http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/25/nadoption25.xml

Blair to unveil new plans in gay adoption row

Quote :

"Tony Blair said this morning that he will announce proposals to resolve the gay adoption row next week after a Cabinet revolt forced him into a climbdown. advertisement In an unexpected move, the Prime Minister issued a brief statement which all but confirmed that he had bowed to his Cabinet ministers and ruled out giving Catholic adoption agencies an opt-out from new laws that would make it illegal for them to refuse to deal with gay couples. Instead, he is expected to introduce proposals - which will be voted on by Parliament next month - for a “transition” period of around a year to allow the agencies adapt to the new gay rights laws. Earlier this week Mr Blair had infuriated ministers by saying he wanted to find a compromise that respected the “sensitivities” of both the Church and supporters of gay rights. His comments came after Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Roman Catholic leader in England and Wales, warned that the church would close its adoption agencies if it was forced to accept the new laws. However, senior Cabinet ministers swiftly lined up to say they would oppose any move to give Catholic adoption agencies exemptions from the new Sexual Orientation Regulations. Only a handful of ministers, including Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary and a devout Roman Catholic, backed Mr Blair. Labour MPs are already speculating whether Miss Kelly will be able to remain in the Cabinet following the Prime Minister’s retreat. Faced with a full-blown revolt, Mr Blair adopted a more conciliatory tone in today’s statement. “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 said. “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?” The retreat was confirmed yesterday by Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary and one of the leading opponents of plans to give Catholic agencies an opt-out. Asked if Mr Blair supported special treatment for faith-based agencies, Mr Johnson told the BBC: “I don’t think the Prime Minister is in favour of an exemption.” He added: “I’ve never seen the case for an exemption. To me this is legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and you cannot do that and at the same time allow discrimination in one area.”"

So much for freedom of conscience.

I would expect those members of this board who support a woman's right to choose an abortion - so that, in the words of the Supreme Court she might "define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" - would join me in denouncing this.

1/28/2007 12:52:25 PM

Quote :

"Equality Mr Bradshaw told the BBC's Politics Show he would be very surprised if the Government was thinking of "bowing to pressure from conservative Catholics." He added: "This Labour Party has an excellent record on equality. We've got rid of most of the discriminatory laws against lesbians and gay people. "I think that this is an issue of equality. It's exactly the same as saying you can't have a child for adoption because you're black or because you're a woman or because you're disabled," he also said. Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, who has already brought the law into force there, told ITV's Sunday Edition the cabinet had not yet made a decision, but banning discrimination on any grounds was "a fundamental principle". "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6284725.stm

If they receive any government money, then I don't have a problem with it. But I do see your point from an autonomy perspective to a degree, even if it is to autonomously choose to discriminate.

Quote :

"The Independent on Sunday claims Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly is battling to allow Catholic adoption agencies to turn away same-sex couples. "

Either way, you have to be pretty mean spirited to battle against loving couples wanting to adopt children.

1/28/2007 1:02:37 PM

^^The comparison isn't even remotely valid; we're talking about nationally-funded service providers, not service receivers. Can a federally-funded abortion clinic discriminate?

Regardless, why is it that so many people think it's their right to deny other people their rights?



[Edited on January 28, 2007 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2007 1:05:38 PM

Federal money = do what the government says or lose that money. That's the bottom line.

A rich guy could come and give them millions of dollars under the condition that they only hire hot, naked employees. They can either comply or refuse the money.

[Edited on January 28, 2007 at 1:28 PM. Reason : sdf]

1/28/2007 1:26:16 PM

Please, think of the children!

1/28/2007 1:27:58 PM

Quote :

"I would expect those members of this board who support a woman's right to choose an abortion - so that, in the words of the Supreme Court she might "define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" - would join me in denouncing this."

So I take it you're prochoice?

1/28/2007 3:17:31 PM

This thread reminded me that there needs to be a word for simultaneously calling someone out for hypocrisy while unwittingly calling yourself out.

clintondidittoism?

1/28/2007 5:21:12 PM

well, if the Catholic agencies are state-funded, than I can see a point in the legislation.
Otherwise, it's clearly wrong to force the agencies to deal w/ people that they don't want to.

2/2/2007 1:19:15 AM

Remember folks, the law in the UK does not equal the law in the US.

2/2/2007 1:20:29 AM

and THAT'S WHY we rebelled

2/2/2007 1:21:49 AM

Quote :

"If they receive any government money, then I don't have a problem with it."

Which is why I don't understand why Bush was pushing for Christian aid agencies to receive government money. (what happened to that by the way) Why do church groups want the federal government to have any control over them?

2/2/2007 9:54:16 AM

$$$$$

2/2/2007 10:46:06 AM

$$$$$ is not free, it comes with strings attached.

2/2/2007 10:47:07 AM

Quote :

"Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Roman Catholic leader in England and Wales, warned that the church would close its adoption agencies if it was forced to accept the new laws."

Awesome.

Let's show our intolerance for homosexuality by refusing to help needy children.

2/2/2007 10:51:50 AM

If you accept government money, you live by the government's rules. I have no problem with this at all, if the Catholics don't want to help kids live with homosexual parents, then they can do so without federal funding.

2/2/2007 11:02:40 AM

Because having homosexual parents is sooooooooo natural.

2/5/2007 2:20:46 PM

just like growing up in an orphanage

or

moving from foster home to foster home

I don't agree with homosexuality either. But I wouldn't deny a child a stable home over that. People like you hide behind morality to justify your hatred. Divorce is sinful too. Would you deny adoption to a couple in which one or both were divorced?

oh but that's different.

2/5/2007 2:33:10 PM

Quote :

"But I wouldn't deny a child a stable home over that. People like you hide behind morality to justify your hatred. Divorce is sinful too. Would you deny adoption to a couple in which one or both were divorced?"

Nail. Head.


You could also insert Lying, Pornography, Gluttony, etc. for Divorce.

Should fatasses not be able to adopt? Really?

2/5/2007 2:40:26 PM

Hatred? Thinking that a child is best served having a loving mother and father is hatred?

Whose interests are you really concerned about here? The child's or the homosexual's?

2/5/2007 3:10:08 PM

A child is best served having a stable home. Sure, IDEALLY, a mother and father is best, but any stable, loving home, regardless of the gender of said parent(s), is preferable over growing up in an orphanage or a series of foster homes.


but clearly you can't see past the gay.

2/5/2007 3:35:05 PM

well the difficult stance for the church is that it makes them look like hypocrits to say "homosexuality is sin" and then send children into a home where said sin takes knowingly and unashamedly takes place.

it's a tough call. ultimately i think the church should have the right to give kids to whoever they determine is a good fit. I don't necessarily think the government should step in, in this scenario. If the government wants to allow gay couples to adopt, then the government should open up adoption houses... Forcing a church to go against a long held traditional view (whereas homosexuality is not an age, gender, or race) isn't necessarily right in this case.

however, i personally disagree with the catholic church's stance on this issue anyhow. A loving home is a loving home, be it Dick and Jane, or Two Dicks, or Two Janes. Y'know i don't agree with homosexuality, but i feel even stronger about a kid's chances in this world today. If they're gonna support him and give him a good family... then i'm all for it.

2/5/2007 3:44:59 PM

well they're receiving gov't money so i think ^your point is moot.

2/5/2007 3:51:56 PM

ahh... ok.

2/5/2007 3:55:25 PM

thats ghey

2/5/2007 4:02:52 PM

^^actually upon reading the article again (it had been a few days), i'm not so sure they receive gov't money

2/5/2007 4:05:16 PM

Quote :

" it makes them look like hypocrits to say "homosexuality is sin" and then send children into a home where said sin takes knowingly and unashamedly takes place. "

That may be, but are they also barring prospective adoptive parents who have been divorced, committed adultery, theft, or other ostensible sins? Why only focus on homosexuals?

2/5/2007 4:11:43 PM

i think it's because it's a hot button issue... that, and catholics have a tendency to rank "sin" occasionally, from my experiences.

i'm sure across the ocean in Ireland, the divorce thing would probably cause quite a ruckus.

2/5/2007 5:45:19 PM