Couple loses license to foster needy children because of state’s sex ideology

A Christian couple, Lydia and Heath Marvin, have lost their license to provide foster care to needy children because of the sex ideology imposed on them by the state of Massachusetts.

The story of the Marvins’ situation has been documented by the Christian Institute in the United Kingdom.

The state has described the couple as “uniquely dedicated” parents who previously have provided care for eight toddlers under the age of 4, including some with serious medical needs.

However, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families has canceled their license because they were unwilling to subject their Christian faith to the state’s anti-Christian regime that promotes the LGBT faith, including transgenderism.

The state policy demanded they “support, respect, and affirm a foster child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression,” for children at an age when “sexual orientation” would mean nothing.

“We will absolutely love and support and care for any child in our home, but we simply can’t agree to go against our Christian faith in this area,” explained Lydia.

She and her husband modeled their ministry to children after James 1:27, which states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

She explained, “We weren’t just going to say we care for the fatherless and widows and give money to some entity. We were actually going to do it ourselves, together as a family, and our kids would be a part of that. Now it seems like there’s no path forward.”

The state practice of discriminating against people with a certain faith already is being challenged in court by two other families.

The case explains the state’s policy forces foster parents to “renounce their beliefs in both speech and practice.”

An official for the LGBT-promoting group called GLAD praised the demands for endorsement of children’s “physical and emotional needs,” but Andrew Gradison, acting assistant secretary for the government’s Administration for Children and Families, commented: “These policies and developments are deeply troubling, clearly contrary to the purpose of child welfare programs, and in direct violation of First Amendment protections.”

Angus Saul, of the Christian Institute, explained, “This policy is a very clear example of state overreach. The state has a duty to protect those children in its care, but here we have an example of a well-regarded couple with an extensive history of positive work with children being screened out because of their religious beliefs.”

Saul said, “While Christians must always count the cost of following Christ and abiding by his will, even when it is difficult to do so, we should pray for this unjust and discriminatory policy to be overturned, so that this couple may return to serving their Lord by opening up their home to those who need it most.”