LITTLE ROCK (AP) – Several national and state mental health, legal and gay rights groups will get their arguments heard by the state Supreme Court as the justices consider whether gays and lesbians can serve as foster parents in Arkansas.

A state judge said in 2004 that it was unconstitutional for the Child Welfare Agency Review Board to bar gays and lesbians from serving as foster parents. On Jan. 12, justices accepted four friend-of-the-court briefs filed on behalf of 18 groups wishing to weigh in.

The briefs expand on scientific, legal and social issues raised during a trial held before Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox.

The child welfare board instituted the ban in March 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they are more likely to thrive in that environment.

Four Arkansans sued, saying gays and lesbians who otherwise qualified as foster parents had been discriminated against. They contended the ban violated their right to privacy and equal protection under the state and U.S. constitutions.

One brief, filed on behalf of Bishop Larry E. Maze of the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas and others, agreed with the judge’s decision but took exception to his finding that moral disapproval of a group might be a legitimate reason for government to impose restrictions on “a disapproved group,” said Suzanne B. Goldberg of New Jersey, a lawyer who worked on the brief.

“There are many different views about morality, including about the morality of homosexuality, and so courts are in a very awkward position if they have to choose between conflicting moral views,” she said. “And government cannot have different rules for groups of people depending on whether those groups are morally approved or disapproved by the majority.”

Little Rock lawyer George Wise said a brief from national and state psychology associations and the National Association of Social Workers and its Arkansas chapter points out scientific study on the issue.

“There is a wealth of peer review scientific information out there which indicates that children are not harmed in any way by being parented or foster-parented by gay or lesbian parents or couples,” Wise said.

Susan Sommer, a lawyer with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York, said that group’s brief argues that it would be a violation of the state and U.S. constitutions to reinstate the ban in light of an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling in 2002 that struck down the state’s anti-sodomy law and the U.S. Supreme Court decision the following year in a similar case in Texas.

“These courts make crystal clear that these people cannot be condemned or discriminated against for their private intimacy that harms no one,” she said.

Besides Lambda, the brief was filed on behalf of groups including Children of Lesbians & Gays Everywhere, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and the Stonewall Democratic Club of Arkansas.

A fourth brief was filed by the Child Welfare League of America and The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.

Julie Munsell, a spokesperson for the state Health and Human Services Department, said the state’s argument has never been about whether gays and lesbians make good parents but whether the state has the legal authority to set the parameters of foster care.

“We believe that the board had the authority to make regulations that fit the interests of children in state foster care. If you had to pick an ideal situation, what would it look like?” she said. “The argument was never about does a homosexual have the right to parent children in state care.”

The state will file its reply to the briefs by Feb. 4, Munsell said.