Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Adoption - Gale backs Churches over Issue of Conscience

North Thanet`s MP, Roger Gale, has this (Wednesday) morning publicly expressed his support for the position taken by the Catholic and Anglican churches over the subject of the adoption of children by homosexual and lesbian partners.

In a statement the MP has said:

"While every person in this country is subject to the law as enacted by parliament it must, surely, also be right for those wishing to do so to be able to adhere to articles of faith that are important to them. I believe that we, in parliament, have a clear duty not to discriminate against established and deeply held religious convictions in precisely the same way that we should not discriminate upon grounds of race, disability, age or sexuality. This is a difficult judgement but we are here to take difficult decisions and we should not allow one group`s "rights" to prevail exclusively against another. In this instance there is no question of prohibition because there are alternatives for adoption through other than faith agencies and we should be bold enough to acknowledge that fact and grant the requested derogations".

18 comments:

stuart said...

Does he really have to get involved in everything?

Every time he gets on his soap box he just alienates a few more of his constituents.

One Voice In Thanet said...

I am confident that Gale would NOT express this view if the equality question related to anything other than sexuality.

He has always either voted against any measures delivering equality to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders (LGBT), or has not voted at all. He was, though, a staunch supporter of the notorious "Section 28", which was brought in by the Thatcher Government, and which demonised gay men and women.

He adopts a highly negative attitude towards LGBT issues and concerns, and has condemned gay pride events, such as Canterbury's annual "picnic in the park" as gay people simply "parading their sexuality". He refuses even to discuss such matters in any more detail.

The law should NEVER be secondary to religious beliefs. Modern society is a predominantly secular one, however much he and the christian right might wish it not to be. The people of this country, through the ballot box, have voted for an equality agenda, and no concessions should be made to lobby groups like the roman catholic church.

Anonymous said...

I hate to say this but as a Gale fan, and true blue, I agree with one voice.

If we look up and say that muslims etc should obey our constitutional rule of law, then we must make the law to be above all else. I know that this is possibly simplistic as to be naive, but we have already eroded our laws to suit others, no other country does that.

That said, I firmly belive that adoptive parents should be a male / female couple. Common sense says that is the right way to bring up a child.

DrMoores said...

Isn't this where you first made an appearance One Voice.. i.e. constantly harping on about Canterbury's annual "picnic" in the park!? and your anger that this wasn't 'supporte' by one MP?

One Voice In Thanet said...

Dr Moores, you have posted a report about views expressed by the local MP. I have offered some personal thoughts that are, I think, highly relevant and appropriate to the subject he is discussing. They have, indeed, attracted a positive, if qualified, response from a "Gale fan".

What does it matter if my comments pick up on a strand that has appeared before - if indeed it has? (Personally I cannot recall a previous "debate" about Canterbury's "picnic in the park" on your blog, but I am prepared to bow to your superior memory.) And what has motivated you to refer to this - and in such an offensive manner ("harping on")?

Your blog is peppered with repeat sentiments - yours and your readers - on a range of subjects, but you do not make similar comments in THOSE cases. Why do so now?

I assume you agree with Gale, which is your right. What is not your right is to be so needlessly rude to those who hold a different view.

DrMoores said...

One fan hardly constitues a tide of support and you should read his third paragraph more closely which I suspect enjoys the support of rather more people from what I see in the media. Anyway, in the case of Tony Blair 'I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.'

One Voice In Thanet said...

You are entitled to be sarcastic - it is your blog - but I did not claim a tide of support. I express my own point of view. If others agree, fine; if they do not, also fine.

I freely acknowledge that a majority may well argue that children should IDEALLY be raised by a mixed sex partnership. I am also acutely aware that a large number of people remain prejudiced and bigoted across a range of equality "fields", including sexual orientation. Unfortunately for them, they no longer have a legal basis to pursue this bigotry.

Your reference to the Prime Minister has absolutely no relevance to the points I have advanced. I would prefer an answer from you to those points rather than your views on unrelated subjects.

DrMoores said...

My personal view is shared by both the Chruch of England and the Catholic Church in this matter that "Rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation"

Anonymous said...

As a Catholic, I am not entirely in agreement with Roger Gale on this one. Like Anon of 2.00pm has said, we should not make special exemptions in our law for religious minorities of whatever creed.
Did not Jesus instruct the faithful to comply with the law of the land? If this Govt continues to ride roughshod over our freedom to employ conscience on matters and to think for ourselves, then I just hope the majority of my counytrymen and women will kick them out of office at the earliest opportunity and that Dave's boys will take time to roll back the tide of unnecessary and poor legislation we have suffered under for 10 years.
As for " One Voice", mate, my church teaches me to love the sinner and hate the sin. When is the gay community going to accept that you don't need to throw your sexual proclivity in heterosexuals faces any more. Get on with living your lives and if from time to time you find yourselves discriminated against, then forgive those responsible. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, stop making it mine as well. As a smoker, 4x4 driver and follower of hounds, I'm being hounded by the majority and being discriminated against in an amazing way in Blair's Britain and the so called 'rule of toleration' does not apply to me. That's why I stopped being a labour supporter 7 years ago. Freedom from discrimination in Blair's Britain is not a general principle but a selective and pernicious abuse of power.

DrMoores said...

6:35 makes a good point. As I write this I see that Blair has just backed down on exemptions for the church. "Conscience does make cowards of us all" but in Blair's case political expediency has forced him to act against his moral instincts. I wonder what the Cardinal will do next. The Catholic church has been in business rather longer than Labour.

One Voice In Thanet said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DrMoores said...

Quite.. I agree with them but I don't agree with you on just about anything to do with morality, common sense and of course politics!

Neither do I have to answer your tedious catalogue of questions. You are after all here on sufferance and I'm quite happy to switch you off once again if you don't behave. A review of the Blackadder II series might do wonders for your sense of humour and perhas even your politics!

DrMoores said...

It's all rather "Life of Brian" like don't you think? I'm reminded of the stoning scene among others!

I've switched comment moderation on for a while for some peace and quiet!

Anonymous said...

I personally am sick of giving way to religious bigots, and to be honest I'm not sure that homosexual couples are the ideal parents but if Parliament thinks they are then they are.

I might have some sympathy with Roger Gale were it not for the Catholic Church's somewhat chequered history where child welfare is concerned firstly Catholic agencies had considerable involvement in the appalling abuse of young children sent as migrants from Britain to Australia and Canada during post-war period up until the early Sixties and the infamous Magdalene homes where young girls were imprisoned in Ireland.

Frankly I do not think any religious organisations should be in a position of responsibility for children if they are incapable of accepting the law.

Personally I wouldn't want my cat looked after by any religious organisations c of e catholic or mormon.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6.35, I suppose that if church adoption agencies are forced to give equal consideration to same sex partners for adoption of babies then the agency might just have to shut down if it was felt that this was a wrong thing to have to do.
I do think its wrong, kids should live in a heterosexual environment, imho same sex partnerships are unproductive and just plain wrong.
I feel sorry for those who are drawn to same sex relationships, I just think that they have a problem. They don't have to involve others in their problems however.
I will not abuse them or attempt to restrict their other civil partnership rights like death duties exemption etc. But adoption is a different matter.
I also was brought up RC and left a job because my NHS contract changed and I would have been forced to become involved in terminations which I was deeply unhappy about.
Of course I know that my leaving the job doesn't make any difference to the number of terminations but somehow, although I felt sympathy for the patients, I could not get involved as I think its just wrong.
And adopting by same sex couples also feels wrong.
I know that kids adopted by same sex couples don't statistically grow up gay.
I know that same sex couples seem to feel the need to care for kids and often do so very well.
Bit that doesn't make it right somehow.It just seems unnatural.

Same sex couples have to face the fact that they will grow old and have no kids, thats a biological fact and a law of nature, lets not mess with it.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6.35, I suppose that if church adoption agencies are forced to give equal consideration to same sex partners for adoption of babies then the agency might just have to shut down if it was felt that this was a wrong thing to have to do.
I do think its wrong, kids should live in a heterosexual environment, imho same sex partnerships are unproductive and just plain wrong.
I feel sorry for those who are drawn to same sex relationships, I just think that they have a problem. They don't have to involve others in their problems however.
I will not abuse them or attempt to restrict their other civil partnership rights like death duties exemption etc. But adoption is a different matter.
I also was brought up RC and left a job because my NHS contract changed and I would have been forced to become involved in terminations which I was deeply unhappy about.
Of course I know that my leaving the job doesn't make any difference to the number of terminations but somehow, although I felt sympathy for the patients, I could not get involved as I think its just wrong.
And adopting by same sex couples also feels wrong.
I know that kids adopted by same sex couples don't statistically grow up gay.
I know that same sex couples seem to feel the need to care for kids and often do so very well.
Bit that doesn't make it right somehow.It just seems unnatural.

Same sex couples have to face the fact that they will grow old and have no kids, thats a biological fact and a law of nature, lets not mess with it.

Chris Wells said...

Anon 11.35 probably speaks for many of us on this issue, caught in the middle of 2 perfectly balanced cross fires - the simple proposition that discrimination is wrong, and that the homosexual lifestyle has certain natural inevitabilities, not being able to have children as part of the relationship being the obvious one. I suppose in a reasoned world we could have the law, and gay couples would accept the natural consequence of their relationship, however you just know that campaigners, more wound up with their rights than perhaps with responsibilities, will queue up to apply and demand their right to adopt (an appalling habit not confined to the gay community I hasten to add).

There are exceptions to laws all over you can advertise for a housemother for example, Sikhs dont have to wear crash helmets and can carry ceremonial daggers that would get the rest of us arrested, and you can advertise for ethnic minority groups for employment. Thing is, to many in the silent majority, it feels every exception is for a minority group and their rights, and traditional/majority cultural norms are always wrong. That said, many gay couples have love to share with children who have been screwed up by heterosexual couples, which takes me back to the start of my comment about balancing propositions....Perhaps on balance I am glad someone else is taking this decision, and I can stand back and carp about it!

Pax vobiscum said...

We should accept that we all have choices in our lives and that choosing one course may close others to us. The problem is that today, having made choices, there are too many who want it all still." I want to live in a homosexual relationship and yet have children by IF, pastry brush, willing male or by adoption." is but ne example.

The Catholic Church, an organisation made up of human beings who have the freedom of choice to 'sin',has of course had to deal throughout its 2000 year history, with its members who have failed to adhere to its teachings on morality. However, 'Tony at Big News', this does not mean that its basic tenets on morality are flawed. The RC stance seems quite clear; sex is a gift of God to be shared in a loving, blessed,heterosexual marriage; any other indulgence in sex of whatever nature is self indulgent 'sin'. So if you are not involved in a heterosexual marriage then celibacy and abstinence is required whatever your sexual whims or status. Its a tough requirement in a sexually obsessed and self-indulgent world but that 'ideal' has enormous benefits to society if adhered to. I would suspect that this issue of gay adoption is going to cause real heartache to many working in Roman catholic adoption agencies. The good work they do might have to stop because the Govt of the day is pandering to a miniscule minority of gays who wish to approach a Catholic Adotion agency. The decent solution to this problem is for all gay couples seeking to adopt to not approach Catholic Adoption agencies and therefore not precipitate their closure or 'break the law'! How likely is that from the intolerant ranks of the gay activists?