This legislation which would give Foster Children some protections was stripped of protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the House version which passed in May.

The legislation sits before the Senate Committee on Aging and Youth

This is one of those under the radar, but very important issues for our community. I worked in foster care and can testfiy that there are plenty of parents who would not be supportive if a child in their care came out or was out when they were placed.  That child would end up in a group home setting PDQ and there's also nothing to protect them there. 

This is where we need decisive leadership to work with legislators to protect our children.  The stripped down version of the bill passed unanimously, which is good for foster children in general, but very telling about the value our elected officials place on some of the most vulnerable kids in our Commonwealth.

Let's all contact Daylin Leach who sits on this Senate Committee to see what we can do to get the language back in or at least learn if its viable.  If you tweet, @daylinleach. 

This is one of those baby steps we need to take for our children. 

From today's Post-Gazette ...

sdf

So many people believe that Constitutonal principles require a strict adherence to the words themselves, not the absorption of their meaning and a reflection in our everyday lives.  This is one reason why I cannot understand that people who believe they have a constitutional right to religious liberty would deny other liberties to other groups. I would stand up for them, but too oft I find myself standing against the encroachment of religous liberty into my personal liberties. At the same time, I see my fellow LGBTQ disparage people who properly exercise their religious liberties. 

The problem, as I've said repeatedly, is that this is a false dichotomy. You are free to practice your religion, but not impose it on others.  That's the end of the debate. If your religious beliefs proscribe homosexuality, you are fine as long as you don't interfere with the liberty of others.  Participation in the public sector requires you play ball with the public rules. 

So it is really about changing those rules to allow religious liberty to exceed its Constitutional defined liberty.

Sigh. 

I imagine a nice glass of lemonade in this glass ...