The widespread cultural divide among Americans was evident in a recent First Amendment case in Washington. A Christian foster family from the Evergreen State said their speech and religious liberties were violated by state policies demanding they employ gender pronouns and affirm the sexual orientation of their foster charges. The resulting settlement seeks to protect religious liberties while also supporting the self-identification of gender, orientation, etc., by minors in need of an affirming home.
Brave Foster Plaintiffs
Shane and Jennifer DeGross are devout Christians who served as licensed foster parents in Washington from 2013 to 2022, caring for four children. The onslaught of trans ideology and a world in which toddlers allegedly proclaim their “true” gender yielded regulations in Washington and many other states that required foster parents to agree that they would “affirm” a child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression (called “SOGIE”), regardless of whether a particular child actually articulated any such desires. That is, the laws are imposed “just in case” a child decides to transition or declare themself gay, bi, trans, etc.
The DeGrosses told the truth to state employees: They could not agree to such restrictions because they believe that “a person’s biological sex is an immutable characteristic” and that “as image bearers of God, a person should live consistent with their God-given sex rather than contrary to God’s design.” The state of Washington then denied them a license, later issuing a limited license, which the couple still found hostile to their faith.
The DeGrosses brought suit in federal court with the assistance of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), alleging the state had violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and expression. The state sought to dismiss the complaint, alleging the plaintiffs had no legitimate cause of action. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the court stated:
“....Policy § 1520 restricts certain speech by prospective parents on the topic of SOGIE, while requiring speech that aligns with the state’s perspective…. In essence, the Department has forced the DeGrosses to choose between forfeiting their freedom of speech to obtain an unrestricted license, or upholding their beliefs surrounding SOGIE, and receiving a less-favorable license subject to certain restrictions. The DeGrosses have carried their burden to show that the Department’s enforcement of Policy § 1520 plausibly constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.”
Freedom of Religion Endures
The US Constitution is designed to prevent government intrusion into citizens' subjective beliefs, particularly regarding religious or political views. State foster care services place agencies in the midst of the culture war created by novel theories about mutable gender, infinite pronouns, and endless prideful celebration of sexual behaviors. Some parents may wish to encourage such thinking and behaviors in very young children; some (including conservative Christians) are inclined otherwise. In seeking to split this proverbial baby in half for foster parenting, the court noted: “The situation would be no different if the state had restricted parental speech favoring more ‘progressive’ views of sexuality and gender identify, while compelling speech along the lines of [the DeGrosses’] more traditional understanding.” [citation omitted.]
Because the state had essentially taken sides in a culture war, and this position was hostile to the beliefs of many people of faith, the foster parent regulation was “facially” unconstitutional. That means it blatantly violates constitutional protections. Quoting from the seminal US Supreme Court case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Washington federal district court ruled that if the state is to “respect the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise,” it “cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.”
The legal effect of the court’s ruling was to greenlight the DeGrosses’ lawsuit for monetary damages for violation of their First Amendment liberties. However, the parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement approved by the court that requires the state of Washington to pay $250,000 in legal fees to ADF and replace the offending foster parent regulation with rules that protect religious liberties. Interestingly, the new rules will place ultimate decision-making in the state Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) as to where individual children will be placed. DCYF will place gay or trans children in homes that do not embrace conflicting religious views. The settlement agreement stipulates: “When a foster parent, for whatever reason, cannot meet a child’s needs, including SOGIE, DCYF can decide not to place with that foster parent.”
A Return to Sanity
That is what should have been implemented at the outset, rather than imposing a moral (immoral?) litmus test on Christian foster families relating to straight children who are not confused about their gender. The very fact that states like Washington take a secular position on this issue and force a controversial and unproven ideology on citizens reveals the grotesque unconstitutionality identified by the courts. Those who scoff at claims of government discrimination against Christians should take note.
Washington is struggling with serious failures in its foster care system for tort claims alleging historic abuse. In 2025, the state paid out $499 million in tort claims for past abuse by foster parents. Perhaps the state will now benefit from Christian foster parents willing to serve, rather than stigmatize them as ignorant or intolerant and deny them the ability to care for needy children.
Parents who simply claim “a person’s biological sex is an immutable characteristic” should now have the liberty to be licensed as foster care providers, regardless of whether they hold that view as a faith issue or as fundamentalist biology and chromosome science. Foster parents comfortable with “affirming” a child’s desire for potentially dangerous puberty blockers, or their declaration at age five that they are gay or bi, can still do so.
This settlement outcome strikes the balance that should have been built into state regulations of foster care from the start. As the “real science” of transgender ideology continues to be studied, it may be that American society one day achieves a consensus once long held as inviolate: that young children should not be conditioned to focus on their sexuality and gender identity as the highest goals of life. Until then, at least those who embrace this view will not be discriminated against by government bureaucrats enamored with bizarre and dangerous theories du jour.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
