption agencies from being shut down. This is by no means an uncomplicated or comfortable situation, but I do think that the impact of the ACLU winning the lawsuit is a critical component to understanding this case.
In the blog post it states that only thirty percent of adoptions in Michigan are the direct result of religiously affiliated organizations. So it would seem to me that the burden placed on the adoption agency to violate their conscience is significantly greater than asking the couple to find a non-relgiously affiliated adoption agencies which make up the majority in the area.
I would agree with Max in his suggestion that the couple find a non-religiously affiliated adoption agency. I think that trying to force the agency to change their policies would arguably be a violation of their right to free exercise. This case reminds me of the Masterpiece Cake Shop case where the cake shop owner was refusing to bake a wedding cake for a couple due to their sexual orientation. The cake shop owner was simply exercising his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and I would argue that the adoption agency is doing the same. Had this been a non-religiously affiliated adoption agency I would disagree with their policy but due to the religious affiliation I do not think that these adoption agencies should be shut down for acting on their religious beliefs.
This case has a lot of interesting elements that are extremely frustrating to consider. I agree with Jenna and Max in the sense of protecting the religious affiliation of the adoption organization, however there needs to be protection and laws in support of LGBTQ adoption agencies. The line, "The ACLU claims that this act was created in a discriminatory fashion in order to prevent homosexuals from gaining rights in the adoption realm" stuck out specifically to me, as this once again raises the similar question we have been struggling with all year: can religious affiliated groups discriminate? I believe there needs to be other options available for adopting parents without religious screening, as well as taxpayer money should not be used to support religiously affiliated groups.
Post a Comment