Christians Need Not Apply
Céleste Perrino September/October 2025In some states, new mandates are sidelining Christian foster and adoptive parents—just when vulnerable children need them most.
During the past several years a disturbing trend has emerged. Christians have begun to encounter obstacles in their attempts to fulfill the biblical instruction to “look after orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27).1 They are being denied licenses, or in some cases renewal of their current license, to foster or adopt children. Renewals are being denied despite the applicants’ superlative record with their state’s department of children and families. In each case the common denominator is that the applicants are Christians who, because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, are morally unable to endorse their state’s new mandates around gender identity. These mandates require that prospective parents be willing to instruct children to embrace gender dysphoric beliefs about their bodies or support children when they reject their biological sex. This includes being prepared to help a child transition to the opposite biological sex through various means, including puberty-suppressing drugs or sex-change surgery.
The Times They Are a-Changin’
Former Kansas state representative and current director of Policy and Government Relations for First Amendment Partnership Lance Kinzer says these challenges have roots in distinct but related issues raised in the 2021 Supreme Court case of Fulton v. Philadelphia. This case involved the city of Philadelphia (the City) and Catholic Social Services (CSS), a centuries-old mission of the Catholic Church to help the children of Philadelphia. For more than 50 years the city contracted with CSS to provide foster families. In 2018, CSS’s refusal to consider married same-sex couples as potential foster parents resulted in an investigation into CSS’s policies and eventual revocation of their contract with the City. According to the City, CSS’s policy violated the nondiscrimination provision of their contract as well as the City’s Fair Practices Ordinance.
It is interesting to note that because CSS’s religious belief is that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, they believe that by certifying prospective foster parents they are, in essence, endorsing their relationship. Because of this belief, they also refuse to certify unmarried couples regardless of their sexual orientation, a view with which the City apparently did not take issue. Further, while this case was ultimately taken to the highest court in the land, there is no record of any married same-sex couple ever even applying to CSS for certification. Had they done so, CSS would have redirected them to any one of the many certifying foster agencies in the city willing to assist them.
In response to a suit filed by CSS and three affiliated foster parents, the district court denied preliminary relief, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. They held that as “CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else. The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless the agency agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny and violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.”
In a New York Times article about the case, Justice Samuel Alito stated, “ ‘If we are honest about what’s really going on here,’ . . . ‘it’s not about ensuring that same-sex couples in Philadelphia have the opportunity to be foster parents. It’s the fact that the city can’t stand the message that Catholic Social Services and the archdiocese are sending by continuing to adhere to the old-fashioned view about marriage.’ ”2
The views many Christians have about marriage, old-fashioned though they may be, are not going to change. Considering this, organizations such as First Amendment Partnership looked to the future as warning bells began to ring. “It was natural for us,” says Kinzer, “especially as this issue began to emerge, to start working with some folks in states that had already taken action around protection of agencies about the possibility of extending those protections to cover adoptive and foster parents as well.”
In the Nick of Time
The attention came not a moment too soon, because Christians were already beginning to face discrimination as foster parents, even when they were related to the child they were applying to adopt. In Blais v. Hunter grandparents attempting to foster their own one-year old granddaughter were turned down based solely on hypothetical future scenarios involving sexual orientation and gender identity that might or might not ever happen.
When the Blaises’ granddaughter H.V. was born in Idaho, there were concerns about her welfare. The state removed her from her parents and placed her in foster care through the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW). IDHW reached out to the Blaises in Washington to see if they would be interested in fostering H.V. The Blaises agreed, and a home study followed. As devout Seventh-day Adventists, however, the Blaises were unable to endorse the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families’ policies for foster children regarding the issue of gender dysphoria. Their application was denied. The decision was based solely on hypothetical questions posed during the home study, which sought to determine how the Blaises would respond if H.V., at some point in the future, questioned or explored her sexuality. Under the department’s policy regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, the Blaises were required to affirm that—if faced with any of these hypothetical scenarios—they would support any choices H.V. might make, despite their own opposing religious views.
The Blaises sued under the free exercise clause, and United States District judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. held that “department regulations and policies appear neutral but in practice gerrymander to create unequal effect. As applied to the Blaises and others similarly situated, the regulations and policies disproportionately exclude persons who observe certain religious faiths from qualifying as foster parents based solely on speculative future conduct. In operation, department regulations and policies eliminate a not insignificant cross-section of otherwise qualified persons from serving as potential caregivers based on their faith’s stance on sexual orientation and gender identity and whether their religion supports certain issues LGBTQ+ youth might face.”3
It is particularly devastating that willing Christian prospective foster parents are being barred from helping children in need at this crucial time when child welfare agencies are urgently seeking homes to take in children. The lack of placement opportunities is forcing displaced children to sleep in a host of temporary settings, including police stations, hotel rooms, emergency rooms, homeless shelters, and on the couches of beleaguered social workers. This is not an isolated circumstance in a single state; cases are being reported in many states across the country. And yet, despite the critical need, some states are placing mandates regarding possible future gender dysphoria above children’s basic current needs, such as safety and shelter. Even in states where mandates do not yet exist, there have been reported instances of some state child welfare employees operating on their own intitative to screen out Christians and others who do not support ideological views on gender dysphoria.
The guiding principle of child welfare is and always should be that the needs of the child come first. That is, the needs of the child, as he or she currently is, should be paramount. The needs of that child in the future should be addressed in the future if that becomes necessary. Instead, some states are placing their ideological stance before the welfare of children, prioritizing gender identity policies over the urgent need for foster and adoptive homes, even preventing families with a proven track record of success.
Scientifically Speaking
It is important to note that this conflict is of an ideological nature rather than a scientific one, putting states in the dangerous position of legislating science and medicine as they see fit. Gender dysphoria exists; it is both real and painful for people who struggle with it.
But Christians are far from the only ones who question the danger of “solving” childhood curiosity and exploration of gender in a permanent way.
The DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition), the professional reference book that serves as the main guide for mental health providers in the U.S. and is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), describes the criteria for gender dysphoria as “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and natal gender of at least six months in duration.”4 Additionally, the APA states: “It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”5 Gender nonconformity, which could include something as natural as a girl going through a tomboy phase, does not necessitate any special consideration by parents or, indeed, is not even considered out of the ordinary. Not every child (in fact, not even most children) who questions their gender or explores aspects of the opposite gender could receive a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, because exploration and curiosity are not the same as clinically significant distress. By jumping in prematurely, child welfare agencies could condemn children who are passing through a normal growth phase to a lifetime of medical intervention, confusion, and regret.
Doctors Paul W. Hruz, Lawrence S. Mayer, and Paul R. McHugh assert in their article titled “Growing Pains” that “the medical treatments provided for children with apparent symptoms of gender dysphoria, including affirmation of gender expression from the earliest evidence of cross-gender behaviors, may drive some children to persist in identifying as transgender when they might otherwise have, as they grow older, found their gender to be aligned with their sex. Gender identity for children is elastic (that is, it can change over time) and plastic (that is, it can be shaped by forces like parental approval and social conditions). If the increasing use of gender-affirming care does cause children to persist with their identification as the opposite sex, then many children who would otherwise not need ongoing medical treatment would be exposed to hormonal and surgical interventions.”6
Presently, medical treatment for gender dysphoria in children is controversial at best. Some medical professionals go so far as to call it child abuse. Hruz, Mayer, and McHugh state, “The evidence for the safety and efficacy of puberty suppression is thin, based more on the subjective judgments of clinicians than on rigorous empirical evidence. It is, in this sense, still experimental—yet it is an experiment being conducted in an uncontrolled and unsystematic manner.”7 This makes irrevocably changing a child’s gender a dangerous game indeed. And let us be clear: this experiment is being conducted on children—in part, on the most vulnerable children who are already in crisis.
Meanwhile, in Vermont . . .
Brian and Kaitlyn Wuoti and Michael and Rebecca Gantt are two Vermont couples who are suddenly no longer able to foster or adopt children following the new SOGIE mandate (sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression) of the Vermont Department of Children and Families (DCF). Prior to the enactment of this policy, both families had an excellent relationship and history with DCF. The Wuotis were denied a renewal of their license despite six years of licensure during which DCF never expressed any concerns about their ability as foster parents. In fact, during that time the Wuotis adopted two children they had originally fostered. Their first license renewal, which was prior to the SOGIE mandate, was unremarkable. Their second license renewal came after implementation of the SOGIE mandate, and it was subsequently denied. The only obstacle was their religious objection to the SOGIE mandate.
The Gantts, who have adopted three children through the state, have a similar story. DCF requested their help in adopting a baby who was going to be born to a homeless woman addicted to drugs. Officials called them the perfect home and their first choice for the child until the Gantts expressed concern regarding DCF’s new policies. Michael Gantt explained to their resource coordinator that he and his wife would love, support, and accept any child in their home, even if the child later identified as LGBTQ. He also explained that they could not compromise their biblical beliefs.8 DCF’s response was to reverse course completely, refuse to allow them to adopt the baby, and revoke their license altogether.
Together the Wuotis and Gantts are suing DCF, declaring that DCF’s SOGIE mandate violates their “constitutionally protected rights to free speech, free association, religious exercise, due process, and equal protection of the law.”9 Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, who serves as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom and is representing the Wuotis and Gantts, says, “In Vermont, they’re sending out emails continuously asking for families to care for children who are being born dependent on drugs, for children who don’t have anywhere to go, for children who need emergency placements. And yet they’re turning away loving religious families who have a track record of success.”
Finding Commonsense Solutions
Widmalm-Delphonse says that at this time he is aware only of Christians who have been affected by the new policies. But he warns that other potential foster families could suffer from the same policies. “It’s something that people of all religions should be concerned about, because if it hasn’t happened yet, it will happen eventually.”
Compromises must be made for the sake of the children. “Many states,” says Widmalm-Delphonse, “emphasize matching children with families according to their strengths and weaknesses, ensuring that children who identify as LGBTQ+ can go to homes that meet their unique needs, while still protecting the rights of religious families. For example, at least five states have bills or laws protecting religious foster families from being excluded or punished because they want to raise their children consistent with their faith. At the Ninth Circuit, 19 states and one legislative body filed an amicus brief stating that protections for LGBTQ+ children and religious families ‘should be able to coexist harmoniously without requiring systematic exclusion of foster parents with religious convictions.’ ”
One step in the right direction would be for states to address concerns about gender dysphoria at placement rather than at licensing. As licensing currently stands, Christians who cannot support gender ideology mandates need not apply at all, since they won’t be approved. This makes them unable to foster any children, even those who share their beliefs, or to provide respite for infants who are too young to have any beliefs at all. Every child and family is unique. Children would be best served if states invested more resources in finding appropriate matches for children and foster families and less time finding new ways to diminish their already inadequate number of candidates.
“I think that our basic philosophy with respect to these bills,” says Kinzer, “is that while not every couple or every individual is the right placement for every child in the foster context or the adoptive context, the law should never begin in any state with the presumption that people are precluded from participating or adopting and fostering at all based upon their sincerely held religious beliefs around issues of marriage and family and sexuality.”
The Light at the End of the Tunnel
The good news is that the controversy currently brewing in foster and adoptive care stems from the desire on both sides to provide loving, stable homes for desperately needy children. But the needs of the many should not be supplanted by the possible future needs of the few. States must find a compromise wherein children who are not currently struggling with issues of gender dysphoria are placed with families whose beliefs, while perhaps not able to endorse their future sexual exploration, are absolutely able to meet their current needs for safety, shelter, and a loving home. In fact, many excel in their roles as foster parents, as evidenced by the praise of social workers in the foster care system and the fact that departments entrust them to take on some of their most challenging and desperate cases.
“We think it’s entirely possible to have a well-balanced system that continues to elevate the best interest of the child with respect to individual placements but does so while respecting the religious liberty rights of everybody,” says Kinzer. “We’re gratified to see several states putting that clearly in statute in their states, and we’re hopeful that more will do so. Maybe the courts will ultimately clarify this question so that state legislation becomes less necessary. For now, every state should look to lock in clear protections for people of faith around adoption and foster care, because it’s an issue that seems to be growing, and, at least so far, we can’t count on the courts to achieve the right results.”
1 From the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
2 A. Liptak, “Supreme Court Weighs Legacy of Same-Sex Marriage Case,” New York Times, Dec. 5, 2022.
3 “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction” (2020), in United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington.
4 N. J. Nokoff, Table 2 [DSM-5 Criteria for Gender Dysphoria (20)], Endotext, NCBI Bookshelf.
5 American Psychiatric Association, “Gender Dysphoria,” in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2013).
6 “Growing Pains,” The New Atlantis, Sept. 26, 2020.
7 Ibid.
8 Verified complaint (2024), in United States District Court for the District of Vermont, Windham Division.
9 Ibid.