The proposed legislation by Virginia Social Services to regulate the MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LICENSED PRIVATE CHILD PLACING AGENCIES, although seemingly full of many important regulations to protect children placed in foster care and adoptive families makes one important misstep.  It proposes to impose the moral beliefs of the legislators, that homosexuality is a protected status, on the citizens of Virginia.  As an adoptive parent and a birth parent I agree that children who are in foster care and who are adopted need the protection of the law.  They are vulnerable individuals who are unable to advocate for themselves.  All the more reason why the state of Virginia has no business forcing PRIVATE child placing agencies to meet a litmus test of "tolerance" of homosexuals.  If a PRIVATE child placing agency holds opposing beliefs and acted on them, under this new law they would be law breakers.  Likely it would force them to conform or go out of business.  What a loss for the many children who are helped each day by them to find loving homes.

Essentially, this is a violation of our rights as Americans to freedom of belief.  The belief that homosexual persons are not fit to be parents is one opinion, that is not any more hateful or discriminatory than any other.  It is an opinion, one that is held by many persons who have the right to the opinion.  It is no less intolerant than the opinion of many persons with the opposing viewpoint that those who don't agree with them are wrong.  We do not need to agree about the opinions to understand the overstepping of government in this case.

Obviously this is a difficult issue for some who are are homosexual and want to be able to adopt or foster children through the agency of their choosing.  This desire, if it becomes a requirement placed upon PRIVATE agencies, is placing the desires of one group above the freedoms of another.  Tread carefully here, lest one group is silenced because of the preferences of another.  It is a slippery slope that is not consistent with our constitution, nor with the "tolerance" mantra of the homosexual community.   If homosexuals advocating "tolerance" really want it, there must be respect for all opinions.   That is what tolerance really is.

For the sake of many vulnerable children served by private agencies who disagree that homosexuals are a protected class of persons, please do not place an undue burden on them in the name of tolerance.  Tolerance would allow for differing opinions and ideas about homosexuals adopting children.

Sincerely,

Melanie