The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Foster Care Is a Victory for Religious Freedom—and Not a Defeat for Gay Rights

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in favor of Catholic Social Services, a religious agency that the Philadelphia government had shut down because it would not place foster children in the care of same-sex couples. The court concluded that the city had violated the institution’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Alexandra Desanctis notes what liberal critics of the decision fail to understand:

[This] case isn’t, as left-wing activists insist, about “gay rights” at all; it is about children in need. [Moreover], it’s entirely inaccurate to suggest, as Politico did in its breaking-news update, that the court has sided with a group “that turns away same-sex couples as foster parents.” . . . As shown by the Becket Fund, which defended Catholic Social Services in court, the city of Philadelphia has been unable to find a single instance of a same-sex couple so much as approaching the Catholic agency about fostering a child. To suggest that the agency “turns away” such couples, then, is simply untrue.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Politico’s account claims that the court’s ruling now permits Catholic Social Services to “reject would-be parents based on their sexual orientation.” But the institution’s policy has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Rather, the policy—informed by the teaching of the Catholic Church—is to work to place foster children in homes with a married mother and father.

The reason for hypothetically refusing to place a child with a same-sex couple, marital status aside, is because the Catholic Church teaches, and the agency believes, that it is best for children to live in a home headed up by a married mother and father. The sexual orientation of the individuals is beside the point.

Read more at National Review

More about: Freedom of Religion, Homosexuality, Supreme Court

To Stop Attacks from Yemen, Cut It Off from Iran

On March 6, Yemen’s Houthi rebels managed to kill three sailors and force the remainder to abandon ship when they attacked another vessel. Not long thereafter, top Houthi and Hamas figures met to coordinate their efforts. Then, on Friday, the Houthis fired a missile at a commercial vessel, which was damaged but able to continue its journey. American forces also shot down one of the group’s drones yesterday.

Seth Cropsey argues that Washington needs a new approach, focused directly on the Houthis’ sponsors in Tehran:

Houthi disruption to maritime traffic in the region has continued nearly unabated for months, despite multiple rounds of U.S. and allied strikes to degrade Houthi capacity. The result should be a shift in policy from the Biden administration to one of blockade that cuts off the Houthis from their Iranian masters, and thereby erodes the threat. This would impose costs on both Iran and its proxy, neither of which will stand down once the war in Gaza ends.

Yet this would demand a coherent alliance-management policy vis-a-vis the Middle East, the first step of which would be a shift from focus on the Gaza War to the totality of the threat from Iran.

Read more at RealClear Defense

More about: Gaza War 2023, Iran, U.S. Foreign policy, Yemen