The Catholic Gay Adoption Agency

[Saracen]

It has nothing to do with whatever political party you happen to support either.

Just to clarify .... my utter disdain for certain Labour political cretins should not be taken as implying that I have any less disdain for the cretins in any other party. I'm an equal opprtunity politican-hater.

My focus on labour cretins is because they're the bunch of power-seeking, self-serving hypocrits currently running the asylum. My disdain will switch to the incumbents immediately upon another flavour of crook getting elected, until such time as someone with both competence and morals gets elected ..... if the planet hasn't fallen onto the sun and exploded before that happens.

[JPreston]

....you fail to address how carrying a knife around in public doesn't disadvantage anybody else....

They don't actually carry knives though. They carry little symbolic keyring things, or wear a little badge shaped like a sword. But even supposing they all did - I'm sure there are a few nutcases among them - they still aren't allowed to wave it around or stab people (christians wear little crosses but they don't go around crucifying people either). So, sikhs aren't allowed to disadvantage anyone. In the way that christians now want to...

....And the Catholics aren't seeking to deny gays an adoption service. They DO refer them to other services. They just don't want to have to act against their own conscience...

Yeah, this week. And last week it was christian guesthouse proprietors not being able to refuse rooms to gay couples, and next week who knows what it will be. We should never exempt anyone from obeying the law. There's folk in Afghanistan for whom education of women is an action against their conscience, but even in Afghanistan they aren't actually allowed to kill all those primary school teachers. Should the UK really be a theocracy?

...Ironside? Care to explain that one?

The TV lawyer.

[iftiq]

It seems that in this rather spirited and altogether interesting discussion on the effects of the recently passed law making discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation illegal we have overlooked a somewhat fundamental question.

That is, specifically, should there be an anti-discrimination law at all? Or indeed is there a need for any anti-discrimination laws?

I ought to preface my answer with the fact that I have lived a rather privileged life and have yet to suffer any significant discrimination of any variety (apart from the occasionally overly overt observation at airport security).

I don't think there ought to be anti-discrimination laws that apply to private individuals or private organizations. It doesn't seem apparent to me that our society needs anti-discrimination laws. It seems that more and more we are edging over the very dangerous line of making laws against what is in people's heads- that is laws against thoughts (which are necessarily unobservable) rather than against actions. While the present anti-discrimination law does not go so far as to make homophobic tendencies illegal in themselves it does ban a great deal of privately homophobic action.

If we accept, as I imagine most people would, that homophobia is wrong, then it doesn't seem too far to accept that the state ought to ban displays of homophobia (ranging from the refusal of church authorities to place orphans in homosexual households to the shopkeeper refusing to sell goods to a person on the grounds that he is a homosexual). This however, is a mistake. The point of a free and liberal society is to ensure that all persons are equal in law not in reality. It would therefore be unconscionable for a judge or a court to be prejudiced against a person on the basis of his sexual orientation, but the same surely cannot apply to a purely private individual who chooses to enter into a purely voluntary and commercial contract with another individual. If I for example, refused to let my property to a person on the grounds that he is homosexual why should that be against the law? The lease of a property is (in the majority of modern cases not covered by the Rent Acts and similar legislation) a purely personal and private transaction. I ought to be allowed to let or not let my property to any person for any reason rational or irrational. Similarly a shopkeeper ought to be allowed to sell or not sell his products to any person he chooses and a landlady ought to be allowed to hire or not hire rooms to any person she wishes. The state should not be allowed to force us into contractual arrangements.

Clearly though I've done very little to add to the question of adoption and the Church of England. This is complicated by two intertwined factors. Firstly the Anglican church is the Church of England that is to say it is the established and state sponsored religion. So discrimination by the church on the basis of sexuality could very well be seen as discrimination by the state and therefore justifiably wrong. More importantly though, the Church and specifically its adoption agencies receive public funds. This fact also implies that the Church is functioning as a public rather than purely private organization. It seems then that the Church of England is faced with the difficult dilemma of either forgoing public funds and therefore being justified in acting in good conscience or accepting public money at the cost of its conscience.

From my point of view it seems a rather easy choice for a religious organization this is ostensibly motivated neither by profit nor social standing. It ought to refuse public funds and go private. Indeed perhaps if the Chancellor would be so generous as to deduct the amount of public money foregone by the Church from the general taxation bill he might find that private individuals willing to extend to the Church through private charity the very same or similar amount of funding.

[JPreston]

iftiq, you sir are clearly a very educated man to phrase a post in that way. You use yer tongue purdier than a $10 hooker!

You make some good points but I think also an error in:

...While the present anti-discrimination law does not go so far as to make homophobic tendencies illegal in themselves it does ban a great deal of privately homophobic action...

If I make some homophobic remarks in my house to my girlfriend with noone else present, you could argue that was privately homophobic action.

If I go to my publicly-funded work and refuse to serve gay members of the public, explaining to them that I am doing this purely because they are gay and I don't agree with that sort of thing, that is a very un-private homophobic action. It should definitely be illegal - not the prejudice, but the actual action.

[Saracen]

The TV lawyer.

Oh, I see. Sort of. Except he wasn't a lawyer, he was a detective, and ex-policeman.

They don't actually carry knives though. They carry little symbolic keyring things, or wear a little badge shaped like a sword. But even supposing they all did - I'm sure there are a few nutcases among them - they still aren't allowed to wave it around or stab people (christians wear little crosses but they don't go around crucifying people either). So, sikhs aren't allowed to disadvantage anyone. In the way that christians now want to...

Some do carry knives. A guy I used to work with certainly did, because he showed it to me when we talked about exactly this issue. Though given that most (perhaps all) will concede that the symbolic knife, or one sealed in the scabard to prevent removal, is sufficient to satisfy religious requirements, I see no justification at all (far less than that of housing vulnerable children) for making an exception. Yet the fact remains that the exception exists, and has for many years.

But I don't want to get hung up on Sikhs. My point wasn't anti-Sikh. It was just to make the specific point that, contrary to your assertion, exceptions on the basis of religious belief do exist and have for a long time. And it does disadvantage anyone else that wants to carry a knife but can't because they don't have a religious justification, and if any kirpans bring carried are real, then it emphatically diusadvantages others by having knives carried legally in public places that could be used, or taken away from their owners in a fight and used against them, or others.

Given the option to carry a legal symbolic knife, there is NO justification for that religious exception.

Oh, and on the crash helmet thing, what about the trauma to family members of someone killed because he was wearing a turban not a crash helmet? What about emergency services that have to attend, or potentially attend, dead bodies where the crashed biker may have lived if wearing a helmet? Again, why permit a religious exception in one case and not the other?

Remove eall religious exceptions from the statute books, by all means. In the meantime, put the KIDS first on the priority list.

Yeah, this week. And last week it was christian guesthouse proprietors not being able to refuse rooms to gay couples, and next week who knows what it will be. We should never exempt anyone from obeying the law. There's folk in Afghanistan for whom education of women is an action against their conscience, but even in Afghanistan they aren't actually allowed to kill all those primary school teachers. Should the UK really be a theocracy?

But I'm not talking about guesthouses, or Afghanistan. I'm talking specifically about adoption in the UK. Unless the government come up with a way of doing this that doesn't disadvantage already disadvantaged kids even further, then THEY are the ones that pay for the rest of us standing on our equality principles. If the government can replace services the Cathloics provide, and if they actually do so and proplerly fund it, then fine, force the Catholics out of the adoption business and we can all feel cosy about standing up for equality. But until then, put the kids first, even over the right of gay couples to use Catholic agencies when there are plenty of other agencies they can use.


Anyway, exceptions on religious basis :-

• The Sex Discrimination Act requires goods, services and facilities offered to the public to be done so without discrimination on basis of sex ..... except for some religious situations.
  
  
• the Gender Recognition Act provides privacy for "gender history" (i.e. sex changes) and makes unauthorised disclosure a general offence .... except for certain religious purposes, such as whether to officiate at a marriage or appont someone as a minister, etc
  
  
• The European Race and Employment Directives 2000 provides redress against discrimination, for example, on the basis of sex, except where a Genuine Occupational Requirement (GOR) exists, and one of those is in relation to religious ethos in some situations (such as employment in a temple of church)
  
  
• the Treaty of Amsterdam provides regulation on animal welfare .... while permitting wide lattitude for "religious rites"
  
  
• The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulation 2003 provide protection against discrimination on the basis of religious belief .... except for organisations based on a religious ethos, who can apply discrimiation based on religious belief, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
  
  
• plenty of case law suggests problems for employers trying to enforce company dress codes against the requirements of an employee's religion, such as Orthodox Jewish sects requirements for keeping their head covered or wearing black clothes, or the more recent issues over certain types of female muslim clothing ..... or BA staff wearing religious symbols. It's not a cut-and-dried situation (as per the BA case), but crossing religious requirememts is a minefield for any employer, and a wise one steers clear if possible.
  
  
• employers are expected to do anything reasonable and practical to respect employee's religious requirememts, such as the mirning and afternoon prayer obligations of muslims, and not doing so without very good reason causes trouble at employment tribunals

I have instutionalised examples of special legal treatment being given to religious groups and beliefs dating from 1855 to last year, and I'm sure I could find examples further back than 1855 if pushed.

So what was that again about not making exceptions for religious groups? I suggest it's rather closer to suggest that just about every piece of legislation in recent decades (and before) has made exceptions on religious grounds where reasonable and practical, or has at the very least borne religious beliefs in mind. Obviously, there's limits. There's no exceptions to laws on murder, for instance. But making exceptions on religious grounds is absolutely and fundamentally embedded in vast swathes of British law (and that of many other countires, and that of the EU, and many international treaties). It's actually the rule, not the exception.

Except this time.

[Saracen]

Clearly though I've done very little to add to the question of adoption and the Church of England. This is complicated by two intertwined factors. Firstly the Anglican church is the Church of England that is to say it is the established and state sponsored religion. So discrimination by the church on the basis of sexuality could very well be seen as discrimination by the state and therefore justifiably wrong. More importantly though, the Church and specifically its adoption agencies receive public funds. This fact also implies that the Church is functioning as a public rather than purely private organization. It seems then that the Church of England is faced with the difficult dilemma of either forgoing public funds and therefore being justified in acting in good conscience or accepting public money at the cost of its conscience.

A very cogent post, iftiq. I particularly liked the airpost security dig.

But I would just point out that the problem is over the Catholic church (i.e. Church of Rome, if you like), not the Church of England, which is a very different thing.

The Church of England has supported the Catholics, in their stance over not compromising conscience, but as far as I know, CofE adoption agencies base their criteria on the suitability of the adoptive parents and the needs of the child, not the adoptive parent's sexual orientation ..... which in my view, is exactly how it should be.

I don't believe for a moment that the Catholics are right in their stance. Just that they are sincere, and that forcing them to chose between conscience or law will likely result in their agencies closing (in the UK) and kids suffering. My issue with this whole thing is that last point .... kids suffering. It is too high a price to pay, in my view. Find an alternative, Government. Earn your pay ..... for a change.

[nichomach]

so by not discriminating against gays, I am as bad as the Nazis?

No, at no point have I drawn ANY moral equivalency between you and the Nazis. However, your contention was:

People have to obey the law first and foremost, because the law is there to protect ALL members of society not whichever bronze-age tribal belief people think they owe the highest allegience to. There can be no exemptions for 'religious' or any other personal beliefs

Which as a contention would have you supporting the Nazis, since what they did (certainly within Germany's borders) was lawful. My point is that the law may be insufficient, or it may actually be wrong.

As it happens my grandad was sent to Dachau because he was betrayed by a catholic priest. The priest was under no legal compulsion to do so. It was a religious duty of his...

Betrayed on what basis? That he was Jewish? A trade unionist? A communist? In any circumstance like that, then the priest would be under a general duty (imposed by abhorrent and immoral laws) to report him. He shouldn't have, and it was immoral to do so - but then I am basing that judgement upon the position that the law is not always the first and foremost consideration.

In any case, that is beside the point, since no-one is advocating non-compliance with the law, they are advocating (a position with which I have already stated that I disagree) that the law be drafted to include an exception on religious grounds to the requirement to allow adoption by gay parents. Were the law drafted that way, then your assertion that compliance with the law should be first and foremost would actually have you supporting that, and opposing the view to which your conscience so clearly directs you. See the problem?

[nichomach]

But I'm not talking about guesthouses, or Afghanistan. I'm talking specifically about adoption in the UK. Unless the government come up with a way of doing this that doesn't disadvantage already disadvantaged kids even further, then THEY are the ones that pay for the rest of us standing on our equality principles. If the government can replace services the Cathloics provide, and if they actually do so and proplerly fund it, then fine, force the Catholics out of the adoption business and we can all feel cosy about standing up for equality. But until then, put the kids first, even over the right of gay couples to use Catholic agencies when there are plenty of other agencies they can use.

I think we're actually looking at this the wrong way round; yes, gay couples can apply to other agencies, but the position as it stands is that the Roman Catholic adoption services act as the agents for a given number of children. Those children will be placed by the Roman Catholic services, or they will not be placed. By ruling out a couple for consideration simply on the basis of their sexuality, the Roman Catholic services are effectively limiting their chances of adoption into a loving and supportive home. In that sense, therefore, we are not placing the rights of gay couples above those of children, since they are actually in accord with each other. We are in fact making the children's interests first and paramount, by maximising their chances of adoption. It is the RC services that are in conflict with that principle by ruling out adoption of the children for whom they act as agents by couples purely on the basis of their sexuality, and disregarding the fact that they may in fact provide an excellent environment in which to raise a child.

[Saracen]

I understand the point you make, nicho, and it's a good point.

But does this not fall into the "find a compromise" category? Could not a compromise be designed whereby if a gay couple match a particular child, then child and couple could be transferred to a non-Catholic agency?

Is it the case that a gay couple are the only suitable match for a given child, or can that gay couple still adopt, albeit a different child, and the child still be adopted, albeit by a different set of adoptive parents?

As I understand the process, Catholic agencies only deal with about 3% of adoptions, but a very significant proportion of the most hard-to-place kids. It would therefore seem that their speciality is in the hardest section of what is probably the most disadvantaged section of our kids.

While I don't agree with the Cathloic's stance, I can certainly understand why they say they're not prepared to act directly against their conscience and religious beliefs, however absurd we think those beliefs may be. And if the price of a rigid stance with no possibility of compromise results in the Cathloics shutting up shop, then the question that arises is .... who will take up those cases?

If, repeat IF it's the case that those children will simply be absorbed by other agencies and end up suitably homed, then for my part, fine - the Catholic agencies can close their doors. But if, as is claimed and seems eminently likely, those "hardest-to-plce" kids end up not being homed as a result, then as I said before, the price of our rigid insistence on no exceptions to the equality principle is far too high.

And given that our current legislative base is riddled with examples where exemptions to laws, including several lots of equality laws, have already been granted on religious grounds, it seems particularly precious of government (in the form of several influential cabinet ministers) to take a stance on one where it's the welfare and future of some of society's most vulnerable kids at stake.

I must admit that I don't agree with Blair on much, and wouldn't cross the road to pee on him if he were on fire, but it's a shame he didn't have either the authority or the bottle, whichever it was, to maintain his stance on this issue.

[nichomach]

The approach you advocate would be fine by me, but then I've never had a problem with a gay couple adopting anyway. I can't speak for the RC position, but I suspect that they would say that this would mean that they were placing a child with a gay couple at one remove, if you will; they may not actually be dealing with the couple themselves, but they know that the agency that they've turned the child over to will be.

On the second point, I think it's more the case that the child will be one that it has proven difficult to place; consequently, the likelihood is not that the child will be adopted elsewhere, but that the child will not be adopted at all. As you note, although only 3% of cases are dealt with by the RC Church, they tend to have a high proportion of difficult cases.

I understand the position of the Roman Catholic church (although I don't agree with it), but if that position results in obstacles being placed in front of children being given a loving home, then I'd argue that they are harming the child. It's possible to argue that in fact those hardest to place kids may have a better chance of being placed with fewer restrictions on the nature of the family that adopts them.

[Kezzer]

Surely if you're a religious type you should respect everyone else anyway despite how much you disagree with it? Catholics go by the "only God can judge..." term, right?

It's not just Catholics who adopt though, I know shed-loads of Christian families who adopt children (mainly from China for obvious reasons).

Personally I can't see things wrong with it as long as the gay couple aren't those flamboyant and generally odd types that have some seriously screwed up morals. I think it's just been blown out of proportion due to the ethics of it all, as well as many religious people stepping in. Unfortunately in todays world religion will be defeated when it comes to the law. For example, recently the law changed to allow practicing homosexuals into churches (deja vu?).

I think this goes beyond religion though in terms of "do you think it's right or wrong?". At the end of the day, what's the difference between a child being raised in a gay family and a child being brought up in a family of drug addicts? Which would you choose? I bet the gay couple would raising the kid quite well, and I'm sure they won't promote the "gay is the only way" propaganda.

[Saracen]

I think you're wrong about your suspicion, nicho.

Catholic adoption agencies have readily accepted their responsibility to provide an informative, sympathetic and helpful service to all those who enquire about adoption, whether or not they meet the agency’s criteria for acceptance for assessment. Catholic adoption agencies welcome adoptive applicants from any or no religious background. Homosexual couples are referred to other agencies where their adoption application may be considered. This ‘sign-posting’ responsibility is taken very seriously by all Catholic adoption agencies.

The full statement is on the Diocese of Westminster website here

EDIT - And by the way, that "referring" process will be a compulsory, statutory duty under the transistion arrangements until the Regs come into full force in 18 months-ish. So, if it can be imposed as a statutory duty now, during the transition, it could have been an on-going statutory duty had an exception been made, even supposing the Catholic agencies weren't already doing that without being compelled to, as that statement says they were.

[Saracen]

Surely if you're a religious type you should respect everyone else anyway despite how much you disagree with it?

Yes, but should you be required to act actively against you own beliefs and the teachings of your church?

That's the stance of the Catholic hierarchy. They can't comply with the law as it will be after the transition period without acting against their conscience, so the only option being left to them is to cease operating agencies.

[Kezzer]

They're not doing it FOR the church though, it seems like they're trying to reach out to the community. If they really want to discourage homosexual parentage then why don't they just stick to evangelism?

[Saracen]

Perhaps because they see homimg these kids as a very good thing to do, and they seem to be very good at doing it.

[nichomach]

It's good to note that they will "signpost" the gay couples wishing to adopt to other agencies, but that says nothing about whether they will also allow the adoption of the children for whom they care by those other agencies. This is what I mean by asking whether we're looking at this problem the wrong way round; the needs of the child should be first and paramount. For instance, were the church to say "we will signpost gay couples to other agencies and will also make available a list of the children for whom we are responsible so that they may be placed by those other agencies with couples with whom we feel we are obligated to not deal ourselves", then that might be a reasonable compromise. The debate should NOT be restricted to being one about "gay rights".