Comments re-opened

Virginia's Board of Social Services voted on Wednesday to give pro-homosexual groups a second shot at convincing the board to implement regulations that would force state-licensed groups-including Christian organizations-to place children with gay and lesbian adoptive and foster parents.

On April 20 the board had struck proposed regulations that would have prohibited organizations that place children from discriminating based on sexual orientation ("Comments closed," May 23). That decision followed a comment period in February and March during which the board received 1,026 comments from individuals opposing the nondiscrimination language, including four from child placement agencies around the state. Only 33 individuals supported the nondiscrimination language.

At the time, however, Equality Virginia, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups said they would seek a suspension of the rules to allow further public comment, claiming the comment period got little notice. Under the state's Administrative Process Act, the board must reopen comment if at least 25 people make such a request. Consequently, on Wednesday the board approved on Wednesday by a unanimous voice vote a new comment period that starts Sept. 12 and ends Oct. 12.

At issue is a revision to regulations proposed in 2009 by former Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine. The proposal originally read that licensed adoption or foster care agencies must, "prohibit acts of discrimination based on race, color, gender, national origin, age, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, disability, or family status to delay or deny a child's placement; or deny an individual the opportunity to apply to become a foster or adoptive parent."

With a 7-2 vote in April, the board decided to revise the regulations to conform with federal code, which simply prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Virginia allows married couples and single people to adopt or become foster parents, regardless of sexual orientation, but bars unmarried couples from doing so. Under the policy approved in April, gay individuals can still adopt through organizations that choose to allow it. However, Christian (or other) organizations can decide not to place children in gay or lesbian homes if doing so violates their religious convictions.

At the Wednesday hearing, Rebecca Glenberg, legal director for the Virginia ACLU, said that her group wanted to weigh in on whether it's constitutional for agencies acting on behalf of the government to single out people with specific attributes for potential discrimination.

Some conservative Christian groups, including the Family Foundation and the Virginia Catholic Conference, countered that forcing religious organizations to accommodate gays and lesbians was a violation of religious freedom and that some agencies could shut down rather than violate their religious convictions. They said the gay-rights groups are more interested in advancing a political agenda over the well-being of children.

"The fact is that the discriminatory regulations they propose would prevent hundreds of children from being placed in loving homes," Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb said in a statement after the vote. "The Board of Social Services should make (its) decision based on what is in the best interest of children and not on the personal desires of adults."

The Family Foundation also released a statement noting that, "Oddly, groups like Equality Virginia and the ACLU that today are advocating for more public comment were silent for nearly two years as the regulations, stealthily proposed by former Governor Tim Kaine, went through the process. After losing the vote (7-2) in April, they suddenly are very interested in more time and another vote. Now they are threatening a costly, frivolous lawsuit if they don't get their way."

The statement continued: "It's also odd that they talk a lot about freedom, but they have no [objection to] forcing private institutions into policies that run counter to their beliefs. Apparently, religious liberty isn't a freedom they choose to protect."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Join the conversation on this story.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter today.