What is in Kelvin's Head?

Tell the PM

The news is full this morning of the story that a prominent cleric has written to the government threatening to close adoption agencies if the government proceeds with its perverse idea that everyone in the UK should be treated equally. So, unless the government does what he wants, he will take actions which will cause harm to children. This seems to me to be a curious moral position to adopt.

Anyway, with all that in the air, why not consider signing the petition to T Blair urging him to prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities on the grounds of sexual orientation for the remainder of the UK at the earliest point possible.

I’ve signed it. You can do so here:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/GSFRegs/

Comments

20 responses to “Tell the PM”

  1. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Tom, thank you for your reply.

    I’m struggling a bit to understand how a moral comparison can be made between a straight couple who choose to be unmarried and a gay couple of undisclosed legal status. The government has worked hard to give gay couples the option of a legal status which has very similar protection in law and very similar responsibilities under the law as marriage. I can see the argument that if Catholic agencies are allowed to say no to unmarried heterosexual couples then logically they should be allowed to say no to an “uncivil-partnered” gay couple. However, that does not seem to be what is requested by the archbishops.

    The argument that conscience cannot be overruled by law, seems to me to be an odd one. Doesn’t civil society depend utterly on the notion that we are free within the boundaries of legal restriction? One justification for such legal restraint is that it is a way of limiting some freedoms for the greater good and protecting other aspects of liberty. As such, isn’t every law an attempt to overrule someone’s conscience?

    I would argue that there may be events which a person can only respond to in conscience, by breaking law, but then that person has no choice but to bear the consequences of that too.

    Reply
  2. Roddy Avatar
    Roddy

    Erm, this is a bit tricky but here goes. I think I’m probably one of the few people who have had experience of dealing with adoption agencies.

    My wife and I are trying to adopt as we have tried and failed to have children ourselves. The hoops that we have to jump through are considerable in number and there to ensure we are suitable to adopt. We’re nowhere near the end yet. Conversely any couple who are biologically able to have children can have and keep them with less strict standards in place as to what you have to provide in terms of support and care to a child.

    My point? With the level of scrutiny of potential adoptive parents, either single or couples, gay or straight, that currently exists, you are highly unlikely to be accepted as an adoptive parent if you have any of the mental, physical or committment problems that many biological parents have. So can we please get away from the notion that a heterosexual married couple is the only environment in which to bring up children. It’s not, and I’ve had enough experience as a medical professional to tell you it’s not. Adoption by anyone, if suitable, is considerably better than non-adoption just because the adoptee/s don’t fit the ‘normal’ model.

    Finally, I don’t take Cardinal Murphy- O’Connor talking about child rearing and adoption very seriously given he’s a senior celibate priest who appears to have done a fine job in covering up child abuse by priests in his diocese when Bishop of Arundel.

    Reply
  4. zebadee Avatar
    zebadee

    As the parent of an adoptive daughter who now has children of her own, who we love deeply, and also having an adoptive sister it does seem to me that the RC and CofE are as usual using events to support their unsupportable position.

    What matters is the child, always.

    The govenment in my opinion regarding this matter is totally correct and I pray that they will not give way on this matter.
    Sadly I expect nothing less than another capitulation to vested interests.

    Reply
  5. Tom Allen Avatar
    Tom Allen

    Kevin – I surmise that the Cardinal and the Archbishops would disagree with your first paragraph about gay people in civil partnerships being “married” – not least because when the Church leaders raised questions about the civil partnership legislation being equal to marriage they were categorically assured by the Government (March 2005) that is was legally quite different. NO they said it is not marriage – even to the extent that if a person has been in a civil partnership (which need be a same sex parthership) which is dissolved and then chooses to get married they are not regarded as having been “divourced” for marriage purposes. So logically the Catholic Church is saying that a civil partnership is outside marriage, and they are supported by the government in that. So the issues are not just about anti-gay attitudes in the Church – indeed some English Catholic dioceses are remarkabl liberal on such matters. As regards law and conscience – well look at abortion law and doctors roles, look at military law and pacifist conscience, look at solicitors regulations and conscience, as John Sentamu ( a lawyer and former judge himself) has said conscience does play a part in the “formation” of good law. There is more too the issues than the possible homophobic dimension.

    Reply
  6. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    I’ve spent a while pondering this today with a friend. While obviously I’d agree that discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is undesirable, I would also question whether those who lag behind should be pressured into changing their behaviour through legislation at this particular time. Amongst other things, it reinforces the government’s “permission” to force issues of morality down people’s throats which I find at least as objectionable as discrimination in general.

    There are multiple angles to consider, as always: the church is one amongst several groups affected by this (with wedding photographers worried about having to invent lies about availability instead of just saying no, for example); in a contest between morality and legislation, actually I consider morals to win every time as the law is a human construct; and a *complete* examination of the subsequent nature of society if it goes ahead.
    So for me, the questions are 1) do we actually *need* this law, ie is there a problem that is not adequately covered by existing legislation? 2) is it based on representing the population or trying to change it? 3) is it precise to deal with offenders but not to inconvenience the masses? 4) are there no alternatives? After all, the government manages to lecture people through advertisements about their health, or lack of, concerning alcohol and tobacco products; might advertising not help here too?

    Reply
  7. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    Kelvin-

    By ‘pseudo-parents’ I meant ‘adoptive parents’ as opposed to biological parents.

    This has been an extremely interesting thread, and I’m glad I don’t have to take one position or the other. I see very clearly the arguments for both sides.

    Andrew

    Reply
  8. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Tim, Morality and Law do not seem to me to be things in opposition. I’m puzzled that you think law a human construct but not morality.

    Generally speaking, human rights issues have tended need the reinforcement of law.

    Tom Allen is quite right in saying that the Catholic Church and not recognise Civil Partnership as marriage, and that the government maintained all along that it was not. However, the paradoxes of the position of the church leaders are extreme. How is it that the Roman Catholic Adoption Agencies have been able to work in a legal framework that allowed single gay people to adopt? It also seems very odd to me that any church can be opposed to a gay couple adopting on doctrinal grounds whilst being willing to assess atheist straight couples. And I still don’t understand the intervention of the 2 English Anglican Archbishops when the Church of England’s adoption agency has been able to place children with gay couples for some time.

    I would still disagree that the proposition that two people of the same gender offering to bring up a child has a moral congruence either to abortion or war.

    Reply
  9. What’s in Kelvin’s Head » Hand-holding

    […] The Lords has passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations which will come into effect in April in Scotland. I’ve already written a lot about the attitude of certain religious adoption agencies to these, and I will not repeat that now. […]

    Reply
Older Comments
1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *