Gay Adoption in the UK

[Furrowed Brow]

New equal rights legislation is being implemented in the UK concerning gay adoptions. Gay partners cannot in future be descriminated agianst when applying to adopt a child. The Catholic church and church or England have lobbied to be exempt from the legislation on grounds of conscience. The Catholic church has threatened to close down its adoption agencies if forced to comply. However it looks like their lobbying has failed and they will have to comply with the legislation within 21 months.

Question: Should religion be allowed an opt out of legislation due to conscience?

[McCulloch]

Question: Should religion be allowed an opt out of legislation due to conscience?

My gut reaction to this is yes, they should. We have laws about discrimination based on religious belief. Should the Catholic Church be forced to hire a Buddhist who is otherwise qualified to read mass, perform weddings, baptisms and funerals? It seems absurd.

But then I think that there is a difficulty about where to draw the line. Should an overtly racist religion be permitted? We already have a number of overtly sexist ones. What about criminal law? Should religion get a by on that?

So, in the end, I think that the law should apply equally to all organizations regardless of religion or non-religion.

[Noachian]

It went bfore the Queen, but She said yes to it to avoid conflict.....GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

[Furrowed Brow]

Question: Should religion be allowed an opt out of legislation due to conscience?

My gut reaction to this is yes, they should. We have laws about discrimination based on religious belief. Should the Catholic Church be forced to hire a Buddhist who is otherwise qualified to read mass, perform weddings, baptisms and funerals? It seems absurd.

But then I think that there is a difficulty about where to draw the line. Should an overtly racist religion be permitted? We already have a number of overtly sexist ones. What about criminal law? Should religion get a by on that?

So, in the end, I think that the law should apply equally to all organizations regardless of religion or non-religion.

I think the law is always a bit of a balancing act. One groups freedoms offset another groups rights. However I worry where this legislation is taken us.

Previously the Catholic adoptions agencies were bound by just the same legislation as the rest of us. They would have to treat Gay adoptions enquiries within the law, which meant they would pass the enquiry on to agencies that dealt with Gay adoptions. This seems a pretty sensible arrangement to me. One that should not offend anyone. But the new legislation insists that the Catholic/Christian agencies can no longer just pass the enquiry over, they have to handle it themselves.

To me this doesn’t sound like equality for Gays but a concerted effort to stamp out any inkling of anti Gay sentiment. And I think there is a subtle difference of a concerted effort to create equality, and an ideology of intolerance hiding behind that effort. Ideology of intolerance? Well I think the more social or liberal the philosophy, the greater the tendency to see ones philosophy as morally superior to the alternatives, and the greater the capacity to squash alternative viewpoints.

The media is always keen to pick up on examples. This one makes me smile but is also a tad worrying. 9 firemen who refused to hand out leaflets at a Gay pride march sent for diversity training . How long before every school, business and institution will have its own political attaché? Phone lines set up to report incorrect social attitudes? Re-education programmes initiated. Careers put on hold unless one toes the party line.

Actually - though done with soft gloves this is already happening. Maybe this is right. Maybe it is the way it should be. But if your job or income currently depends on Government it simply does not pay to think about these issues, let alone openly doubt them.

[Goose]

Question: Should religion be allowed an opt out of legislation due to conscience?

My gut reaction to this is yes, they should. We have laws about discrimination based on religious belief. Should the Catholic Church be forced to hire a Buddhist who is otherwise qualified to read mass, perform weddings, baptisms and funerals? It seems absurd.

But then I think that there is a difficulty about where to draw the line. Should an overtly racist religion be permitted? We already have a number of overtly sexist ones. What about criminal law? Should religion get a by on that?

So, in the end, I think that the law should apply equally to all organizations regardless of religion or non-religion.

I think the law is always a bit of a balancing act. One groups freedoms offset another groups rights. However I worry where this legislation is taken us.

Previously the Catholic adoptions agencies were bound by just the same legislation as the rest of us. They would have to treat Gay adoptions enquiries within the law, which meant they would pass the enquiry on to agencies that dealt with Gay adoptions. This seems a pretty sensible arrangement to me. One that should not offend anyone. But the new legislation insists that the Catholic/Christian agencies can no longer just pass the enquiry over, they have to handle it themselves.

To me this doesn’t sound like equality for Gays but a concerted effort to stamp out any inkling of anti Gay sentiment. And I think there is a subtle difference of a concerted effort to create equality, and an ideology of intolerance hiding behind that effort. Ideology of intolerance? Well I think the more social or liberal the philosophy, the greater the tendency to see ones philosophy as morally superior to the alternatives, and the greater the capacity to squash alternative viewpoints.

The media is always keen to pick up on examples. This one makes me smile but is also a tad worrying. 9 firemen who refused to hand out leaflets at a Gay pride march sent for diversity training . How long before every school, business and institution will have its own political attaché? Phone lines set up to report incorrect social attitudes? Re-education programmes initiated. Careers put on hold unless one toes the party line.

Actually - though done with soft gloves this is already happening. Maybe this is right. Maybe it is the way it should be. But if your job or income currently depends on Government it simply does not pay to think about these issues, let alone openly doubt them.

Didn't the RC Church raise the issue of funding? If the RC is publicly funded (or the majority of funding is public) then I agree that they should welcome ALL applicants. However, I believe the RC in this situation is privately funded (or at least the majority of their funding is private, presumably from RCs, though I could be mistaken). So in a sense I think they have a strong point. If they are being funded by individuals that presumably have a particular world view, then in good conscience, the RC adoption agencies should have the option to uphold the world view of those contributors IMHO. Bit of a sticky situation. The real loser of course will be the children if the RC and C of E shut their doors.

[McCulloch]

Here is another event related to this issue.

The parents, both Jehovah's Witnesses, argue the province had no right to step in against their wishes to take temporary custody of three of their four surviving sextuplets.

B.C.'s director of child protection seized one child on a Jan. 26 order under provincial child-care legislation. An order for a second child was sought the following day and a third on Monday.

Two blood transfusions were done, and the babies were returned to the custody of their parents on Wednesday.

The couple says their constitutional rights were disregarded because, as Jehovah's Witnesses, they oppose any treatment involving blood transfusions.

Should the parents of, as yet, unbelieving children be allowed to bypass the laws requiring them to provide life saving medical treatment? Does religion in this case as well as the case of adoption discrimination, give people and organizations the right to by-pass the law?

[Goose]

Here is another event related to this issue.

The parents, both Jehovah's Witnesses, argue the province had no right to step in against their wishes to take temporary custody of three of their four surviving sextuplets.

B.C.'s director of child protection seized one child on a Jan. 26 order under provincial child-care legislation. An order for a second child was sought the following day and a third on Monday.

Two blood transfusions were done, and the babies were returned to the custody of their parents on Wednesday.

The couple says their constitutional rights were disregarded because, as Jehovah's Witnesses, they oppose any treatment involving blood transfusions.

Should the parents of, as yet, unbelieving children be allowed to bypass the laws requiring them to provide life saving medical treatment? Does religion in this case as well as the case of adoption discrimination, give people and organizations the right to by-pass the law?

A little off topic, but here's the irony. The babies were born 15 weeks pre-mature. Full term is around 40 weeks. So they were born around the 25th week give or take.

Most abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy—the first trimester. A few doctors in BC do abortions on request up to about 20 weeks. Most later abortions must be done in a hospital, although the CARE Program (604-875-2022) does abortions up to 18 weeks. Abortions are also available after 20 weeks in the rare event that your life or health becomes seriously threatened by the pregnancy, or in cases of serious fetal abnormality.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canad ... o/bc.shtml

But then there are quotes like this in the article from representatives of the BC government:

B.C. Minister of Children and Family Development Tom Christensen made it clear that regardless of a family's religious affiliation, "the obligation is to ensure that a child in need of protection … gets the treatment required," even if that means the ministry must step in.

A little hypocritical from a government that would have happily authorized the abortion of these babies only a few weeks prior to their birth.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Goose

....in good conscience, the RC adoption agencies should have the option to uphold the world view of those contributors IMHO.

Well I think that is the point of the legislation. The world view of these contributors is being outlawed in the UK. If they were to print a pamphlet stating Gays should not be allowed to adopt they would face arrest. If hey were to read allowed the anti Gay sections of the Bible in public they would also face the possibility of arrest. Don't even think of approaching a government adoption agency if you admit to being a christian who Believes homosexuality is sinful.

Now I'm an atheist. I don't believe homosexuality is sinful. I believe gay people deserve to live a full and active life free from discrimination. I don't believe Gay should not be allowed to adopt. However I do think a mum and a dad are preferable. If you have two equally loving homes, one heterosexual and one gay then I would place the child with the heterosexuals. If I ran an adoption agency and put that in writing I would now be breaking the law.

[Goose]

Hi Goose

Well I think that is the point of the legislation. The world view of these contributors is being outlawed in the UK.

Hi FB, don't think you and I have chatted before.

It seems then the real issue is not that the Gay community wants access to RC adoption agencies but they really see this as another opportunity to point toward what they perceive as gay discrimination in the church. It seems more a matter of principle than practicality on the part of the Gay community. I'm not RC, but their point, I believe, is that a gay couple could "go down the street" to the next adoption agency, which makes sense to a degree. If the RC adoption agencies were the only option, I could see a problem with this of course. However, with the issue of funding, I think the RC has good reason to hold their position.

In a sense I understand the desire for acceptance and removal of discrimination. I wouldn't want to be discriminated against simply for being a Christian. But, I also wouldn't want to apply to a gay-sponsored adoption agency, being a Christian, if there was another option for me to pursue.

Incidentally, I'm a Canadian living in the UK, so I've been following this, though not very closely. I wonder how it will end?

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Goose

Well I think that is the point of the legislation. The world view of these contributors is being outlawed in the UK.

Hi FB, don't think you and I have chatted before.

It seems then the real issue is not that the Gay community wants access to RC adoption agencies but they really see this as another opportunity to point toward what they perceive as gay discrimination in the church. It seems more a matter of principle than practicality on the part of the Gay community. I'm not RC, but their point, I believe, is that a gay couple could "go down the street" to the next adoption agency, which makes sense to a degree. If the RC adoption agencies were the only option, I could see a problem with this of course. However, with the issue of funding, I think the RC has good reason to hold their position.

In a sense I understand the desire for acceptance and removal of discrimination. I wouldn't want to be discriminated against simply for being a Christian. But, I also wouldn't want to apply to a gay-sponsored adoption agency, being a Christian, if there was another option for me to pursue.

Incidentally, I'm a Canadian living in the UK, so I've been following this, though not very closely. I wonder how it will end?

I think the funding was just one argument tried by the church. As I understand it, previously the RC church could not just turn Gays away per se, they had an obligation to refer them to alternative agencies.

How will it turn out? Well either the RC will close down its agencies or it will be forced to process Gay adoptions. Though in reality I don't think many Gays will be using them.

Footnote: I read in my paper this morning that a Gay Hotel may also be forced to close under the new legislation. The hotel in question only serves Gay customers as policy. This too will be illegal. So it is a two way street.