Ruth Kelly, adoption and gay rights
Unfortunately, the front cover of today’s Independent on Sunday comes as no surprise. I bumped into some LCLGR comrades last week, and they mentioned that the issue most likely to derail full implementation of anti-discrimination law for lesbian and gay people in the provision of goods, facilities and services was forcing Catholic adoption agencies to take gay couples onto their books.
The plan was for the issue to be put to bed by ministers early last week, but as the Sindy reports, that’s clearly not happened. It’s odd to say it, but thank goodness for the rearguard action being fought by Alan Johnson amongst others. I wrote to Ms Kelly early last week about this - am furious that I even had to do that much. I’m sure Ruth Kelly is a competent minister, but for heaven’s sake, will someone take the equality brief off her? I just don’t trust her on women’s equality, or lesbian and gay equality, at all anymore. It’s an issue that’s so easy to get right; why is she making such a meal of it?
It’s never good if the minister doesn’t actually believe in what they are doing both for the party and the minister.
This should not be seen as an excuse to set up a special department for catholic sects.
I’m a little confused by this, Antionia. Is the purpose of a Catholic adoption agency to place children with good Catholic families, to place children of Catholics for adoption with anyone, or to place anyone’s children for adoption by anyone else, and the agency happens to be run by some nuns?
If it’s the first option, I would have thought that it was self-evident that a same-sex couple cannot be Catholics in good standing. If one believes the Pope (which in terms of defining what is and what isn’t Catholic, we must), a Catholic same-sex couple are flagrant and unrepentant sinners, and so obviously not suitable to provide a Catholic upbringing for a child.
Do I understand, therefore, that a Catholic adoption agency is somehting other than an agency seeking to place children into Catholic homes?
Sam,
I’d rather thought that a Catholic adoption agency was an agency run by Catholics for the purpose of advancing social justice through helping children find new families to love them. I don’t in any way see how this is incompatible with the new regulations.
Ruth Kelly shouldn’t have the equalities brief because the equalities minister has got to really advance the cause of what they are doing.
On the news they were saying without the exemptions the Roman Catholic adoption agency may have to shut down. It’ll be interesting to see where that one goes.
Why should Catholic adoption agencies by forced to accept gay couples on their roll when such practices go again their faith? Would be so aggressive to Islamic adoption agencies do the same? Would approve the Labour party being forced to accept serving members of the Tory party into your ranks.
Your intolorant millitant secularism would do Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot proud.
I agree with what the others have been saying about Ruth Kelly. I doubt a more unsuitable candidate for the portfolio from the government benches could be found.
I’m not secular, I am a Christian.
If the Roman Catholic adoption agency were just offering their services to catholics then I wouldn’t have a problem. However they are there to serve the public so shouldn’t be exempt from any rules that everyone else has to abide by.
If the Roman Catholic adoption agency were just offering their services to catholics then I wouldn’t have a problem.
If it’s Catholic organisation, then it is obviously only going to cater to Catholics, duh!
However they are there to serve the public so shouldn’t be exempt from any rules that everyone else has to abide by.
I thought that their primary and overriding concern and duty is to serve God (remember Him?) as best they can according to their own understanding of Him and His commandments.
Well the new laws are for internal doctrinal matters not services offered to the public.
And before you start taking the moral high ground their main concern is to offer kids a loving and caring enviroment.
Their main concern is serving God before anyone or anything else, and if you disagree with that, then you are not a real Christian because you have reject Jesus’ commandment.
[...] It’s blackmail, and puts the government into a horrible position. It’s all very well my and other secularists saying that in the long term it’s better for everyone, as well as being morally correct, but that doesn’t help the kids in the system now who would be negatively impacted. It’s hard to believe that the Catholic Church’s apparent obsession with harmless sex trumps their concern for children’s welfare, but if they follow through with the threats it seems to be a logical conclusion. Ophelia and Antonia are worth reading. Harry’s Place have a piece on a Muslim police officer refusing to have body contact with male colleagues that touches on similar issues: People must realise that while it is fine to hold beliefs that restrict their behaviour, it is not up to the rest of society to accom[m]odate those self-imposed restrictions. If you want to limit your range of action and interaction, then you have to accept that [there] are consequences for yourself that you cannot transfer to other people. [...]
I’m not that strong a christian, no, that is true. I see myself as being British first and christian second whereas the rest of my family are Christian first and British second.
Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you dress it up. Any adoption agency is there to provide a public service.
Antonia,
I finally got off my arse and found Google.
It seems as though Catholic Care claim to:
1. Place children of Catholics for adoption in Catholic families.
2. Place non-Catholic children for adoption with couples and single people of any religion of none.
It would seem that a gay couple would be automatically excluded from (1). There would seem to be no good reason to exclude an otherwise suitable gay couple from (2).
These agencies operate under British law not religious doctrines. They cannot pick and choose which elements of the law to recognise or believe apply to them. If they feel that they are unable to operate under the new law then they should close or face the consequences that their decison to flout the law brings. The primacy of law is clear and if opt-outs are allowed for certain segments based on so-called moral objections chaos would ensue. Not only because the same arguments could be made about the provision of services to any other group that religious groups object to - women who have had abortions, adulterers the list goes on.
If your nationality comes before your faith, then you have warped priorities (and that is coming from some who is proud to be British).
it is not an issue of nationality it is an issue of the primaacy of law and the requirement for everyone to be equal before the law.
“It seems as though Catholic Care claim to:
1. Place children of Catholics for adoption in Catholic families.
”
Maybe if they were allowed to use condoms there wouldn’t be so many Catholic children up for adoption in the first place…
I have no problem with the majority forcing their tolerance on a homophobic minority. Freedom of conscience shouldn’t extend to being allowed to act homophobically any more than freedom of speech should extend to printing racist cartoons.
Religions shouldn’t be able to run adoptive services any more than they should be able to run schools.
The Western church likes to feel persecuted. The Exeter CU thing is another case in point. If you can convince yourself you’re under attack it’s easier to ignore injustice elsewhere.
For more ranting on this topic: http://provisionalbbc.blogspot.com/2007/01/bnp-seeks-exemption-from-new-equality.html
In fairness to Antonia, I don’t see any evidence of militant secularism in her posts on this topic. She has been admirably restrained and fair-minded even though this is a subject on which she must have the most deeply-felt and noble convictions.
I can’t be the only one to feel conflicted about this. The right of conscience versus the right of people not to be discriminated against, its a truly impossible clash.
This clash, however, is not made any easier by wishing away key doctrinal sticking points on both sides.
For myself, I think it unreasonable, indeed absurd, to expect a Catholic, or any other faith organisation, to disregard their doctrinal guidelines.
Equally, gay people cannot be expected to accept second class treatment.
I fear there is no way around this, though I hope some compromise, acceptable to both sides, can be found. I’m not confident.
The likelihood is that an important principle of equal rights will be won at the price of agencies doing good work with the most vulnerable children.
Though it may be difficult, let’s try to be sensitive to the concerns of both sides on this one.
I found it interesting last night (Newsnight - thank you Jeremy) when the Catholic Church admitted that their agencies do assess and put forward single people, and more interestingly single gay people, as suitable to adopt children. Now if this is truly about the family and maintaining religious doctrines (instead of naked intolerance) then I am unclear how they can justify the above.
Helen A:
The justification for this seemingly contradictory position lies in a truly spectacular piece of doublethink used by many churches, not just the Catholics.
The ‘reasoning’, if you can call it that, is that because the very few presumed biblical references to homosexuality refer specifically to sexual practices and not to generality of homosexuality, this allows them adopt a position in which its’ okay to be gay, but only as long you don’t have sex.
So a single gay person may get through their vetting either by omission (being single they don’t ask about the sex life) or on the basis of an exressed commitment to celibacy, but a gay couple would not be accepted because, being a couple, it would be assumed that their relationship has a physical component to it.
All complete rubbish, of course, but seemingly enough to convince themselves that they’re not really prejudiced, they’re just being moral.
I have no problem at all with Gay adoption of children, in fact I have a gay cousin who’s been with his partner for 16 years and they would make excellent parents.
However, Gay adopters should be as vigerously checked as their gay counterparts.
In Antonia’s case she should certainly not be allowed to adopt. The depth of her anti-male sentiment and regrettably expressed views on this site:
“in a world where women are overwhelmingly more likely to be paid less, be victims of violence and have no or little political power, I’m not sure that cries of sexism against men have much weight.”
say clearly to me that Antonia could not provide a balanced environment for a child of either sex.
Martyn:
I couldn’t say whether Antonia has ever give adoption much thought, never having enquired into her personal life, but I am absolutely sure that I’ve never seen her post anything that warrants such a small-minded ad-hominem attack on her as a person.
Her political opinions on other matters are simply not at issue here.
I should say that I have no intention of inquiring into her personal life either, as its got absolutely screw-all to do with me - a lesson seemingly lost on Martyn.
I don’t regard statements on this website with respect to men as political views.
The quote in my original statement from Antonia that men’s calls for equality should not carry any weight as there is not yet complete equality for women is disgusting.
I regard the statements with respect to domestic violence on this site as a personal attack on me and they’re wrong, not all men commit domestic violence, only a small minority and they should be dealt with.
I totally stand behind the statements in my previous message. Any suitable adult should be able to adopt regardless of sexuality, but anyone who displays overt mysogyny, mysandry, racism etc. etc. should be removed from the list.
I believe that Antonia has shown deep mysandry in her statements on this site.
Martyn:
1. As I said earlier, there is nothing in this particular post to either warrant or justify an ad-hominem attack on Antonia.
2. Your sanctimonius attitude might have held a little more water had it not been quite so easy to find out that you have an ongoing personal issue over child access, and that, I’m afraid rather recasts your remarks into a different context.
The comments box of a blog is not the right venue for you to air your personal grievances by transferring them to someone you’ve never met and who’s stated views and opinions have no bearing whatsoever on your personal situation.
Unity
My comments are not an ad hominem attack as I do not with to undermine the argument.
As it happens my views are in accord with those expressed here that gay couples should absolutely have the right to adopt and if a child is up for adoption then the sexuality of prospective parents should be no barrier to a child entering a balanced and loving environments.
It is true to believe that I came across this website whilst looking at opinions with respect to fathers rights. However, the issue of gay adoption does in no way form part of my personal issue, other than I should have the right to stop my child being put up for adoption if I am able to care for that child. At this time I do not have that right.
What I found here though I believe is appalling, as stated in my previous two posts.
On the matters in hand, Ruth Kelly in my opinion, is the wrong person in the wrong job, her strong religious beliefs should preclude her any power with respect to gay rights. Her beliefs are prejudicial to her role, simple as that.
I believe in gay adoption, but also believe that the sorts of views expressed on this site by Antonia with respect to men should be prejudicial to adoption of a child in this instance.
Believe what you wish and I will continue to do likewise.
As a Catholic and a gay man, personally I think this goes a lot deeper than people seem to think. At its most benign interpretation Catholicism has a problem with homosexual sexual acts because they “close the act to the transmission of new life”.
So, however, do the sexual acts of a medically sterile heterosexual couple. Such presumably make up quite a portion of those applying to be adoptive parents. The church can bang on about miracles being able to happen and quote the barren Sarah giving birth to Isaac at ninety-six after everyone had given up on her but they also reject most of the medical technology helping couples to conceive for themselves. I’d be interested to know whether heterosexual couples are rejected by Catholic adoption agencies if they have tried such things that the church also condemns in the way of fertility treatments.
Anyway - to get to the nub of the issue, a sterile heterosexual couple is just as “imperfect”, sexually speaking, as a (sterile) homosexual couple. For centuries of course, it was grounds for the anullment of the marriage itself. To admit such would threaten the very basis of the teachings on homosexuality in my opinion.
That they are not ready to do for themselves, so anything that forces them to confront it is welcome in my opinion (as a militant liberal gay Catholic of course). To be willing and desirous to take on the care of a child is an act of creation in itself and, one hopes, of the utmost selflessness - of course they would not be serving the children’s interests well if they placed kids with couples, gay or straight, who appeared to want a “life accessory” rather than a lifetime of devotion to another human being.
im not sure what ur artilcle is saying but i dont think that any child should be adopted by gay parents not because im a catholic and believe its wroge im only 14 and havent made up my mind about things like that yet but, i think that a child hasd a right to be adopted but people dont always havre the right to addopt, is ahrd enough in life not to get bulled with parents of a diffrent sex and if they were the same in secondry school they will get slaughtered.
also men and women act very differently and thats what a child needs to see from there parents , say that 2 gay men have adopted a girl and a boy and the girl satarts her period or has other femin issues she needs a female figure to talk to , im struggling with my emotional changes and i have to normal parents i cant imagen coping if they were the same sex i dont think that i would be able to cope
There would be awful trouble if this was applied to Muslim agencies. Children also have the right to be brought up in normal conditions and while in some circumstances a gay couple may end up fostering a child I do think that they should not seek to adopt unless absolutely necessary. It is not a natural state for a child anywhere in the world and it’s avoidance would reduce the chances of “trophy” babies being adopted.