Running head: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

Religious Freedom Adoption Policy Analysis

Roxanne Rodriguez
SW 4710
Wayne State University

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

Current Social Problem

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but
this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs
on others who do not share them (American Civil Liberties, 2015). Religion has played a role in
allowing people to justify their actions for centuries. It is still an active part of todays society. I
agree that people are entitled to their own opinions, values and beliefs; that is the beauty of our
county. Yet there are some people who are still being shunned and catorgorized into an oppressed
population where they become limited to what they can do.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community is one population that is
constantly looked down upon. Every person should be able to express themselves however they
please. There will always be people who will criticize you that is sadly the way our society
functions. Whether it is someones sexual orientation or their religious beliefs they are entitled to
have a preference and should not have to change for anyone but themselves.
There is an estimated two million children in the U.S. that are being raised by lesbian,
gay, bisexual, or transgender parents (Movement Advancement Project, 2012). There are samesex couples act as adoptive parents, but are not granted the full rights for a legal adoption. In the
state of Mississippi there is a law, which was set in place 15 years ago, that prohibits couples of
the same gender to adopt (Swayze, 2015). In August 2015 there was a lawsuit filed on behalf of
four Mississippi couples. Times are changing, new federal laws have recognize same-sex
marriages to be legal. It is time that laws such as these are reviewed and amended. Research
suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do
among children of heterosexual parents. (LifeLong Adoptions, 2015)
In 2013 due to the case of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court announced that
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. It was amended to provide benefits
to same-sex married couples. (The White House, 2015). Earlier this year, the Supreme Court
ruled that same-sex marriages were legal across the United States in the case of Obergefell v.
Hodges. The legalization of same-sex marriages means that these couples can also access joint
adoption across the country.
Earlier this year three religious freedom adoption laws were signed by Michigan
Governor Rick Snyder, which allow faith-based agencies the ability to deny perspective parents
on religious grounds. Snyder states, We are focused on ensuring that as many children are
adopted to as many loving families as possible regardless of their makeup (2015). What an
interesting statement. He says one thing but sign into law the complete opposite. Of course the
ultimate goal of an adoption agency is to ensure that each child is placed into a loving, stable,
and supportive household. Yet by approving these laws it opens the gateway of making
discrimination an okay thing for agencies to do. This becomes another barrier in placed for
those of the LGBT community as well as other individuals. Under this legislation, these agencies
that are contracted with the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services can act in
accordance with their beliefs and deny those who are against them (Snyder, 2015).
In response to Governor Snyders action, Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee stated, "It
is astounding to me that Republicans in Lansing, rather than working to fix Michigan's
crumbling roads, instead chose to spend their time today codifying discrimination into state law.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

This latest package of anti-LGBT bills does nothing to create jobs or spur our state's economy.
Instead it gives the state a license to discriminate against loving Michigan families (Dawn Ennis,
2015). I agree with Kildee. There is so many more serious problems that could be reviewed,
such as police brutality, racism, robbery, and our public assistance programs. Yet as a state we
have chosen to accept a law that placed discriminatory actions towards a group of individuals.
Most currently, LGBT rights advocates called Fair Michigan have launched a ballot
initiative to amend the discrimination on the LGBT community. In order for it to be considered
for being on the 2016 ballot; the group must submit the language to secretary of state and collect
315,654 signatures of registered voters in Michigan (LGBTQ Nation, 2015).
Policies in Place
According to Family Equality Council, some states restrict foster care by same sex
parents. Michigan, North Dakota, and Virginia permit adoption agencies that are state licensed to
deny foster and adoption services to LGBT people if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
There are seven states that support adoption and fostering by LGBT people which include:
California, Oregon, Wisconsin, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey. The
state of Utah bans unmarried couples from becoming foster parents. States such as Mississippi
have legal restrictions for same sex couples when petitioning for joint adoption. All other states
support fostering by LGBT parents and can petition for joint adoption (2015). According to the
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders there is no federal protection for LGBT civil rights.
(2014).
Recently in Michigan, three House Bills 4188, 4189 and 4190 were signed into law by
Governor Snyder and have now become Public Acts 53, 54 and 55 of 2015. These amendatory

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

acts did not take effect until all three bills were enacted into law. They became effective as of
September 9, 2015. The following Bill Analysis was prepared by the Senate Fiscal Agency.
House Bill 4188: Adds Sections 14e and 14f to Public Act 116 of 1973, which provides
for the licensure of child care facilities, to do the following:

Specify that a child placing agency would not be required to provide any services that

would conflict with, or provide any services under circumstances that would conflict with,
the agency's sincerely held religious beliefs.

Allow a child placing agency to decline a referral for foster care case management or

adoption services if the services would conflict with the agency's sincerely held
religious beliefs.

Prohibit the State or a local unit of government from taking an adverse action against

a child placing agency that declined to provide services or accept a referral under those
provisions.

Require a child placing agency to take certain actions if it declined to provide services.

Allow a child placing agency to assert a defense in an administrative or judicial

proceeding based on proposed Section 14e or 14f.

State legislative findings and declarations.

House Bill 4189: Amend the Michigan Adoption Code to provide that a child placing
agency could not be required to provide adoption services that would conflict with, or to provide
adoption services under circumstances that would conflict with, its sincerely held religious
beliefs; and prohibit the State or a local unit from taking an adverse action against the child
placing agency.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

House Bill 4190: Amended the Social Welfare Act to prohibit the Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) from taking an adverse action against a child placing agency that
declined to provide services that would conflict with, or to provide services under circumstances
that would conflict with, its sincerely held religious beliefs.
According to the Senate Fiscal Agency these new laws do not anticipate any fiscal impact
on the state or local government (2015). In budget year 2014-15, almost $20 million in state and
federal funds went to adoption agencies. About half of that money went to the faith-based
agencies (The Detroit News, 2015).
Supporters vs. Those Who Oppose
When researching and viewing various articles it is always mentioned that Governor Rick
Snyder has opted out his opinion on whether or not he supported the bills. It was written in the
Detroit Free Press that the bills needed further review and that hes in favor of children being
adopted by loving families and loving parents. He did not specify if that included same-sex
couples or not (Gray, 2015).
Christians are one of many populations that believe children should be raised in a
household with a mother and a father. Most Christians, yet not all do not approve of people from
the LGBT community should be able to adopt. As Rogers states, It cannot be ignored that a
father-and-mother-based family is the ideal support structure for children (2005). He goes on
and states some safety risks a child would endure if adopted by a gay couple. Roger says they are
volatile, unstable and have high rates of suicide tendencies, promiscuity, pedophilia and domestic
violence.
Gary Glenn speaks about Rosie ODonnells announcement of being a lesbian and
references the interview she had with Diane Sawyer in 2002. Glenn states,

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

ODonnell admitted that she thought her children's lives would be easier if she were
married to a man, and that she hoped they would grow up to be heterosexual. These
admissions exemplify the selfishness of gays and lesbians who adopt children to satisfy
their own desires, despite overwhelming evidence that children's health is at greater risk
when they are adopted into homosexual households (2008).
Selfishness of the gay or lesbian parent and health risk of the child seem to be a common defense
for those who oppose letting LGBT people to adopt. Defending their stance becomes easier when
someone like Rosie ODonnell admits that it would be better for their children to be in a
household with heterosexual parents.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) provided similar situation that may spark
from allowing institutions the right to discriminate against women and LGBT people. The
scenarios they provided include:

Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not
married;

Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their
employees;

Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;

Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;

Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex
couples planning their weddings.

ACLU also talks about how these laws are reflecting our history of discriminating
circumstances. They referenced how institutions strongly believed that God wanted the races to

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

be separate. The example given was of how religious affiliated universities denied students that
were involved in interracial dating (2015).
I personally do not agree with these three laws being passed. Honestly the LGBT
community has come a long way from how things used to be a decade ago. People are more open
and proud to express that they are a part of the LGBT community. It has grown enormously with
the support of each other and people who believe in human right. This county has been able to
accomplish many changes and legally accept these people are and their lifestyle. Although it is
not always an easy lifestyle, they are finally able to be open with who they are. There is much
more to be done to provide this group of people the equality that they deserve.
Discrimination does still exist and in my perspective will never parish. There will never
be a perfect world where everyone is happy with the laws. However I do believe that these
Public Acts 53, 54 and 55 of 2015 are a step backward for Michigan. Michigan was one of the
states that was strongly against same-sex marriages until the Supreme Court made it a federal
law. These laws were no surprise to me considering who we have as our state representatives.
These laws are wrong. I anticipate them to be eliminated in the near future. They may even
create an uproar across the country and eventually make it to the Supreme Court for federal law.
These laws require these agencies to abide by Michigans current practice but are not
forced to violate their religious beliefs. If someone is turned away from their agency they are
required to provide them with a list of alternative adoption agencies (Snyder, 2015). Yes,
ultimately there are other organizations that people can be referred to when looking to foster or
adopt a child. However there should not be boundaries for only certain oppressed groups such as
LGBT. It makes me think back to the Civil Rights Movement, when there was separate schools
and drinking fountains for people of color and white people. I believe that organizations who

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

discriminate on religious ground or blatantly because someone is gay, lesbian or a blue Smirff;
those organization should not receive state funding. Adoptions agencies should be concerned
about what is in the best interest of the child. There potentially may be more same-sex couple
that are more qualified than some heterosexual couple, but they would not even have the
opportunity to adopt at a faith-based organization.
Legislators
(R. Castaeda-Lpez, personal communication, October 22, 2015).
(S. Chang, personal communication, October 26, 2015).
Raquel Castaeda-Lpez, is the first Latina elected to the Detroit City Council. She was a
former Wayne State University student advisor and program manager, for the learning
community now called The Center for Latino/a and Latin American Studies (CLLAS). I reached
out to her office in hopes I would be able to get her view on the policies I have chosen or direct
me to someone with more knowledge of them. That is exactly what I received. She
recommended that I contacted State Representative Stephanie Chang. At the time Mrs.
Castaeda-Lpez email came through I had already contacted Representative Changs office.
Mrs. Chang represents Michigans 6th House District and serves on the house criminal justice,
education and judiciary committees. I received an email from Ms. Chang stating:
I opposed all these bills when we voted on them back in the spring. Unfortunately, all
the bills passed and were signed by the Governor back in June. I believe these bills are a
step backward and basically allow certain institutions to discriminate based on their
religious beliefs which runs counter to who we are as Michiganders. Hopefully in the
next legislative session (2016-17) we can work to repeal this act (personal
communication, October 26, 2015).

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

10

Mrs. Chang also provided me with a link to when the bills were passed from the house and
senate.
Activist
(L. Plantefaber, personal communication, October 26, 2015).
Lois Plantefaber was the Vice President at Catholic Social Services (CSS) of Washtenaw
County for 24 years. She received her BA in Sociology at Mount St. Joseph University and
her MSW at Michigan State University in 1973. Prior to becoming vice president, Ms.
Plantefaber was an adoption worker and family therapist at CSS of Genessee County for about 7
years. Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County was founded in 1959 and provided
counseling, foster care and adoption services. The organization as a whole, the board and the
judges were committed to looking into what was in the best interest for the child. It was
important for the child to be in a nurturing, loving home with security. In 1993 they had their
first second parent adoption. This meant that a non-biological parent, such as a grandparent or
relative could adopt the child if necessary.
Ms. Plantefaber and I were able to have a teleconference on October 26th, 2015 to discuss
her experience working at a faith-based adoption organization and her feeling on the recent
religious freedom laws in Michigan. In response to the question how was your experience
working at Catholic Social Services, Ms. Plantefaber stated, Well to start, I never flaunted that I
was gay, but I never hid it either (personal communication, October 26, 2015). She described
Catholic Social Services as a liberal organization that was at the forefront of seeking social
justice for the underserved and suppressed populations. Plantefaber said they would Keep it
clandestine at the agency and they knew who the more liberal attorneys were (personal
communication, October 26, 2015). The organization did not turn away people from adoptions

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

11

including the LGBT community unless it was not in the best interest of the child. It was a little
more difficult, since they were unable to get married at the time. Since they were not legally
married it would mean that the child would be covered under only one parents insurance,
pension, and Social Security instead of two parents.
I asked Ms. Plantefaber why after 24 year she left Catholic Social Services. She
explained that when a new Bishop was elected at the Catholic Diocese in Lansing he no longer
wanted to a gay vice president of the agency. Even though the funding they received from was
less than 4 percent. It was in the best interest for Ms. Plantefaber to leave the organization.
Currently, she works as a social worker at St. Joseph Mercy Health System.
She does not agree with the new religious freedom adoption laws. She stated, Any
organization should define who they serve and it should be open and upfront. If they were not
serving purple people then they should have a sign on the door saying no purple people (personal
communication, October 26, 2015). She expressed that if an organization decides to
discriminate against a population such as LGBT, then they should not get state funding. Ms.
Plantefaber apologized for her unprofessionalism, after stating It pisses me off! They cannot
have their cake and eat it too! She talked about how some people base their decisions on the
needs and wishes of the adults and fulfilling the needs of infertile families. Instead they should
be focusing on what the child needs and making sure it is the best nurturing environment for the
childs future.
Conclusion
This year alone the LGBT community had some wins and losses in legislature at a federal
and state level. Same-sex marriages is now legal nationwide which is an amazing benchmark in
history. In terms of same-sex couples becoming a family legally, with a child other than their

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

12

own is another story. Sadly these cases differ from state to state. Unfortunately in Michigan new
laws have recently been adopted which put restriction on LGBT when looking to adopt. These
faith-based organizations are able to deny who they choose based on religious grounds.
Discrimination at its finest.
Social workers need to be at the forefront of these decisions and fight to make changes
and create a fair system for same-sex couples (DeFilippis, Anderson-Nathe, and Panichelli,
2015). Same sex couples deserve the right to be able to adopt a child if qualified. Some faithbased agencies are imposing their view on other by denying LGBT people. It is a sense of not
belonging and implying that what they are doing is not right. We are in America! We should be
able to become whoever we want and live that lifestyle freely without discrimination.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

13

References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2015). Using religion to discriminate. American Civil
Liberties Union. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/feature/using-religion-discriminate
Cornell University Law School. (2015). Obergefil V. Hodges. Cornell University Law School.
Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556
Ennis, D. (2015, June 11). Michigan governor signs discriminatory adoption bill into law.
Advocate Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.advocate.com/adoption/2015/06/11/
michigan-governor-signs-discriminatory-adoption-bill-law
Family Equality Council. (2015). Family Equality Council. Retrieved from
http://www.familyequality.org/get_informed/equality_maps/joint_adoption_laws/
Glenn, G. (2008). Are adoption policies fair? Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved from
http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/gay.adoption.con.pdf
Gray, K. (2015, June 11). Michigan law allows adoption agencies to say no to gays. Detroit Free
Press. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/11/gayunmarried-couple-adoption-michigan/71058222/
Legislative Service Bureau. (2015, July 28). 2015 Michigan public acts table. Legislative
Council, State of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/
2015-2016/publicacttable/pdf/2015-PAT.pdf
LifeLong Adoptions. (2015). LGBT adoption facts. LifeLong Adoptions. Retrieved from
http://www.lifelongadoptions.com/lgbt-adoption/lgbt-adoption-statistics
LGBTQ Nation. (2015, November 1). Ballot proposal would add LGBT protections to Michigan
human rights act. LGBTQ Nation. Retrieved from http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/11/
ballot-proposal-would-add-lgbt-protections-to-michigan-human-rights-act/

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ADOPTION POLICY ANALYSIS

14

Movement Advancement Project. (2012). An allys guide to talking about adoption by LGBT
parents. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. Retrieved from
https://www.lgbtmap.org/file/allys-guide-talking-about-adoption.pdf
DeFilippis, N. J., Anderson-Nathe, B., & Panichelli, M. (2015). Notes on same-sex marriage:
concern for feminist social workers. Journal of Women and Social Work. 30(4), 461-475.
Rogers, G. (2005). Suffer the children: Whats wrong with gay adoptions? Christian Research
Journal. 28(2). Retrieved from http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAH050.pdf
Snyder, R. (2015, June 11). Gov. Rick Snyder signs bills putting Michigan children first in
adoption, foster care practices. State of Michigan. Retrieved from
http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277--356932--,00.html
State Fiscal Agency. (2015, May 12). Child placing agency religious conflict bill analysis.
Senate Fiscal Agency http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4tnnx2o43n5ej5p11vilgxeo))/
mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=2015-HB-4188
The Detroit News. (2015, March 23). House bills allow faith-based groups additional safeguards;
highlights troubles with state funding. The Detroit News. Retrieved from
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/03/23/edit-protect-faith-basedadoption/25101467/
The White House. Protecting LGBT Individuals from Discrimination. The White House.
Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights/discrimination