Anglicans back right to deny gay adoption

[Mike182]

Well, let's not forget who forced the Catholic agency's hand here.

huh whu? the pope? :areyoucra

 

[lunamoth]

huh whu? the pope? :areyoucra

I don't know the relationship between church and state in the UK, but in the US there are secular adoption agencies in addition to those run by churches, so there are options for gay couples who wish to adopt. If no one decides to push a law that Catholic agencies can not abide by, then there would be no reason for Catholic agenices to stop providing adoption services.

Now, if the Catholic agencies are getting funding from the government for providing these services...that's a different story.

 

[Booko]

I don't know the relationship between church and state in the UK, but in the US there are secular adoption agencies in addition to those run by churches, so there are options for gay couples who wish to adopt. If no one decides to push a law that Catholic agencies can not abide by, then there would be no reason for Catholic agenices to stop providing adoption services.

Yes, that's my take on the legal situation here as well.

The problems of gay couples I know here trying to adopt has not been so much finding children they want to adopt (though there is *some* of that certainly) but finding somewhere that would allow the adoption in the first place. I know two gay couples who had to adopt in my county, because the courts will allow it, though they live in a neighboring county that doesn't allow it.

Now, if the Catholic agencies are getting funding from the government for providing these services...that's a different story.

Oh yeah, then no question. If they take gov't money, they have to play by gov't rules.

 

[Mike182]

I don't know the relationship between church and state in the UK, but in the US there are secular adoption agencies in addition to those run by churches, so there are options for gay couples who wish to adopt. If no one decides to push a law that Catholic agencies can not abide by, then there would be no reason for Catholic agenices to stop providing adoption services.

Now, if the Catholic agencies are getting funding from the government for providing these services...that's a different story.

but other private services have to live up to government set standards. the private health care sector for one example - independant from the state, but still has to adhere to certain guidelines. why should private religious organisations be different?

 

[Mike182]

but other private services have to live up to government set standards. the private health care sector for one example - independant from the state, but still has to adhere to certain guidelines. why should private religious organisations be different?

sorry, that's a bad example - the private health sector does get some funding from the NHS...

 

[James the Persian]

I am sorry you feel that way, James, but you are right for being true to what you believe to be right, and what is wrong..........

Actually, I'm just impressed that there are Anglican bishops who are willing to stand up to this government (remember that the Church of England is to a large degree government controlled) and that they are willing to oppose yet more nanny state legislation of morality. As I explained to Fluffy in another thread, I oppose that approach with every fibre of my being. Note that they did not say that they supported the RC stance on hoimosexuality, merely that it was wrong of the government to legislate conscience. I agree wholeheartedly, which must be a first where Anglican clergy are concerned.

Now, personally, I do agree that the RCs and any other religious organisation should be exempt from laws which violate their freedom of conscience and so I would support them even more than the Anglicans in question have done. I have not, however, made my position on the issue of homosexual adoption public at all, mainly because I do not have a clear one. On the one hand I would, in general, not be in favour but, on the other hand, it's the child's welfare which is of paramount importance and if a homosexual couple is better than the alternative, then they should be allowed for the sakes of the child.

My cheering of Anglican bishops growing a backbone here is indicative that I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of freedom of conscience and shouldn't be construed as a position in support of discrimination against homosexuals (though I think the 'rights' that adults have to adopt whatever their sexuality are zero - the child has rights to decent parents, not the other way around and I find casting the issue in terms of a right to adopt utterly distasteful).

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It seems that the Government has to day decided to remove any let outs for catholic's and others.
The grounds being, that discrimination laws are national laws and cover every one equally with out exception.

However the law must pass the house of commons vote... and more difficult, the house of Lords, which is much more traditional in its thinking.

So there is still a long way to go.

I agree with the government that discrimination against gays must be absolute, as you can't have laws that allow "just a little bit of discrimination" to just a few select people.
Lawyers just love that sort of law, it makes them very rich.

 

[michel]

An Update;http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2183856.ece

Blair pledge to resolve gay adoption row

PA

Published: 25 January 2007



The Government will bring forward proposals to resolve the dispute over adoption by gay couples next week, Prime Minister Tony Blair said today.





Reports today suggested that Mr Blair had "caved in" to Cabinet colleagues who do not want to see any exemption for Catholic adoption agencies from new regulations which will require them to offer babies to same-sex couples.

But in a statement released by 10 Downing Street today, Mr Blair said the issue remains to be resolved.

He said he will work to find a solution that ends discrimination against gays and also ensures the protection of vulnerable children receiving help with adoption and after-care from Catholic agencies.
Mr Blair said: "There is one last aspect within the new regulations to resolve and it concerns adoption.
"I have always personally been in favour of the right of gay couples to adopt.

"Our priority will always be the welfare of the child."

He added: "Both gay couples and the Catholic agencies have a high level of success in adopting hard-to-place children. It is for that reason we have taken time to ensure we get these regulations right.
"How do we protect the principle of ending discrimination against gay people and at the same time protect those vulnerable children who at the present time are being placed through, and after-care provided by, Catholic agencies, who everyone accepts do a great job with some of the most disturbed youngsters.
"We will announce a decision next week and then vote, probably next month.
"I am committed to finding a way through this sensitive and difficult decision."




The new regulations introduced by last year's Equality Act are due to come into force on April 6 and will make it illegal to discriminate against gay people in the provision of goods and services. They must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before coming into force.
The leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor - backed by his Scottish bishops and Church of England leaders - has called for Catholic adoption agencies to be granted an exemption.
He was accused of blackmail after warning that the agencies, which handle around a third of voluntary sector adoptions, could be forced to close because they would refuse to hand over babies to homosexual couples.
Mr Blair and community Secretary Ruth Kelly were reported to back the exemption but have faced public resistance to it from cabinet colleagues including Lord Falconer, Peter Hain and Alan Johnson.
Unconfirmed reports suggested last night that the opponents of a Catholic exemption had secured agreement from Mr Blair that the church agencies would instead be offered a limited transition period before being required to comply with the anti-discrimination law. Mr Blair's official spokesman this morning declined to say whether such a compromise had been reached.
The issue was not discussed at Cabinet this morning, he added.
The spokesman said that a key issue in discussions was the aftercare provided by Catholic agencies to adoptive parents to help them deal with the demands of raising disabled or disturbed children.
That care did not cease after a matter of weeks but continued for some time, and the Prime Minister was eager to ensure that it was not suddenly cut off by any change in the law, explained the spokesman.
"When you are dealing with hard-case kids, you do need to ensure that the aftercare continues," he said. "There is a body of expertise which has been built up which the Prime Minister is very, very keen not to see dissipated."
The spokesman declined to comment on whether the PM had "caved in" to opponents within the cabinet.
He added: "He hopes that we achieve consensus which achieves the two objectives we have set out - that we get an end to discrimination and that these children get the help they need."

 

[lunamoth]

He was accused of blackmail after warning that the agencies, which handle around a third of voluntary sector adoptions, could be forced to close because they would refuse to hand over babies to homosexual couples.

I find this a highly offensive manner of referring to adopted children. If the Catholic leader in England really said this...I am appalled.

That care did not cease after a matter of weeks but continued for some time, and the Prime Minister was eager to ensure that it was not suddenly cut off by any change in the law, explained the spokesman.

"When you are dealing with hard-case kids, you do need to ensure that the aftercare continues," he said. "There is a body of expertise which has been built up which the Prime Minister is very, very keen not to see dissipated."

This follow-up aftercare is extremely improtant. If the Catholic agencies actually have said that they would suddenly stop this care if the law is passed, that does amount to blackmail and is reprehensible.

They really need to go check their Bible about healing on the Sabbath.

Disgusted,
luna

 

[Booko]

This follow-up aftercare is extremely improtant. If the Catholic agencies actually have said that they would suddenly stop this care if the law is passed, that does amount to blackmail and is reprehensible.

Yes, I don't understand why aftercare for children who have already been placed (with hetero couples, presumably) would be at issue as a matter of conscience.

edit: Hm. Although, if part of aftercare means they may have to remove some children and place them with new families, that might be problematic.

 

[Mister Emu]

Is the aftercare provided at the same facilities as the adoptions?

 

[lunamoth]

Is the aftercare provided at the same facilities as the adoptions?

I don't know in this case, but what it usually means is several visits to the home by social workers and other support specialists to make sure that the family is adjusting well and that nothing abusive is going on. These may or may not be social workers who have been involved in the adoption placement all along, so there is likely an issue of trust and familiarity with the family at stake should these workers change.

 

[michel]

I don't know in this case, but what it usually means is several visits to the home by social workers and other support specialists to make sure that the family is adjusting well and that nothing abusive is going on. These may or may not be social workers who have been involved in the adoption placement all along, so there is likely an issue of trust and familiarity with the family at stake should these workers change.

That is how it works; there is plenty of follow through.

 

[lunamoth]

That is how it works; there is plenty of follow through.

Yes, that is how it is here too.