Seventy-Eight US Congress members signed this letter and support this legislation permitting discrimination exemptions for religious U.S. adoption agencies. If signed into law, any religious adoption agency could cite the law to deny service to U.S. citizens, including the intended target: same-sex adopting couples.
According to this article, Russian law bans single parents and same-sex couples from adopting. Russian children account for half of all foreign children adopted in Israel. It appears that Israel and Russia have just reached a formal agreement that same-sex couples in Israel will not be able to adopt Russian children.
A federal lawsuit to block Michigan from contracting or funding faith-based agencies that forbid assisting same-sex families adopt survived a motion to dismiss filed by the State of Michigan and a faith-based adoption agency.
United States District Judge Paul Borman’s ruling will now allow the case to move forward to consider blocking any state funding to faith-based adoption agencies who reject same-sex families.
Forty U.S. Senators sign off on a July 25, 2018 letter addressed to the Senate Appropriates Committee voicing their objection to proposed House language that would permit faith-based adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking to adopt.
Philadelphia suspended its foster care contract with Catholic Social Services after they refused to work with a gay couple.
Catholic Social Services sued for a temporary restraining order to continue its foster care work with Philadelphia arguing religious liberties.
On Friday, Federal Judge Petrese B. Tucker opined that the city had a right to force the agency to adhere to the city’s nondescrimination policies and the motion for temporary restraining order was denied.
Pennsylvania’s 116th legislative district Representative Toohil (R-Luzerne County) has stated she is considering proposing Pennsylvania state tax credits of $500 and $1000 for Pennsylvania families who foster or adopt a child.
According to this article, newly installed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Pavan v. Smith demonstrates that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision establishing the same marriage equality for same-sex couples as for opposite sex couples may be subject to future attacks.
Pavan v. Smith involved an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Courts in the State of Arkansas refused to issue birth certificates of both same-sex married parents. The U.S. Supreme Court, citing its Obergefell decision, issued an opinion that same-sex married couples must receive the same treatment as opposite sex married couples (ie., the spouse of the parent giving birth via an anonymous sperm donor can be added to the child’s birth certificate) in accordance with Obergefell. In essence, had the couples been opposite sex, the State of Arkansas would have issued the birth certificates and now must do so for same-sex couples pursuant to Obergefell.
Justice Gorsuch dissented insisting that the State had a biological reason entitling the State to the benefit of at least presenting its argument before the US Supreme Court. This dissent is troubling because opposite sex married couples who are artificially inseminated with gametes from an anonymous sperm donor (ie., wives) are permitted to have their non-biological husband added to their child’s birth certificate, but Justice Gorsuch was arguing that non-biological men should be treated differently based on the gender of the person whom they married.
This dissent signals Justice Gorsuch’s intention to (a) lead the conservative judicial movement; and (b) weaken Obergefell.
According to this article, the State of California has banned state travel to the State of Texas after Texas enacted a law permitting adoption agencies to turn away adoptive families based on religious beliefs against sexual orientation.