The United Kingdom’s High Court ruled yesterday that Christians with traditional ethical views of sexuality are not suitable to serve as foster or adoptive parents. The judge held that Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality are harmful to children and violate a child’s international human rights. Are these personal beliefs a good reason to deny children a home with a family who cares for them? And if exercising a protected religious liberty violates international child rights in this instance, who is to say what beliefs will be “unsuitable” next?
Those same rights are outlined in the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and would be binding on the United States should we ratify that treaty.
Fortunately, we expect a resolution opposing ratification of the CRC to be introduced in the U.S. Senate within the next week or so. Senator DeMint’s office is currently gathering original cosponsors on the resolution (which is equivalent to SR 519 from the last Congress). Once it is introduced and given a bill number, we will email you right away and initiate a call blitz to secure the 34 cosponsors needed to prevent with certainty the ratification of that dangerous treaty.
Still, only the Parental Rights Amendment can end the threat of ratification permanently.
Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Today
Today our own Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case touching on parental and child rights, Camreta v. Greene, which deals with whether or not a minor child has the right to be protected from seizure and interrogation by government officials without a warrant, emergency circumstances, or parental consent. To read more on this case, visit us here. We will be watching this case closely and keeping you apprised of any developments.