The Arkansas Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down a state policy prohibiting gay persons from serving as foster parents has the governor “disappointed” in the ruling and perhaps disturbed about the direction that the state’s foster care program may take. The governor is quoted as saying, “There are a lot of issues that will need to be sorted through with the lawyers…” in Saturday’s (July 1, 2006) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette when asked whether a legislative special session might become necessary to address the ruling, presumably to figure out how to prevent gay persons from becoming foster parents.
“You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry and My wrath will become hot …” Exodus 22:23 NKJV
Surely this entire conflict is not as much about gay rights as it is about the rights of our children (and they are “ours” if we are God’s) to feel safe, secure, and cared for. Surely this conflict is not about whether a particular group of big people are getting their feelings hurt and are feeling left out or slighted in some way as it is about another particular group of little people who are getting their feelings hurt and are feeling left out, unwanted and uncared for.
It seems to me that the governor’s, and ultimately our own, focus is a bit skewed as to what we need to be talking about, and I am pretty sure that it’s not about whether gay persons have a right to serve as foster parents. Surely this whole discussion has not denigrated to a point in which we have forgotten that there are hundreds of children in dire need of a stable environment and parents, foster or otherwise, who will commit to their care and education. These are children, not pawns to be used as a means to a political end. And if it is truly a moral issue, we must then be prepared to ask ourselves what is immoral. Trying to use politics, and children’s lives, as a political barometer is about as immoral as it can get and does not address the legitimate problem of finding children good homes.
We pro-lifers are big about defending the rights of the unborn and being concerned about the well-being of the child while in the womb but seem to lose our focus when we forget that once the child is born into this world, we are charged by the God we claim to believe in to love and to care for these children, the “fatherless” whose cry will be heard by Him if they are “afflicted”. Being unloved or neglected in favor of political consideration is about as afflicted as one can get in this life and because we are concerned about a potentially negative, if immoral, influence, we will choose for the battle of “rights” above the battle for what IS right.
I do not necessarily advocate for the rights of homosexual persons to serve as foster parents or to adopt as much as I advocate for we who oppose such an idea to offer an alternative such as opening our lives and our homes to these children. If we oppose these children staying “there” but refuse to offer them a “here”, then what are we achieving except perhaps a hollow political victory which would serve no useful purpose and which will still not address the legitimate issue that requires our attention?
Make no mistake. This is not a gay rights issue and cannot be discussed with such an emphasis. This must be strictly addressed for what we hope to achieve: the best possible solution for the children of this state who have no home to call their own. There is nothing else. Sorry, gay rights people; this is not about you. And sorry, Governor Huckabee, but lawyers cannot answer the questions that require our attention because this is neither a legal issue. It is exclusively a moral issue about what is right, and it is all about the children. Let us choose to be focused on them.
4 comments:
Here is where the debate falls short for many of us ...
refuse to offer them a “here”
... well said ... it is the heart of the issue for foster care, abortion and many of the other USA social issues. The cost of "here" seems to be a cost that few on the right or the left are willing to bear ... we'd rather let the government do it.
But if loving couples are willing to open their hearts and their homes to orphaned children, why shouldn't they be able to?
Richard,
If by "couples" you mean homosexual couples, you missed the point I was trying to make. For now, I fear it is almost exclusively about homosexual rights and that is off the mark of what we should really be talking about. It is primarily about the children, and whether or not a homosexual, couple or single, has a "right" to be a foster parent sanctioned by the state is secondary. This was the point I was trying to make.
The Arkansas Supreme Court decision struck down a state agency's decision to exclude homosexuals, and the court's decision dealt with that agency's proper authority to make such a rule. Legally, it was a sound ruling, in my opinion, because we cannot just make things up as we go along even if our intent is noble. The agency, however, had made the decision based on psychological information which suggested that children do better in a man/wife environment, so I think they were holding out for those couples. That those couples are not stepping up to the plate is the genuine problem.
What will happen from here is anyone's guess but if we begin discussing "gay rights", consideration for the children will become secondary. From there I fear that a decision to allow homosexuals to serve as foster parents will be made with too much emphasis on their orientation for fear of litigation rather than for the sake and well being of the child.
Bob,
You are so right. We are too quick to find fault with "there" without offering a legitimate "here". Is this not like the political battles we are forced to endure come election time with politicians telling us what's "wrong" with their opponent while failing to convince us of what is so "right" about them?
Post a Comment