State shouldn't condone adoption bias

When the Children's Home Society of Virginia seeks to pair a family with a child, it's not focused on the applicant's religion, politics or sexual orientation.

"I think what we're looking for is the ability of the family to nurture and help this child heal from their past history of abuse and neglect," said Laura Ash-Brackley, the agency's director of social services.

"We're looking for a family that understands that trauma and can help them overcome and heal, and those families come in all different shapes and sizes. It doesn't necessarily have to be the two-parent household with the white picket fence."

But in Virginia, under adoption regulations recently approved by the state Board of Social Services, Ozzie and Harriet Nelson or Ward and June Cleaver might be denied adoption services because of their religious or political beliefs. And if Harriet and June were a same-sex couple, private adoption agencies would be free to deny them a child on that basis alone.

The extent to which the state is willing to be an accomplice to adoption discrimination is breathtaking. Last spring, board members struck language from proposed rules that would have barred discrimination based on gender, age, religion, political beliefs, disability, family status and sexual orientation.

The board removed the language after it became clear that it did not have the support of Gov. Bob McDonnell, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and faith-based agencies who argued that they shouldn't have to make decisions inconsistent with their religious beliefs.

But the regulations, which go into effect in May, will make the state a partner in a level of discrimination inconsistent with the best interests of children in need of adoption.

The policy, by not preventing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender applicants, permits it, said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. "But the policy itself does not compel LGBT discrimination, which creates an uphill legal battle."

Not that Willis thinks Virginia is off the hook because private agencies would be doing the discriminating. "Even private agencies, if they are regulated by the state, become state actors."

James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia, said the gay-rights advocacy group's next step is to build a coalition of organizations affected by the regulations.

Each adoption applicant's fate should be based "on whether or not they can provide a safe and secure and loving home and meet the individual needs of the children," he said. "The state's responsibility is to open up the process as much as possible to qualified applicants" rather than adding restrictions to the applicant pool.

It's not as if Virginia has the luxury of placing roadblocks in the path of prospective parents. Our state has among the highest percentages of youth who "age out" of the foster-care system each year, Brackley said. That ranking has consequences, since such children have a higher chance of being underemployed, undereducated, incarcerated or homeless as adults.

"I think that ruling all those people out (as potential parents) based on those very insignificant characteristics about them is an injustice to the children who are waiting," Brackley said. "They need to be in permanent families and have someone who is going to advocate for them and be in their lives for the rest of their lives."

For faith-based agencies — and, tacitly, the state — to suggest that people are ill-suited to be nurturing parents because they're gay, single or Jewish is downright uncharitable.

If these agencies feel the need to discriminate based on their faith, perhaps they need to stick to nurturing souls. The core mission of any adoption agency should be finding loving homes for children, not proselytizing on behalf of a particular creed.