In May Rep. Pete Stark (R-CA) introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which prohibits “discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved.” While it is unlikely that the GOP-controlled House would approve the legislation, it is an important step in the fight to ensure that children awaiting adoption or foster care can find homes.
But the “pro-family” Religious Right wants to stop the bill in its tracks.
Focus on the Family along with the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg attacked the bill, claiming that “children will suffer” if it passes:
“We need to do all we can to encourage successful and innovative partnerships, rather than try to shut agencies out of the process,” said Kelly Rosati, vice president of community outreach at Focus on the Family. “It’s the children who will suffer.”
“This represents one more case,” he said, “in which we are seeing the rights of adults placed ahead of the best interests of the children.”
Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel even alleged that the legislation is unconstitutional and demonstrates how the “homosexual activist political tsunami destroys everything in its path that is righteous, good and beneficial to society”:
At least one pro-family attorney disagrees with the liberal Democrat from California. “This bill has nothing to do with providing adoptive homes for children in need and has everything to do with shutting down all biblically-sound Christian adoption agencies around the country,” contends Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.
And he argues that the proposal is unconstitutional because it violates the freedom of religion, which is protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
“This bill puts the [political] demands of selfish, adult homosexual activists…ahead of the welfare of children and religious liberty, and it must be stopped,” Barber adds.
So he decides this is the latest example of how the “homosexual activist political tsunami destroys everything in its path that is righteous, good and beneficial to society.” He cites a preponderance of studies that conclusively show children are best served in a home with a mother and a father.