Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
The legislature passed the bill to ensure that Kansas social service agencies don’t follow the example of other states that are blatantly banning Christians from adopting children or serving as foster parents because they refuse to embrace the LGBTQ ideology.
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, D, has vetoed a bill that would have prohibited the government from enforcing ideological requirements for hopeful adoptive and foster parents.
The bill was passed after lawsuits were filed against numerous states that have banned prospective parents from adoption or foster care because they refused to say that they would affirm a child’s gender identity.
For example in Oregon, a suit claims that Jessica Bates, a devout Christian, was given a handout saying that she should “celebrate diversity in all forms,” and “provide access to a variety of books, movies, and materials, including those that positively represent same-gender relationships.”
It also stated that parents should display “hate-free zone’ signs or symbols indicating and[sic] LGBTQ-affirming environment (e.g. pink triangle, rainbow, or ally flag)” in their homes even if the child does not identify as LGBT.
Bates filed suit after Oregon’s Department of Human Services rejected her application because she stated that she would not encourage children in behavior that promotes the belief that children can change their gender.
Likewise, lawsuits allege that Massachusetts and Vermont both booted couples from the foster care system because they would not say that they would affirm a prospective child’s gender transition.
HB 2311 makes the careful distinction that the bill does not “[p]rohibit the secretary from considering the religious or moral beliefs of a child or the child’s biological family or community, including, but not limited to, beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, in relation to the religious or moral beliefs of a person selected or being considered for placement, custody or appointment, when determining whether an out-of-home or adoptive placement, custody for adoption or appointment of a custodian is in the best interests of the child.”
In other words, the legislation makes clear that the secretary must still to make placements that would best meet the unique needs of the child.
Thus, if the secretary believes it is in the best interest of a gay or transgender child to be placed with a family that has experience with their situation and would be supportive, the secretary has the discretion and the capability to place that child in that home.
The bill doesn’t create a legal right for a religious family to have a child placed in their home. It only says that the government cannot ban them from the system based solely on their religious beliefs on sexuality and gender identity.
HB 2311 also enshrines a private right of action for prospective parents to file suit if the state bars them based on their beliefs.
Despite this, Kelly vetoed the bill, explaining,
“The top priority of the Kansas Department for Children and Families should be adhering to the ‘best interest of the child’ standard. Legislation like this detracts from this standard and stands in the way of best serving those in the child welfare system. Children in need of care already face unique and complex challenges. I will not sign legislation that could further complicate their lives.”
She continued, “I also have concerns that this bill could expose the state to frivolous lawsuits and hinder the agency by taking time and resources away from critical services.”
House Speaker Dan Hawkins and Senate President Ty Masterson responded in a joint statement by saying,
“Our foster care system depends on strong and stable families to care for the children in our system. The last thing any administration should be doing is discriminating against qualified families due to their religious and moral beliefs.”
“It’s perplexing,” they noted, “that the governor would choose to veto legislation that would ensure First Amendment protections extend to foster parents.”
Hawkins and Masterston then stated: “This veto cannot stand.”
The legislature will meet starting on April 10 to vote on overriding Kelly’s veto of this bill and others, and given that the Republicans have a supermajority in both chambers, it is likely they have the 2/3s vote needed to do just that on HB2311.
The governor makes some interesting but contradictory points. For one, Kelly claims that HB 2311 will hinder the “best interest of the child” standard and that it stands in the way of best serving children in the system and will only further complicate their lives.
But somehow she seems to miss HB 2311’s clear statement that the standard for placement remains “the best interest of the child.”
All children are different, and what is best for one child is not necessarily the best thing for another child. Which is why the secretary needs broad discretion to match children with families that align with their unique needs.
All this bill does is prohibit the state from categorically banning whole categories of the Kansas population from being foster or adoptive parents solely because of their religious or moral beliefs on one issue: LGBTQ ideology.
This bill doesn’t stop the secretary from making sure a child and a couple have similar views or that the chosen parents align best with the child’s needs. Rather, it ensures that a child has options for foster or adoptive parents and that those options can’t be limited because someone fails to agree with state-approved ideological beliefs.
Also intriguing is Kelly’s statement that the bill would expose the state to “frivolous” lawsuits and detract from the agency’s mission.
But courts would probably be surprised by this view because violations of constitutional rights, particularly religious and conscience protections, are never considered frivolous.
Perhaps someone should let her know that states like Oregon, Massachusetts, and Vermont, which don’t have a bill like HB2311 in place, are currently being sued for discriminating against foster and adoptive parents based on their religious beliefs. So having a bill in place to make sure that the state doesn’t discriminate based on a person’s religious beliefs will actually ensure that the state doesn’t get sued.
The states that ban parents from the foster care system or from adopting because they don’t share the left’s views on gender are actually the ones harming children.
There are children who would like to be placed with family members, friends from church, or others who share their beliefs, but they can’t because Oregon, Massachusetts, and Vermont currently ban Bible-adhering Christians from fostering or adopting children.
And really, though it may be difficult or uncomfortable at first, one of the best things that could happen to a child who identifies as LGBT would be to be placed with caring, honest adults who refuse to affirm a child’s confusion and instead help that child learn to accept who God made him or her to be. That is what any responsible adult should do — rather than exacerbate a debilitating mental illness and prompt children to undergo life-altering procedures that will leave them permanently scarred.
Let’s hope the legislature will override this veto. If they do, they will not only ensure that children have the most and best possible options for a loving family, but they will also ensure the religious and conscience rights of people who want to help and love those children.
PHOTO: Laura Kelly, governor of Kansas CREDIT: Shutterstock
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
Notifications
