As federal, state, and local governments continue to expand their laws and regulations regarding gender identity, conflicts over religious objections are sure to grow. Judging by an item on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services, one flash point could well be foster parenting.
As if the issues surrounding gender identity were not controversial enough, adding children to the mix increases the potential for rancor. Both sides claim the high ground and in some cases insist that those who disagree are guilty of child abuse. LGBTQ advocates—who say children need complete autonomy over their self-identification as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, or individuals questioning their sexual identity—accuse traditionalists of discrimination and maltreatment. Those with traditional views about sex, meanwhile, may see an abdication of adult responsibility when such children, often in the midst of personal and emotional crises, are allowed or encouraged to select a “gender expression” at variance with their biological sex.
As this debate unfolds, the federal Department of Health and Human Services has weighed in, recommending on its website guidelines issued by New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services in “Safe & Respected: Policy, Best Practices, and Guidance for Serving Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Children and Youth Involved in the Child Welfare, Detention, and Juvenile Justice Systems.” An article on the website of HHS’s Family and Youth Services Bureau calls these guidelines “a great primer for anyone who may come into contact with transgender and gender non-conforming children and youth” and suggests that other localities may want to adopt them.
This “first guide to best practices for working with transgender youth” was put together for New York children’s services by Rhodes Perry, the director of the city’s Office of LGBTQ Policy and Practice, and a consultant, Eli R. Green, whose website says he is an “interdisciplinary scholar in Gender and Sexuality Studies, specializing in transgender education and inclusion.” Various other commissioners and consultants from LGBTQ agencies and organizations also contributed, along with a family court judge. The guidelines are intended for use in child welfare, detention, and juvenile justice systems, not only by city workers, but also by foster parents and volunteers.
The guidelines run for more than 60 pages, and their overriding message is “affirmation.” This guiding principle was retained from New York’s LGBTQ policy issued in July 2011: “Under no circumstance is any staff member of Children’s Services or its provider agencies to attempt to convince a [LGBTQ] youth to reject or modify his/her sexual orientation or gender identity.” ACS takes this policy very seriously, instructing staff, “Every time you see other staff or youth making negative remarks, bias statements, verbal or physical remarks, or not respecting name and pronoun preferences, it is your responsibility to intervene and report the incident.” And religious beliefs are no excuse.
The new “Safe & Respected” guidelines broach the subject of religion early. Under the heading “Practices to Avoid,” they say:
In the section entitled “Assessing Cultural Competency of Foster Homes,” one of the “practices to avoid” reads:
Asked about possible conflicts between the guidelines and foster parents’ religious beliefs, Christopher McKniff of New York children’s services referred to the agency’s policy on Coercion and Imposition of Beliefs, which says in part, “Children’s Services and provider agency staff are prohibited from imposing their personal, organizational and/or religious beliefs on all families, including LGBTQ youth or families, [or] from employing, contracting with, or making referrals to, mental health providers and/or other service providers who attempt to change a youth’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” McKniff justified the policy by noting that “many studies have found when not affirming a child’s gender identity or gender expression, the child may experience heightened anxiety, depression, substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, suicide ideation, and a disproportionately high rate of suicide attempts.”
LGBTQ matters, of course, are not the only ones that might bring the religious beliefs of foster parents into play. Asked how his agency addresses, for instance, abortion, premarital sex, modest clothing, and even body piercing, McKniff replied:
McKniff disputed the notion that ACS policies create “special rights” or different rules for LGBTQ situations, insisting they “level the playing field.” He pointed to an “LGBTQ affirming home pledge” that foster parents of LGBTQ children are encouraged to take. It reads:
2. Express acceptance if a foster child comes out as LGBTQ.
3. Encourage a LGBTQ foster child to speak openly and honestly about who they are.
4. Welcome a LGBTQ foster child to participate in all family activities.
10. Introduce a LGBTQ child to affirming organizations and events.
5. Encourage all family members and close friends to respect the LGBTQ foster child.
6. Believe a LGBTQ foster child can have a happy future as an adult.
7. Invite a LGBTQ child’s friends to the home and to family events.
8. Work to make a foster parent’s community and faith groups supportive of LGBTQ people.
9. Advocate for a LGBTQ foster child when they are bullied, harassed, or discriminated.
McKniff then drew a parallel between the LGBTQ policies and standards related to other groups of children. “If you substituted LGBTQ youth with another vulnerable population of youth within our system (i.e. pregnant and parenting teens, youth with disabilities, or youth who are not citizens of the United States), the same standards still apply,” McKniff wrote in an email. “This is about good parenting, and meeting the specific needs of your child, no matter their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”
Conflating sexual identity with these other vulnerabilities, however, overlooks an important distinction. Pregnancy, having a child, disability, and citizenship are all objectively verifiable conditions; gender identity is not. The guidelines state that a child who experiences “gender fluidity” and changes gender identity is to be affirmed, but they are silent as to what other expressions of identity must be affirmed and which may be regulated by the adults in the children’s lives.
One organization with a stake in government policies that affect foster parents is Bethany Christian Services. In its seventy-first year, Bethany, a “nonprofit family preservation” agency, says that its mission is to “demonstrate the love and compassion of Jesus Christ by protecting and enhancing the lives of children and families around the world.”
Bethany’s website acknowledges that foster children are legally in the care of the state. However, the first of Bethany’s nine core values is to strive with “integrity” to “make decisions that are consistent with biblical principles.” Since affirming transgenderism and gender-questioning is antithetical to traditional biblical teaching, many Christian foster parents would presumably resist implementing the New York guidelines.
When asked to comment on how the guidelines might conflict with Bethany’s or their clients’ values, Bethany did not directly address the transgender or gender-questioning issues, but rather issued this statement via email:
Bethany Christian Services’ biggest concern is preserving our freedom to be faithful to our convictions while partnering with government agencies in supporting vulnerable children and families in crisis. While foster care homes must abide by licensing rules, licensing rules also allow for foster care homes to establish family or house rules. Bethany seeks to ensure the needs of foster care children are well-matched with the families that care for them. We are hopeful that in the future the government will honor religious freedom and conscience as it has in the past.
Bethany’s “hopeful” attitude notwithstanding, the Hobby Lobby company’s experience with the Affordable Care Act demonstrates that the government isn’t always willing to honor the free exercise of religion when it comes to what the government deems a compelling interest. The more laws and regulations reflect the values of an increasingly secular society, the greater the potential for conflict with religious beliefs and practices.
It may be that the LGBTQ agenda will eventually squeeze religious organizations and individuals out of the care of orphans and other children in crisis—services pioneered by Christian and other religious organizations. Already the evidence suggests that the deck is stacked in favor of the pro-LGBTQ side of the issue. This raises the question of what is truly the main priority: the child’s best interests or the interests of an increasingly secular state. If religious groups do not have a place at the table when such regulations and guidelines are developed, they are likely to see their values and concerns continue to be marginalized and their freedoms further diminished.
Jeryl Bier is a frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard blog and writes his own blog, Speak With Authority
