When Oklahoma lawmakers voted this year to make certain that religious couples cannot be prohibited from serving as foster parents if those couples disagree with far-left views on transgenderism, critics claimed the legislation was a solution in search of a problem.

“I do not believe that families are being turned down,” said state Rep. Ellen Pogemiller, D-Oklahoma City, during House debate.

But a court case in Vermont highlights why Oklahoma lawmakers acted.

Two couples—Brian and Katy Wuoti, and Bryan and Rebecca Gantt—are devout Christians who felt moved to serve as foster parents because of their faith. And officials in Vermont found the two couples were among the best foster families in the state.

But then Vermont officials demanded the two couples voice support for specific views of transgenderism. When the couples declined, the state of Vermont revoked their right to serve as foster parents.

The couples have sued, arguing that the state discriminated against them based on religion and infringed on their free-speech rights.

“Vermont’s foster-care system is in crisis: There aren’t enough families to care for vulnerable kids,” said Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the two couples in court. “As numerous states have attested, religious families play a critical role in the foster-care system. Yet instead of inviting families from diverse backgrounds to help care for vulnerable kids, Vermont is shutting the door on them, putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of suffering kids. When it comes to finding kids a loving home, everyone should be able to recognize that the needs of kids should come first. And even Vermont agrees that the Wuotis and the Gantts are loving and caring parents willing to open their door to any child.”

A lower court sided with the state of Vermont and against the families, and the families are now pursuing an appeal.

The Alliance Defending Freedom’s opening brief in the appeal notes that the state of Vermont “revoked both families’ licenses when they expressed their religious belief that a person should live consistent with their sex and pursue sexual behavior only within marriage between one man and one woman. That made them ‘unqualified’ to parent any child (even a relative) of any age (even an infant) and for any length of time (even a few hours), no matter what the child believes and no matter how the child identifies.”

The state of Vermont took that action even though Katy Wuoti “experienced gender dysphoria growing up and knows firsthand how difficult it can be,” meaning she would have a better understanding of children who claim to identify as transgender than many other prospective foster parents.

And the state took that action even though the Gantts cared for kids born with drug dependencies or with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Furthermore, the two Christian couples had previously been highly praised by state officials.

“The Wuotis and the Gantts had successful histories as foster parents,” the Alliance Defending Freedom brief states. “Social workers described the Wuotis as ‘AMAZING,’ ‘wonderful,’ and ‘never a single concern.’ … One supervisor stated: ‘I probably could not hand pick a more wonderful foster family.’ … Social workers similarly described the Gantts as ‘wonderful,’ ‘amazing,’ ‘100% confidence,’ and ‘I hope we continue to find more families like [theirs].’”

When Vermont’s Human Services Board upheld the two couples’ revocation, the group acknowledged that it was “undisputed that petitioners are warm, loving, kind, and respectful people who have a history of parenting foster children without raising any concerns.”

While Vermont declares couples are unfit to foster if they express mainstream Christian views on marriage and transgenderism, the state provides numerous options for other families to decline to serve a specific child and still remain qualified to foster other children.

The state of Vermont allows families to decline to care for foster children based on their age, sex, or physical or mental disabilities. The state of Vermont also “places children in ‘unlicensed, unregulated place[s]’ like police stations and hotels,” the brief noted.

Oklahoma Law Held Up as National Model

A brief filed by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, joined by 22 officials from other states, including Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, urges the court to rule against the state of Vermont and side with the rights of parents.

“Draping itself in the façade of child welfare, Vermont forces would-be foster parents to make a Hobson’s choice: swear to affirm their child’s perceived gender and sexual orientation no matter the parents’ genuinely held beliefs, or forgo the licensure necessary to serve as a foster parent,” the Florida brief states.

Uthmeier’s brief holds up Florida, Oklahoma, and Idaho laws as a superior model, noting those states’ foster systems work to match “like-minded parents with like-minded children.”

Legislation signed into law this year, Senate Bill 658, by state Sen. Julie Daniels and state Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, further bolsters that system.

The new law prohibits the Oklahoma Department of Human Services from requiring any current or prospective adoptive or foster parent “to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the parent’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs as a condition for eligibility to adopt or foster.”

The law also requires that state officials take “into account the religious or moral beliefs of a particular adoptive or foster child, or his or her family of origin including, but not limited to, the child’s or family’s views regarding sexual orientation and gender identity” when determining where to place a child, and states that DHS still has a duty to “make each placement consistent with the best interests of the child.”

But Oklahoma Democrats opposed SB 658, effectively arguing that Christian couples should be banned from serving as foster parents if they will not endorse the view that some children are born in the “wrong body” and are actually members of the opposite sex.

During Senate debate in February, state Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City, said the bill “is prioritizing adults over vulnerable children.”

During House debate on May 6, Democratic Leader Cyndi Munson of Oklahoma City said, “I don’t think we should be relying on adults who are outwardly saying, ‘I can’t accept and embrace all children,’ to help us solve this problem.”

In its brief for the Wuotis and Gantts, the Alliance Defending Freedom warns that those types of arguments are fundamentally anti-constitutional and pro-discrimination.

“The First Amendment protects prospective foster families of all viewpoints,” the brief states. “To exempt foster care licensing from the First Amendment would hand states a blank check to discriminate.”