Senate Bill 2188, relating to the licensing of child-placement agencies, has been touted as a "freedom to serve" bill by its proponents. In fact, this bill would allow faith-based child-placement agencies to discriminate with impunity and the consent of the state of North Dakota. The article in the March 21 Forum points out supporters' claims that this bill merely codifies existing policies. Quite frankly, those policies already put families who do not fit the traditional model at a tremendous disadvantage.

Equality North Dakota, the statewide advocacy organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender North Dakotans, organized testimony in opposition to SB 2188 and was present at the hearings in both the Senate and the House. Supporters of the bill have consistently claimed that this bill is not intended to discriminate against anyone. However, in response to a question from a member of the committee, Christopher Dodson, the executive director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, answered that their agency does not want to work with single parents or with gay and lesbian couples. It doesn't get much plainer than that.

Even working with the one adoption agency that is not faith-based and is processing new adoptions does not ensure that all qualified couples and individuals will have equal access to adoption services. A gay male couple from Bismarck who was seeking to adopt a child was informed of a North Dakota mother who wanted to place her son with a gay couple. Although numerous roadblocks were placed in their way, the couple was ultimately successful and was able to bring home their new son. Late last year Equality North Dakota learned that legislation like SB 2188 might be introduced in response to this specific adoption and in order to prevent gay or lesbian couples from adopting in the future.

Even under President Bush's "Faith-Based Initiative," services are supposed to be provided equally and without discrimination. Yet under SB 2188, a faith-based child-placement agency can call on its "moral and religious beliefs" to refuse to participate in ANY adoption of which it doesn't approve. The desire to discriminate is protected under the guise of ensuring religious freedom. How many advances in civil and human rights would not be in place today if our nation had always operated on this principle? Religious freedom should not mean the freedom to discriminate; for proponents of this bill to continue to claim that they do not wish to discriminate is both hypocritical and dishonest.

Uebel, Fargo, is chairman [sic: co-chair] of Equality North Dakota.