The evidence already is overwhelming that homosexual activists don’t just want their rights protected, they want Christians’ rights removed.

After all, in lawsuits brought against Christian bakers, photographers and other service providers, the same services were available from others.

That means the homosexual plaintiffs were more interested in targeting Christians than obtaining services.

That attitude was documented in the case homosexuals brought against Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis, who declined to issue marriage licenses to same-sex duos.

Roger Gannam, senior litigation attorney for Liberty Council, which defended Davis, explained at the time the case “is not about couples who want to be married – they can easily get married in Kentucky.”

“This case is about crushing dissent and removing Christian public servants from office. Religion tests for holding elected office are unconstitutional and un-American,” he said.

In the Davis case, a lawyer for the ACLU told the Louisville Courier-Journal the objective of the case is to force the Christian worker to behave according to the dictates of the new social standard.

“Why should they be held to a different standard?”

“Outlasting the Gay Revolution” spells out eight principles to help Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual activists

Experts in that case pointed out that, to reach Davis’ office, some of the same-sex duos who sued Davis had to travel through other jurisdictions where they could have purchased a marriage license.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned that the decision establishing same-sex marriage “usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”

“The decision will also have other important consequences,” he warned. “It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

Now a related case, this time over adoption, is underway in Michigan.

Same-sex duos have filed suit against a law allowing the state to work with religious adoption agencies.

The Alliance Defending Freedom filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 53 state lawmakers there who want the challenge to the state law thrown out.

They argue the law is in the state’s interest: “When it is necessary for a child in this state to be placed with an adoptive or foster family, placing the child in a safe, loving, and supportive home is a paramount goal.”

They argue that the same-sex duos have no right to demand that a Christian placement service violate its religious beliefs and point out anyone can work with secular agencies to adopt a child.

The ADF brief explains the state adopted P.A. 53 “which preserves the many child-placement agencies with which Michigan has worked … for decades and allows the religiously affiliated ones to operate in accordance with their beliefs and constitutional rights.”

“This legislation created win-win. Michigan can place more children in adoption and foster homes; more child placement agencies can achieve their mission of serving children; more children receive the love and care they deserve.”

The plaintiffs in the case – Kristy Dumont, Dana Dumont, Erin Busk-Sutton, Rebecca Busk-Sutton, and Jennifer Ludolph – are demanding that the faith-based groups bend to their lifestyle choices.

However, ADF argues the plaintiffs “have not alleged a care or controversy.”

“Neither ideological disagreement with the law nor self-inflicted harm for a non-existent injury can confer Article III standing.”

The brief urges the dismissal of the claim, arguing federal courts require “standing,” meaning the plaintiffs must demonstrate that they were personally injured.

Further, their demanded solution “would violate the free exercise rights of children and child-placing agencies in Michigan,” in violation of the Constitution, the brief contends.

Other states have gone the other direction, demanding religious placement agencies violate their faith. In Massachusetts and other states agencies have closed, leaving children in need of placement.

Some states have adopted provisions similar to Michigan’s.

Lawmakers, the brief explains, decided “having as many possible qualified adoption and foster parent agencies in this state is a substantial benefit to the children of this state who are in need of these placement services and to all of the citizens of this state because the more qualified agencies taking part in this process, the greater the likelihood that permanent child placement can be achieved.”

“Plaintiffs … say they are ‘ready, willing and able’ to provide a ‘forever family’ to children…. They have no right to work with a specific child placing agency. [The law] does not stop them from fostering or adopting; at any time, they can work with numerous other agencies to realize their goal.”

While they may be “offended” by religious agencies, the harm was created by the plaintiffs’ own actions, the brief contends.

“Plaintiffs … went out of their way to seek out religiously affiliated child placemen tagencies in the hope of being declined … but self-inflicted injury cannot satisfy the injury in fact requirement,” the brief states.

ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs said: “Because children thrive better when part of a family, our laws should encourage and protect a variety of adoption agencies. This includes faith-based agencies, which demonstrate great effectiveness at recruiting, training, and retaining families to foster and adopt children.

“Michigan’s law allows these agencies to operate according to their beliefs — just like any other adoption service — without fear of government punishment and without denying anyone access to placement services.”

Matt Sharp, also a senior counsel for ADF, said: “Demanding that faith-based adoption agencies act contrary to the very faith that motivates their concern for children and families makes no sense. At a time when we are seeing rising numbers of children in foster care, we shouldn’t be driving these highly effective adoption agencies out of business. That hurts kids and deprives them of families.”

“This issue is close to my heart,” said Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof, who signed the brief. “I come from a family comprised of four children adopted by my parents. Faith-based adoption had a tremendous role in making my life possible. Support of faith-based adoption agencies does not diminish the role of all other private agencies in Michigan. The variety of organizations willing to place children with loving families benefits all children in need of a home. I hope the court will give careful consideration to our argument in favor of the law and make the best decision for the adoption and foster care community in Michigan.”



Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.