In a moment when American society seems to be pulling apart, last week the Supreme Court pulled decisively in the opposite direction. Its 9-0 ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is narrow, but delivers a sweeping message. It points the way to a very different future than the deep division that defines so much of public life today. The majority and concurring opinions reject government-enforced uniformity, elevate pluralism, and affirm the importance of a diverse social safety net. Most of all, Fulton reminds us that Americans can still work together for the good of the most vulnerable – even when we disagree on important issues.
Fulton points the way to a very different future than the division that defines much of public life today.
In 2018, the City of Philadelphia ordered two Christian foster care agencies to begin placing children with same-sex and cohabitating couples or withdraw from serving children in foster care. One agency, Catholic Social Services, rejected both options. Instead, it challenged the City’s demands in court.
With a little grace, one can see good intention on both sides of the conflict. The City sought to protect LGBTQ+ individuals and cohabitating couples from the sting of exclusion. It wanted to guarantee a clear, dignified pathway for all people willing to foster or adopt. Catholic Social Services, meanwhile, desired to be faithful to its age-old Christian commitments. They found in Scriptures both a clarion call to serve the most vulnerable and a compelling vision for marriage and sexuality, and they did not wish to abandon either.
For many years, these diverse values had largely co-existed. More than two dozen agencies across Philadelphia gladly placed children in cohabitating and same-sex households. According to records reviewed by the court, no individuals were ever denied services. Meanwhile, Catholic Social Services and one other agency specialized in recruiting and caring for families inspired by their faith to foster and adopt. All of these agencies did not always see eye to eye, of course. But they worked side-by-side, and often together, for the good of children in the foster system.
In a time of rising tribalism, however, this arrangement was bound to be challenged. The gravity of our day is centrifugal, pulling outward and apart. It tears the fibers that once held us together, both consensus and compromise. People and organizations that once gathered around a common table – despite differing opinions – now increasingly retreat to the far corners of the room, plotting for self-defense rather than the common good.
The gravity of our day is centrifugal, pulling outward and apart.
In Fulton, the Court broke sharply with this gravity. It directed the City of Philadelphia and its partner agencies to return to a common table, insisting that they find a way to work together again for the good of children. Critically, the Court rejected the notion that a single opinion on controversial matters like human sexuality could be enforced by government as a condition for participation in public programs.
To be clear, the questions at the heart of this disagreement are not small. For the majority of Christians throughout history and around the world today — and for other faith traditions as well — family stands at the very center of God’s design for human flourishing. We believe that God’s best for every child is to grow in a safe, permanent, nurturing family, and that the lifelong covenant of marriage provides a foundation for family in a way nothing else can. We cheer on and support single parents, while we also long for each child to know the distinctive care of both mother and father. These convictions rise from the same deep, Scriptural roots that call Christians to welcome and serve children the world overlooks. This explains why practicing Christians are consistently among the most willing to adopt, foster, mentor, help restore broken families, and serve in other remarkably sacrificial ways as well. All of this offers a vision for life, for family and for service that at times differs markedly from the broader culture.
The Court understood this tension. Yet it did not conclude that conflicting values needed to end in a winner-take-all victory for one side or the other. Rather, the Court pointed to a very different approach: true pluralism, in which people of different backgrounds and beliefs interact respectfully and even work together in the public square. It reminded that this kind of pluralism in government programs is not only required by the Constitution, but also essential for the good of children in foster care.
Why? Because the 400,000+ children in the US foster system today need more, not less. They’ve tasted more pain than people should in a lifetime. Yet often the public systems designed to care for them have anything but enough. These girls and boys need more good agencies working on their behalf, more welcoming homes, and more support for the foster, adoptive, and restored biological families who receive them.
The 400,000+ children in the US foster system today need more, not less.
Fulton will help significantly with this, maximizing the breadth and diversity of the social safety net in foster care and beyond. As the Court found, government can ensure a clear, dignified path for all who wish to foster or adopt, while also ensuring that faith-inspired agencies and families can continue to serve without being forced to violate their religious beliefs.
In all of this, Fulton offers our fractured nation a way forward. While the ruling itself is limited in scope, the fact that nine highly-opinionated judges came together to form it reminds that many of the fierce divisions of our day are not as intractable as they appear. Government programs can still welcome the unique gifts brought by groups of differing opinion, while also allowing each to maintain its unique identity and commitments. Meanwhile, people and organizations of differing convictions can work respectfully alongside one another — and sometimes even together — for the good of children.
When that happens, everyone wins – especially the children who need it most.
When that happens, everyone wins – especially the children who need it most.