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:
Among the many job application forms I have been filling out recently, I had one (using ticky boxes) asking for my sex and sexual orientation or a box to refuse the information. I have never refused info before on such forms but this really annoyed me. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the job requirements. It could have been for non-discriminatory purposes but not a question I’ve come across before.
Where’s the story–if you’re talking about Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, I heard he said that the adoption agencies had a policy to refer gay couples elsewhere. I didn’t realise they would close.
Personally, I’m not sure I would want gay parents–think of the ribbing at school!
Story at this link and elsewhere
Thanks, Kelvin.
whatever the arguments are on the various side re. this subject, it is concerning that children are being used as pawns in yet another political game.
There is very little mention on how they could be affected or how they could benefit.
They are not posessions to be bantered over, but beautiful human beings. Their right is to be brought up in a loving, caring, environment.
While I disagree with the RC position, I cannot believe how Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has been so badly misrepresented by his fellow Christians and sadly Kevin you have joined the latter group.
He quite specifically said that the RC Church will not “wilfully close” the adoption agencies, but he also has said that the Church cannot in conscience accept government funding (78% of their total nationally) if it is conditionally on placing children with couples outside marriage – a policy that currently applies across the board with Catholic agencies (and therefore applies to an unmarried heterosexual couple).
The Government’s clumsy SOR legislation will require them to breach this principle (which has been accepted for many decades by previous governments) but only with regard to gay or lesbian couples while continuing to accept that they do not place children with unmarried hetersexual couples – where is the government’s consistency in that!!.
Without the money there is no way that the agencies can continue and therefore some may have to close at least in the short term. Even if the Church could find the money there would remain the question of whether they could be licensed as an adoption agency under the legistlation. That is why the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Church of England Bishops have called for a change in the legistlative framework. PS I signed the petition some days ago!
This is a complicated question, and has little to do with either discrimination or religion.
On one hand, it is widely accepted that the best environment for children to grow up is one where they have close contact with two role models, one of each sex. A child placed with two women, who might be excellent pseudo-parents, still misses out by not having a father.
On the other hand, is it not better for a child to be with a loving couple, of whatever sort, rather than being left in an orphanage?
So I think that homosexual couples should not be barred, absolutely, from adoption; but suitable heterosexual couples should get priority.
I won’t be signing the petition.
I agree with the last comment that this is a difficult issue. The notion that research has identified that the best solution to parenting is one male and one female parent is itself problematic. Firstly, one needs to consider how attachment and bonding occur within the triangle of two parents and one child. Whilst a baby and biological mother clearly have a process of mutual attachment, the process for the second parent is slightly more nuanced and relates more to ‘bonding’. At present the evidence for this relationship predominantly comes from heterosexual research because there just haven’t been the numbers of single sex couples with children to undertake a meaningful long term research study. So whilst we can bandy about the ‘research evidence’ let’s just remember that it is problematic.
Another issue is the extent to which the misrepresentation of senior male clerics in the press reflects what people actually believe SHOULD be the case, ie that these clerics, however, subtle, should be stating a firm line with respect to gay adoption. Who then has the responsibility to challenge the ‘shoulds’ of belief outside the intellectual heights of theology. Subtlety is all very well, but at the end of the day the issue does boil down to whether or not the Churches can manage to overcome their prurient involvement in people’s bedrooms as a way of expressing Christian truth. It is interesting to me that the RC Church has shifted its focus on homosexuality from the acts pertaining to this, to the identity of the individuals. Penentential literature of the period before the 18th Century was only interested in specific actions as sins with respect to hoosexuality. The shift because of the medicalisation of sexuality has enabled this focus to be abstracted and expanded to the whole person and their identity – this may seem a subtlety but I find it far more scary that my identity is at issue and in some way a sin.
So anyway Kelvin, good luck with your petition signing.
Many thanks to those who have commented. The letter in question can be found here.
In the interests of ecumenism, there is also a letter from the two English Anglican archbishops here
Tom, you helpfully point out that the funding of the adoption agencies come 78% from state funds. That focuses the question rather well I think. I would argue that the only criteria that can be applied when considering anyone for adoption are the best interests of the child. I don’t believe that anyone has a right to adopt a child. I do believe that people have a right to be treated equally when dealing with publicly funded agencies. What the government is suggesting, supported by a good many people, including some of those commenting here, is that there might be occasions in which the best interests of the child lie with adoption by a gay couple. I would argue that no government or public funding body should spend public money on adoption agencies that put their own doctrinal position above the consideration of what is in the best interests of the child.
In a way, it is similar to the arguments about Evangelical Christian Unions and Universities. I believe with a passion that people have every right to whatever opinion or view that they want. However, I don’t think that public money should be spent on groups who wish harm on other people. Thus, for example, I don’t think that a University is compelled to fund directly or indirectly (for example by providing space) groups which promote a racist agenda. What is being worked through at the moment is whether or not narrow “christian” groups who have an anti-gay agenda should receive support from the public purse to pursue their ends. I’d rather they didn’t, and I don’t think I’m alone.
Andrew, I wonder whether there is a danger of muddling up statistics with morals. After all, the family is statistically a most dangerous place to bring up a child, but few would argue that it is morally wrong.
It is children’s best interests that count for everything here. I don’t believe that any child’s best interests are served by speaking of gay parents as “pseudo-parents”.
But I don’t beleive it is an anti-gay agenda – it is a pro marriage agenda from the Catholic perspective. I think the Catholic Agencies argument is that they have a substantial track record of finding homes with married couples for many of the “most difficult to place children”. I know one family where three daughter had been available for adoption for 3 years with a local authority agency who specififally referred her to the Catholic Agency who found two potential parents in a matter of weeks. So the Catholic agencies can argue that they have a particular niche – that they are quite prepared to cross refer and work closely with other agencies. The pragmatic issue is being lost here to childrens’ cost – but it is not Catholic doctrine which has changed or is causing it. Conscience cannot be overuled by law which is why the Churches are exempted from employment and other law.I don’t actually think that all this fuss is helping the cause of gay peoples rights either – but again it is the Government which is causing it by their failure to draft regulations which takes into account these long standing issues. It is simply inconsistent to suggest that Catholic agencies can’t say no to gay couples but can continue to say no to unmarried heterosexual couples – but that is what the regulations will do.