Tories silent in latest Catholic-Labour row

The escalating row between the Catholic Church and the Government over the Sexual Orientation Regulations is widely reported this morning.  The Telegraph reports that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has won the support of the two most senior figures in the Church of England in his bid to exempt Catholic adoption agencies from new laws that could force them to place children with same-sex couples.

For The Telegraph and The Daily Mail the freedom of churchgoers is the key issue at stake.  A leader in The Telegraph argues that the 2006 Equality Act throws up many anomalies.  "A Muslim printer," it writes, "could be charged for declining to publish a handout for a gay pride march. Yet a private club – a lesbian-only bar, say – could still specify a particular sexual orientation as a condition for membership."  It notes positively the proposition of 'a simple amendment... to stop adherents of Christianity, Judaism and Islam being forced to "assist, encourage or facilitate homosexual practices."

The leader-writers at The Mail (not yet online) are also on the side of Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor:

"All the cardinal is doing - backed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York - is spelling out the teaching of his Church, stretching back 2,000 years and shared by many other faiths.  Nor is he trying, like the gay rights lobby, to impose his own morality on the rest of the country.  Indeed, Catholic agencies are happy to direct gay couples to other agencies.  The cardinal is only asking that Catholics should be allowed to continue to conduct their own lives according to the teaching of their Church.  Is that so very unreasonable?"

This is only the latest clash between Britain's Catholics and the Government.  Late last year Education Secretary Alan Johnson had to retreat from plans to compel Catholic schools to accept approximately 25% of non-Catholic pupils.  It is interesting that the Conservative Party has largely been as silent in this dispute as it was conflicted in the schools row.  I cannot find any Conservative comments on the clash between the rights of gay people to adopt and the rights of church organisations to manage their own affairs.  It is another sign of the lack of choice in British politics that there does not appear to be one mainstream political party that is unashamedly the champion of freedom of religious association.

Comments

[John Coles]

Although I am at one with the good Cardinal, it would be healthy to receive SOME comment from the Conservative party, even if it favoured the Government's proposals.
This apparent suppression of comment on matters of this importance as well as may other key issues is very unhealthy. A picture emerges of a very controlling centre: surely to God, we've had enough of that sort of politics.?

[sjm]

This is yet another example of the (hopefully) unintended consequences issue that has dogged so much of this Government's legislative programme.

If the Catholics are exempted from this legislation on grounds of religious freedom, do we allow other faiths to do things that are contrary to our laws and customs? I am thinking of polygamy and female circumcision for instance.

In this particular case, I would side with the Church's behaviour, which is apparently 'we don't do this, but will tell you where to find institutions that do'. The trouble is that this will be used as a precedent for behaviour we may find far less acceptable.

I would love to see tolerance on all sides, but I fear you cannot legislate for tolerance.

[John Irvine]

It's simply a matter of tyranny v liberty.

And in the case of the Conservative Party, apparently, sheer blue funk.

Why are they all so terrified of the homosexual mafia?

[tory papist]

The Conservative silence on this issue is as deafening as their silence on the admissions to faith schools issue which saw Alan Johnson's face covered with egg in the autumn.

Our party seems increasingly influenced by a noisy aggressive gay lobby and has forgotten the larger but politer Christian vote.

This should be an area where an "each to his own" stance would work well.

Parliament has decided that same-sex couples should be able to adopt. The country seems relaxed about that. Provision for this policy change will be possible through all the state-run social service departments.

However, any democratic society should work hard to accommodate wherever possible the religious consciences of believers.

This used to be well recognised - the conscience clause in the 1967 Abortion Act for example. This hasn't prevented access to abortion but it has allowed Catholics and other pro-lifers to continue to practice their vocation to a particular branch of medicine.

This type of "mixed" approach used to be something we could guarantee that the Conservative party would instinctively propose - not any longer. The lightness of touch appears to have been replaced with the bovver-boots of political correctness.

[HF]

Why not just let the Labour party tear itself apart on this?

Sometimes the best move is just to keep quiet. Also the Lib Dems have come out and attacked the church!

The root cause of this is the Govt's own legislation and they have the majority to decide these things and the support of the Lib Dems.

We may see the gain of cabinet minister forced to resign.

Well done to our PR team on this.

[John Irvine]

"Well done to our PR team on this."

Don't make me laugh.

Cameron and co are keeping quiet purely because they are in thrall to the noisy and unrepresentative "gay" lobby.

Personally I would like to see a move to reclaim the Conservative Party for Christianity as has been done with the Republicans in the States.

I believe there is a Conservative Christian movement. Provided it is active in this sphere I would like to give it my full support.

[Oliver McCarthy]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN BY EDITOR BECAUSE OF FOUL LANGUAGE.

OLIVER: PLEASE DO NOT USE BAD LANGUAGE ON THIS SITE.

[John Irvine]

Oliver. I and many others basically agree with what you are saying but there is absolutely no need to use that kind of filthy language.

Please let's leave it for our opponents

[TomTom]

Politicians should keep out of this. This is an EU Directive being gold-plated in Britain and rammed down throats.

There was the trick question asked of Jesus Christ about the Roman coin with Caesar's head - Jesus sidestepped the issue by saying "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is His". This is clearly a case of Caesar attempting to demand religious subservience to The State and is an attack on conscience.

Sikhs are permitted not to wear crash helmets as an exception to Road Traffic Acts; Muslims have exception from EU Directives on animal slaughter; School Uniform policies are not "uniform" when they meet Muslims and Sikhs.

For many years it was possible to amble along in this country which was Protestant at its core but frankly relaxed because it was shared and common values. Now those values are under concerted attack and it is time for people to define themselves by their beliefs, their affinities, and their consciences.

The Police can use the 1986 Public Order Act to harass those who exprss their religious doctrine, but not to stop looting on a Devon beach. The State takes far too much interest in seeking to intefere in religion and too little in fighting crime.

As the corruption of secular society becomes ever more evident ever more people will retreat into a religious sphere - this is exactly what happened in Communist Poland and happens in corrupt societies in the Muslim world.

If politicians continue with their Culture Wars they will set Europe on a path they may have cause to regret

[John Irvine]

Tom Tom our society has become Politically Correct and militantly anti-Christian.

Who will stand up for our rights in this issue? Will UKIP speak out? They will get huge support if they do.

I have never met anybody who is in favour of "gay" adoption. I would like to say exactly what I think of such an abomination but it might get me banned.

We must take a stand for freedom and for basic decent values against the tidal wave of tyranny.

[Michael Rutherford]

This new law has my full support. Currently it is illegal to prevent people from using your service on the grounds of race, religion, disability and gender, so why should that not be extended to sexuality either? Why is it unacceptable to tell a black person he can't stay in your hotel, but it is acceptable to tell a gay person that?

In terms of the example of Christian adoption agencies, while they won't be able to prevent them from applying full stop, they will still be allowed to judge circumstances for choosing a family for a child. It doesn't mean they have to give equal weight to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

[JimJam]

I say let the two dubious empires of NuLab and Papery fight it out - one to avoid DC !

[RobD]

Surely we should be ensuring that children are housed with the best possible family, if the parents of that family happen to be gay why should the catholic church be allowed to house them with a second best family? The church are providing a public service in this case so they should do what is best for the children.

However, I do not see why the Conservatives should have to mate a statement on this, it is a no win situation. Which ever position you take (and there are Conservative reasons to support both sides) you are going to have a sizable and important minority against you.

[Umbrella Man]

This row could hurt Labour in Scotland amongst the large Catholic population there. Perhaps Annabel Goldie should lead the Tory opposition to this assault on religious freedom?

[Simon Chapman]

There were some very thoughtful posts on CH on this from Graeme Archer & Iain Dale recently. It goes to the heart of how secularism and faith can co-exist in modern democracies. This is a huge issue and is not one that the government is getting right here.

"Tory Papist" is on the right lines - there needs to be an element of flexibility and tolerance on both sides. In a democracy conscience must be allowed to flourish.

We have heard a great deal about printers, bed & breakfasts and adoption agencies - I am not quite sure why those are the business examples of choice in this debate, but they appear to be. Applying some of those:

I see no reason why gay printers should be forced to publish a faith-based publication on the sinfulness of homosexuality. Similarly, a gay couple running a B&B should be allowed to market themselves as being gay-friendly if they wish, and should certainly be entitled to refuse business to a religious speaker on a tour proclaiming that homosexuality is a sin and contrary to the will of God. I have no idea whether the current law allows them to make those decisions at the moment, but if it doesn't it should.

That cuts both ways. This is not just about freedom of religious association, but freedom of association per se.

So in the same spirit, a Christian or Muslim printer should be allowed to refuse to print a publication that attack's their and their faith's view of homosexuality and describes that world view as bigoted and sinful.

There's more I would wish to say about adoption - balancing the need ideally for children to be brought up in a stable relationship by a man and a woman against the truth that the state is absolutely the worst "carer" for children, and that I have seen a lesbian couple look after a little girl with very significant physical and learning disabilities with a love and tenderness that is an example to anybody, whatver their faith background. I have not the time to get into all that now. I would caution all sides aginst being overly legalistic - forcing people to act against their conscience/worldview will stoke up pressure and resentment, not defuse it.

[big john]

The position is that of a pregnant woman who, having rejected the option of abortion and who can not bring up her baby, can turn for help to the only alternative to the social services, to the Catholic church, which has the facility for adoption.
Here, the choice of the mother for her baby's future can be acknowledged and adoptive parents fulflling her choice can be found.
The mothers choice has not been mentioned so far. Only she will love her baby for it's own sake; to the point of allowing it to be brought up by strangers. If these strangers are selected by the church, the mother knows that the odds of her baby having a happy life are good. The likelihood of the mother choosing a married couple who are church-goers, who are not albe to have a baby of their own, and where the baby is watched over from a distance by the Catholic Childrens Sosiety, is higher than any alternative. The selection of a gay couple as adoptive parents will almost certainly cause the mother to freak out. Through the church, she may have peace of mind. Through the church, the baby is likely to have a happy childhood and become a balanced citizen in due course.

[Serf]

Currently it is illegal to prevent people from using your service on the grounds of race, religion, disability and gender, so why should that not be extended to sexuality either?

Reinforces my view that all discrimination legislation is wrong. Rather than disappearing as the problems ease, it is extended to ever new groups of people. Soon we will have legislation protecting the rights of short people, fat people, those with halitosis......

Only government services (ie those we have forcibly paid for) should be available to all without discrimination. Those provided by private organisations and individuals should not have to conform to the wishes of the government. Rather than the state being our servant, we have all just become pawns of the state.

The road to hell, is indeed paved with good intentions.

[Robert McIlveen]

Avoiding unnecessary controversy on issues like this is no bad thing, so I'm not too worried about the party's silence on it.

A sensible compromise might be a good idea on the policy issue - I would never go to a Catholic (or possibly even any religion) adoption agency, so I'm not too bothered if they wouldn't consider me a fit parent.

And as to ideas that there is a "gay mafia" - please! I suspect the "Catholic mafia" would be slighlty larger and more influential but I wouldn't describe it in such an insulting way.

[malcolm]

I absolutely don't believe that this question is 'one to avoid'. Not everything can always be calculated for party political advantage.
Personally although it's a difficult question I hope the Catholic Church wins its opt out and that consience is respected.
I thought when I read the editorial that we would quickly see sad examples of unthinking bigotry on this thread and John Irvine was as usual quick off the mark. What a shame, I hope most commentators will engage their brains before spewing out bile of that nature.

[TomTom]

Currently it is illegal to prevent people from using your service on the grounds of race, religion, disability and gender, so why should that not be extended to sexuality either?

I think you will find that is untrue. No woman can be admitted to a Catholic seminary nor to a Muslim training centre for imams. Blind people cannot take driving lessons; non-British or non-Commonwealth citizens cannot join the British Army, nor can non-British Citizens work with nuclear weapons.

Non-Sikhs must wear crash helmets on a motorbike.

The simple fact is that religious belief is a matter that transcends the State and predates it. It is something immortal whereas The State is ephemeral.

In wartime Germany Conscientious Objectors were executed, but in Britain they were imprisoned or set to other tasks. One country had a Christian Conscience, the other had The Absolute Authority of The State.

The Church is a refuge from The State but clearly we are moving to the era where there is no refuge from The State which will dictate what is SAID, what is THOUGHT, and what is BELIEVED.

This is where Civil Disobedience against an Alien Occupation becomes inevitable. The State is becoming an immoral Leviathan and Citizens should withdraw consent and respect for its ordinances

[Andrea]

"This row could hurt Labour in Scotland amongst the large Catholic population there. Perhaps Annabel Goldie should lead the Tory opposition to this assault on religious freedom?"

The thing is that Scottish Parliament has already voted about an opt out for faith based agencies when they recently voted their Children and Adoption Bill. It was a close vote and the "no" to the opt out won.
(the majority of Labour MSPs voted for an opt out and it was just a rebellion from some Lab MSPs that made the "anti opt out" win)

[Reagan Fan]

OK, this spat is about adoption, yes? The regs will come in whatever you say, but the Catholic Church is looking for special treatment in this specific case.

In adoption law the welfare of the child is always paramount. If suitable parents can be found to offer a child in government care a safe, secure and loving home, then considerations of race, religion, or sexual orientation should't be allowed to interfere. As mentioned above, gay couples have proved that they can be the equal of heterosexual couples when it comes to parenting.

When the Church starts doing things outside of its everyday remit and supplying services other than, inter alia, witness, confession and salvation, then it has to abide by the same laws as everyone else.

It isn't very edifying to see the Cardinal waving the threat of 200 vulnerable adoptees being left to rot if he doesn't get his way, not least because he didn't seem so concerned about vulnerable children when covering up the sexual abuse the suffered at the hands (and other parts) of some of his colleagues.

Over all I would say let the Churches and the government fight this one. The government will win, rightly so, and we're best off out of it.

[Steve]

Maybe now you will see the point about EU! Anti –EU is about law, government and integrity of democracy; not about bloody asylum seekers.

This illogical PC project has just proved how it can never work, you can’t legislate against thoughts and beliefs, and we should be shouting this from the roof. Law in UK is supposed to be reflect the views of the majority and therefore this law is inappropriate, but don’t worry it’s an EU law so it’s not Bliar’s fault.

I’m sure the climate article in the FT has won some votes though.

[Anon]

"Law in UK is supposed to be reflect the views of the majority" - er...no. I think you're confusing us with Switzerland.

Law in the UK reflects the democratic mandate given to the party from whom the Queen chooses her Prime Minister. I can't remember the last time such a party was elected on a majority vote, I think it was more than 50 years ago.

[Rudyard.]

Conservatives on here who say that the Conservative party should keep out of this latest EU/Catholic Church/GOP fracas are to be condemned for the abandonment of the children who are at the center of it all.

We must not be seen to be constantly afraid of every situation that occurs in the country.

The Conservatives,at one time,were known as fierce fighters for freedom and the countries rights.

Things change I suppose,sad that really.

[JimJam]

Rudyard - there is an argument that a child would be better off with a gay couple than in the clutches of the catholic church...

[Will]

If the Catholic Church can't work in this area without prejudice it is better leaving it to those that can.

Given the record of the Catholic Church protecting child abusers, this may be no bad thing.

[Valedictoryan]

A law must apply to everyone or no one and it must take precedence over religious teaching. I rarely agree with slippery slope arguments, but the law will certainly go downhill if it starts making exceptions on religious grounds.

People don’t seem very convinced that gay adoption is good, and that’s probably why Catholic leaders have singled out this - the most emotive issue - to make their case. It seems obvious that very few gay couples will be going to Catholic adoption agencies and the Catholic Church’s concerns are actually far wider. For arbitrary reasons the Catholic Church wants to be able to treat gays differently and it doesn't like being told otherwise. After 2,000 years it’s about time it grew up.

[Alexander Drake]

I'm interested in Umbrella Man's theory that it might be a useful issue to uncouple the Catholic vote from Labour.

I've often been amazed by the Conservative Party's complete inability to harness Catholic social traditionalism in Britain. But as class seems to trump values in turning votes in UK politics, maybe it's a step too far.

Nonetheless - Tim, you seem to get on well with the good folk of YouGov. Here's your big chance to examine Umbrella Man's plausible idea! A poll of voters where they are identified by religious denomination may reveal if this is an opportunity to "wedge" Labour in blue-collar areas.

[Rudyard.]

JimJam,as a non Catholic,non practicing Christian I can give an honest opinion on this topic of Catholic Church or Gay couple.

My opinion is that a child placed with a Catholic Church organisation would have much more chance of a perfectly normal upbringing.

Some would say more about this but the gay supporters would only cry for even more preferential treatment than they currently get.

[Reagan Fan]

Rudyard, the only ones abandoning "the children" are the Catholic Church leaders trying to use them as a fig leaf for their prejudice (the same Church which has covered up their abuse by their own staff in the past).

They have said that a statutory duty to refer homosexual couples to secular adoption agencies will suffice, but that's rubbish too. If they believe that such a couple is deserving of thier referral then they believe they are suitable candidates to adopt. If that is the case, and they abide by the legal requirement that the welfare of the child is paramount, then they are NOT acting in the paramount interests of children covered by their adoption agencies.

[William Norton]

Currently it is illegal to prevent people from using your service on the grounds of race, religion, disability and gender, so why should that not be extended to sexuality either?

It's a difficult one, isn't it? I would start by looking at the motivation of the person providing the "service", the nature of that service and the person who benefits from it.

In the case of running a guest house or a hotel, the primary motive would be a business one to benefit a paying customer and I could accept an extension of the anti-discrimination laws because everyone's money is as good as anyone else's, and there is no element of moral judgment required.

In the case of running an adoption agency, where the impulse would be a moral one to do the best for orphaned or abandonned children, and an element of judgment is unavoidably involved as to whether this applicant is right for this child, you have to accept that the people running the agency would have a genuine dilemma if they were forced to place children in circumstances which they considered harmful, and an opt-out would be appropriate: there it is the managers' moral sense which is driving the organisation. You might disagree about "harm", but it's not your adoption agency.

A lot of the discussion of this issue has compared it with race. It is clearly wrong to refuse a hotel room on the grounds of colour. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that there is a strong view among the state adoption service at least that children should be placed with parents from the same ethnic background. I'm not sure I'd agree - but I don't run an adoption service.

Compare with an extreme example: consider 2 conscientious teetotallers, one running a hotel and the other running an adoption agency. I don't see why the hotel owner should refuse a room for the night to a drunk, but I could accept the adoption agency turning down a drunk as a potential parent. Perhaps some drunks could make perfectly acceptable parents - but it isn't my place to second guess the views of the people running an adoption service. In a service which depends on people make an assessment as to what is right, you have to give them the space to decide that something is wrong.

[TomTom]

I don't think Reagan Fan has much connection with Christian Theology. If parents are asking the Church to arrange adoption of their Catholic children and wish themn to be brought up in a Catholic household according to Catholic values it is not for people like Reagan Fan to act like a People's Commissar in the USSR and dictate that they will be brought up as The State decrees.

The State serves the public not as seems to be a viewpoint among the politically immature that it commands obeisance.

[TomTom]

the same Church which has covered up their abuse by their own staff in the past

Yes...those poor young boys abused by pederast priests....pederasts ae a problem in society which is why they should be screened out of adoption procedures at an early stage...your insight is helpful and shows the Churches are wise to take their stance

[Reagan Fan]

And you, TomTom have sod all knowledge about adoption law. If you put children up for adoption you forfeit any legal rights over them, that's what adoption is about. You make the choice and that's that. You have no more right to dictate the religion of the adopter than you do the colour of their hair or the make of car they drive. I should know, I come from a family of 4 children and 2 of us are adopted.

[anon]

Splendid, there goes TomTom again. Finally the mask slips and he's there labelling all those horrid pooves as paedos. I knew there was something other than religion underlying his antipathy to these regulations.

[RobD]

TomTom - while some members still have repellant views such as yours I think we can see exactly why the party are wise to stay out of this row.

[Alison Anne Smith]

John, "Why are they all so terrified of the homosexual mafia?" are you refering to gay priests in the Vatican?

[Denis Cooper]

"Law in UK is supposed to be reflect the views of the majority"

And what if the majority view was, for example, that a minority group should be imprisoned, or expelled, or exterminated? Should that be reflected in law?

There are two ways of looking at this. One takes as its starting point the freedom of the individual, and only creates laws to restrict that freedom when necessary, while the other starts by assuming that there should be a law about everything.

In principle either approach could prevail under a dictatorship, or in a democracy, but with the second approach the choice will only ever be between the tyranny of an individual ruler or the tyranny of the majority.

[Michael McGowan]

I am a Catholic but do not agree with the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality. Hence I have big problems with blanket opposition to gay adoptions. At the very least, the best should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good, especially when children in care is the alternative. However, it is also quite clear that this dispute is really about Labour's Cultural Marxists and anti-clericalists trying to use the criminal law to impose their ethical values on organised Christian religion which they detest and wish to drive underground. The reason why the Tories are silent is that many "social liberal" Tory MPs (Bercow?) agree with Labour. The views of the Catholic Church are of course shared by Muslims and Jews but Labour will only attack the Catholic Church because, unlike Muslims, it is a political soft target vilified by the Guardian-reading classes (unless of course we are talking about the crypto-fascist brand of Catholicism prevalent in Northern Ireland, which is much admired by the BBC and the Guardian).

I basically agree with Tory Papist and Simon Chapman. In response to Alexander Drake, the reason why the Tory Party has failed to take the Catholic vote (to the extent there is such a thing) is because a lot of "liberal" Tory MPs are militantly anticlerical and hostile to the Catholic Church. Think back to IDS's tenure and his main detractors. IDS is of course a devout Catholic and his Catholicism permeates his social justice agenda which the cultural Marxists hate.

The usual anticlerical abuse of the Catholic Church about paedophile priests is only to be expected from people on this thread who hate the Catholic Church anyway and only want to focus on its mistakes not its strengths. Go on, will, why not have the balls to say that all priests are perverts?

[Reagan Fan]

I won't say that all priests are perverts, because they aren't. But Cardinal O'Connor did help cover up the cases of some of those who are (or were) because that was in the interests of the Church not of the victims. Surely you can accept that?

[Michael McGowan]

I don't deny it for one moment. What I question is the motives of people like you. If you actually knew anything about the Catholic Church, you would know that since Lord Nolan's Report around 2000, the Catholic Church has instituted a child protection regime which is utterly draconian and which violates the right to natural justice of suspect priests who can literally be rendered homeless and stigmatised ofor long periods n the basis of anonymous sayso. In short a panicky overreaction by the Catholic Church after years of complacency, which I certainly make no apology for.

But we can't facts get in the way of a good smear can we? How Polly Toynbeeesque.

[Jonathan M. Scott]

As an Ulster Protestant, I have never so admired Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor for taking a stand on this issue.

Whatever the arguments about homosexual adoption (which I am personally against, in particular on religious and child protection grounds: see, for example, the recent case involving homosexual foster parents, not adopters: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329513060-103690,00.html). The Roman Catholic adoption agencies in my view are within their rights (of freedom to practise their religion) to refuse to give a child to homosexual 'couples'. What about the human rights of religious people? And no one seems to care about the rights of the child - it's always about the rights of the homosexual 'couples'. There are plenty of proper (man + woman) Catholic families or couples who are happy to adopt children, so the children are not being denied families by not being available to homosexuals. I hope the Government backs down and does not force Catholic adoption agencies, basically, out of existence - if they do proceed with this legislation, I hope Labour loses the Catholic vote. And I trust that the Conservative Party does not pander to homosexuals on this issue: there are a lot more Catholics than homosexuals, so what about the human rights of Catholics or other religious people?

[Curly]

It seems, if the official spokespersons of the party are to remain silent on the matter, that is to be left us in the blogosphere to point out how muddled Tony Blair's government has become in it's thinking. Perhaps we should help him out by writing letters in support of his wife!

[Simon]

Well, i would not let the catholic church ANYWHERE near children. Not with their track record on kids welfare.....

[Tory T]

Several points

1. There are plenty of religious exemptions in existing laws made for members of faith groups, eg Sikhs and turbans, so this is nothing new.

2. "Blackmail" is to fail to understand Catholicism. A Catholic can no more place a child with a co-habiting, unmarried couple, either straight or gay, than they can perform an abortion. If the Labour party insists that Catholics condone gay partnerships, of course they will not do it. They will be left without any options and will have to close their doors at once, Labour will have stranded 5% of children and the BBC estimates about 33% of the hardest to place children, that are currently found happy homes by these agencies.

The question the state should ask is "Does the work of Catholic adoption agencies, who only place children with single people or married couples, benefit children?" If the answer is "No" by all means force them to close. No religious group is going to go against its own religion to please the government.

Whatever posters may think, Catholics, Muslims, many Anglicans, orthodox Jews, and plenty of others believe, and are allowed to believe, that homosexual *behaviour* - not people - is inherently immoral. Faith groups do their charitable work according to their own principles. If Government says "No, do your charity work according to OUR principles" faith agencies will have no option but to shut their doors.

I think that is impossibly short-sighted. I also think there will be a big backlash when voters realise what the government has done to these children in its headlong insistence that everybody must agree with it on sexual morality.

[Mark McCartney]

>>I don't think Reagan Fan has much connection with Christian Theology<<

I don't think he has much connection with Ronald Reagan either. Reagan was a staunch defender of traditional Christian values unlike this guy who is just another pseudo-Marxist egalitarian posting on a Tory site.

To their credit most Tories opposed every Socialist extension of "equality" legislation and we should never have sold the pass on this. Under Thatcher we should have dismantled the entire totalitarian industry.

Full marks to today's Daily Telegrph for stating, loud and proud, that adoption should be by two persons of different sex. That statement will be applauded by at least 90% of Tories not counting the shiny new gay sockpuppets which have suddenly appeared on this thread.

[Mark Fulford]

"Well, i would not let the catholic church ANYWHERE near children. Not with their track record on kids welfare....."

I wouldn't restrict that to the Catholic Church.

Nobody should be subjected to religious "teachings" until they've had time to develop a fully functioning bullshit detector.

[Jonathan M. Scott]

Simon's posting should be deleted as it is anti-Catholic and an insult to anyone of that faith. You wouldn't permit postings generalising about a particular ethnic group. Yes, some individual priests abused kids *BUT* the fact is that Catholic adoption agencies do a fantastic job, and this Government policy has the potential to make them close down. What about the kids?? This is a policy from a morally bankrupt Labour Government. I have real respect for (fellow County Londonderry woman) Ruth Kelly and I hope her view of exempting Catholic adoption agencies wins the day.

[Henry]

John Irvine asks: "Why are they all so terrified of the homosexual mafia?"

Because, we are omnipresent... Big Sister is watching you!

[Simon]

Oh dear, Jonathan Scott takes offence at my earlier posting. Tough. My point still stands, and as far as i'm concerned more valid than the CC's view on homosexuality.

[JimJam]

J M Scott "some priests"

depends how many "some" is - hundreds or thousands ?

[Michael McGowan]

Come off it, Mark F, you're too smart to fall for that guff! You have just lived through the last part of a century cursed by the bullshit content of messianic secular ideologies.

[Jonathan M. Scott]

Simon, JimJam - The church has put in strict child protection measures to resolve this problem; and the vast majority of priests would never abuse a child. However, it still does not change the fact that Catholic adoption agencies provide a fantastic service in finding families for kids, often from very deprived backgrounds.

[Londoner]

It may possibly be astute to keep quiet now but presumably, unless it is dropped, the Party will have to vote on it in Parliament and will need a stance then. If there is any chance that the Govt U turn before then, it seems to me beneficial for us to say what we think before then, particularly if we are against it as we can then get some credit for forcing the change.

It would be possible to allow a free vote but I find Tory T's argument at 12:43 pretty convincing and I would hope that the front bench indicates that it is firmly against the Govt and with the churches on this one, albeit with allowance for voting otherwise if individual MPs feel strongly to the contrary.

Personally, whilst not being against gay practices on moral or religious grounds, I do have, at the very least, strong reservations about gay people adopting children. Gays do not naturally have children as a consequence of their gay relationships and therefore, in a literal sense, it is not natural for children to be brought up by two people of the same sex. Further, the contributions of a father and a mother to parenting are different and complementary. Adoption should try to be as close to what it would have been if the parents were the natural parents, and gay adoption can never be that. So, whilst I would not ban it by law, and accept that in some cases gay adoption might be better for the child than no adoption, I would have a strong bias against it and allow any adoption agency, whether religious based or not, to exercise such bias. And ideally I would not require a religious rationale for being allowed to do so.

[David Allen]

Conservatives are wise to stay out of this mess of Labour's making _ let them take the rap for it!
As for a sensible solution, I dislike the idea of a special exemption for the Catholic Church. Rather, these regulations should only apply to public bodies (central/ local govt./ quangos) and to publicly-quoted companies. Private individuals and private organisations like faith groups should be exempt. Whatever happened to freedom of contract? I should be free to do business or not with whoever I wish according to my own values.
Natural parents may lose rights over their child once it is adopted, but, it is entirely reasonable that if they have a particular faith, they should be free to seek an adoptive family of that faith for the child they are giving up. If that means they go to a catholic adoption agency to find prospective catholic parents, that is fine. The RC church has not said that gays are bad parents per se. The catholic (arch?)bishop of B'ham was interviewed on C4 last night and made it clear that they aleady forward suitable gay couples who apply to catholic adoption agencies to other, non-catholic, agencies. In doing so, they are respecting both the rights of the natural parent who gave their child up for adoption and the wish of those gay couples to be parents. Why cannot this situation continue to obtain? As a gay Catholic, I am saddened to see that a minority of opeople with small and dirty minds have chosen to exploit this issue to parade their prejudices on this site.

[Mark McCartney]

Personally I find the concept of "gay adoption" bizarre, absurd and totally alien to any possible notion of what constitutes Conservatism.

One argument which just popped up an the radio c/o some Nulabour clone was the one that "we should not deprive children of the chance of being adopted by a loving couple".

Utterly ridiculous! Childless couples are queuing up fo the right to adopt children. There are not enough to go round.

[John Coles]

Jonathan Scott wrote:
""Simon's posting should be deleted as it is anti-Catholic and an insult to anyone of that faith.""
I support this Editor. I am not a Catholic. Could you please consider this posting?

[Michael McGowan]

David Allen, I share your sadness although I have to admit that it must require enormous patience and good humour to be a Catholic and gay. I have an endless list of bones to pick with our church and I am not gay.

Londoner, I basically agree with your second paragraph in particular although I think my reservations are less strong than yours.

[David Allen]

No, Mark Mccartney: couples are not queuing up to adopt all these children as you suggest. There is a great shortage of 'perfectly-abled' white BABIES for the people who want them for all sorts of reasons. But lots of older children 2/4/5 years and up and black/brown babies/ children and disabled ones for whom there are nowhere near enough adoptive parents. In practice, the gay couples/ single people are mostly adopting the leftovers that the 'perfect' adoptive heterosexual couples don't want.

[Happy Tory]

I used to be on a local authority adoption committee. Childless couples are queuing up to adopt children who are still babies, have no family history of medical or drugs problems and no sign of developmental abnormalities. Ethnic background is also a powerful consideration, as there are many more white families looking for children (again, babies with low risk of future problems) than there are matching children.

Childless couples are NOT AT ALL queuing up for children who are older, from troubled backgrounds or with developmental abnormalities. When the argument talks about "difficult to place" childre, it is important to draw the distinction.

[Mark McCartney]

Well Mr Allen. Can you tell me why a pair of homosexuals might wish to "adopt" a child?

I have encountered plenty of homosexuals over the years and I have never known any who apparently wanted to do such a thing. I would say it's generally alien to their lifestyle.

I would imagine most of them would, at the very least, consider it rather "odd".

[Mark Fulford]

"Come off it, Mark F, you're too smart to fall for that guff!"

Ditto Michael ;-)

Humankind would do far better if we were more able to look for the evidence. It's an idea that should be instilled in every child from the moment they’re born. Instead, before a person can even walk, talk or remember, we’re dunking their heads in water and telling them to accept “facts” about Heaven and Hell without questioning them. It’s a disastrous lesson.

Any belief should be able to stand on its own feet, without its propagation relying on defenceless minds instructed from positions of power.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Gay men and women want equal rights. It is the Catholic Church that wants "special rights" - to discriminate against gay men and women. As for the Catholic Adoption Agency, I wouldn't trust them to foster my guinea pigs (see comments above!).

Our 'Clause Four moment - if we are to have one - should be to abolish the link between Church and State and, amongst other things, kick those bloody bishops out of the HoLs!

Yesterday, I found this website - http://jeffpeel.wordpress.com/ WELL WORTH VIEWING!

[Reagan Fan]

>>I don't think Reagan Fan has much connection with Christian Theology<<

>>I don't think he has much connection with Ronald Reagan either. Reagan was a staunch defender of traditional Christian values unlike this guy who is just another pseudo-Marxist egalitarian posting on a Tory site.<<

You don't know your Reagan history too well do you? In 1977 the Log Cabin Republicans were founded in California as a rallying point for Republicans opposed to the Briggs Initiative, a ballot initiative designed to "defend your children from homosexual teachers", which for a time was winning in polls conducted prior to the election with about 61% of voters supporting it while 31% opposed it. It was the first attempt to restrict gay and lesbian rights through a ballot measure. However, it is historically significant that the polls changed in the opponents favor when former Governor Ronald Reagan, later President opposed the measure. The timing is significant because he was then preparing to run for president, a race in which he would need the support of conservatives and moderates who felt very uncomfortable with homosexual teachers, however Reagan chose to state his convictions and wrote:

"...whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

This was a remarkably progressive thing for a Republican politician, especially a conservative one about to run for president, to say in 1978.

In the end the Briggs Initiative was defeated by over one million votes and would have prevented gay men and lesbians from being public school teachers in California. Even John Briggs' home territory, the conservative Orange County, rejected the measure.

Without Reagan's personal opposition to Briggs (which was joined by support from Barry Goldwater) it's likely the measure would have passed. Bloody pseudo-Marxist egalitarians!

[Tommy Sunshine]

The Conservative party's silence on this has been deafening.
Sometimes in the political arena you have to throw away the pager and put a silence to the spin.
This is one of those times when you do the right thing. The right thing is to exempt Catholic adoption agencies from the proposed new laws.
Traditionally an overwhelming majority of Catholic Church members support Labour. Well, that will stay the same at the next election if the Conservatives retain a position of tepid timidity. So far from being pragmatic as some clueless posters seem to think, it's actually politically savvy as well as a principled stance to support the Catholic Church right now.
As a Catholic Theo Con my natural home SHOULD be with the conservatives.
However I may find myself ignoring the lure of David Cameron at the next election. There will be quite a few of us. The party may end up in the Brown stuff as a result but what do you expect if convictions are abandoned at the altar of expediency?

[Michael McGowan]

Justin, the Archbishop of Westminster doesn't have a seat in the House of Lords and there is no link between the Catholic Church and the State. Disestablishing the Church of England would probably increase its influence, not the reverse. And since when were your moral values absolute.....so absolute in fact that you think it is a better outcome for the Catholic Church's adoption service to shut rather than concede an exemption on this point? The point is exactly the same as abortion: if we accept your thinking, no doctor in the NHS can refuse to perform an abortion, which is no doubt what the pro-abortion lobby want, with the same degree of vociferousness.

Mark, I think your view of religious teaching ("defenceless minds", etc) is a bit quaint and can't you say exactly the same things about agnostic/atheist teaching.....which would be the inevitable alternative?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Thought UKUP operated a "No preference, No Prejudice" policy? Obviously this does not extend to gay men and women! Chad Noble's claim that UKUP is a "libertarian" party has been exposed as a lie by his trolls on this site - such as dear little Mark. UKUP's supporters - far from being libertarian – are nasty xenophobes and homophobes who have no place in today’s Conservative Party. Now we’re back to Sir Malcolm Riftkind…

[Richard]

"As for a sensible solution, I dislike the idea of a special exemption for the Catholic Church. Rather, these regulations should only apply to public bodies (central/ local govt./ quangos) and to publicly-quoted companies. Private individuals and private organisations like faith groups should be exempt. Whatever happened to freedom of contract? I should be free to do business or not with whoever I wish according to my own values."

One of the most sensible things said so far! The issue here should not be about gay adoption but whether the state should be telling people who they can and cannot associate with or offer services to. One would have thought the anti-statist Tories would be cheering on the "leave us alone to run our own affairs!" brigade regardless of any moral issues over gay adoption.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

My call for the link between Church and State to be abolished should have been in a new post. I am fully aware that it is the CoE that has Bishops in the Lords and other such previllages.

[Michael McGowan]

Answer my question Justin rather than trading Bercowesque abuse. Talk about the unacceptable face of modernising Conservatism.

[Richard]

"UKUP's supporters - far from being libertarian – are nasty xenophobes and homophobes who have no place in today’s Conservative Party. Now we’re back to Sir Malcolm Riftkind…"

I expect you'll find a lot of UKIP supports (like the BNP's) are very anti-abortion, a position generally viewed as highly socially conservative. But does that make you a right-wing extremist?

[Denis Cooper]

Rather than abolishing the link between Church and State it might be better to separate the State from charities - otherwise this is what you will inevitably get, charitable bodies being treated as an extension of the State and expected to comply with whatever the politicians in government at the time happen to believe in, irrespective of what the charitable workers believe in.

[EML]

For me it comes partly down to choice. People can not choose what race or sex they are, so it is right and proper that they are protected by law against discrimination.

I still wonder whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or is inherent within some people from birth. If the latter then homosexual people should be afforded the same protection from discrimination as everybody else.

But then we move on to whether homosexual people should be allowed to bring up children, and whether it is in the child's best interest to be adopted by a man and a woman, or whether a child can have a completely normal and fulfilling childhood with two father figures and no mother figure (or the opposite).

There are obviously many people on either side of this argument, so is it right that the great clunking fist of the State should come down on those that take a different view to the Government?

I would love to read the debate that Parliament had on this Act. I wonder what sort of arguments our MPs were throwing around.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I am aware that my pro-life views are not shared by the majority of my One Nation and modernising colleagues. I am also unfortunate to be stuck with the Religious Right, despite not really being a Christian. I oppose abortion from a human rights PoV.

[Mark McCartney]

So, Reagan Fan, it would appear that your claimed admiration for Reagan is dictated by this one rather insignificent event. Well, we can see where your priorities lie.

Those of us who were on the scene when Ronald Regan was working with Margaret Thatcher for the good of the Free World will be grateful to him for much, much more.

It may interest you to know that, being rather intrigued by the existence of a gay Republican group I looked them up on the net last year.

It's apparent from what they say on their own site that the Log Cabin group receives very little encouragement from the GOP, which still generally remains wedded to traditional Christian values.

[Michael McGowan]

Just as those who advocate abortion argue that they are defending a woman's human right to choose. All you are showing Justin is what I have argued for months: that many Modernising Conservatives are authoritarian secularists whose "liberal" credentials are a sham.

The Catholic Church isn't preventing gay couples adopting. When approached by gay couples it will always steer them to other adoption agencies, of which there are many. So gay couples get the opportunity to adopt regardless. Your real goal is to use the criminal law to put the boot into those who have ethical disagreements with you. It has nothing to do with children's welfare. And you haven't explained how you can justify this and still defend and exemption for doctors from performing abortions.....which is what the Cultural Marxists will want to abolish next.

[tory papist]

Justin

As you are pro-life what have you to say about the conscience clause in the 1967 Abortion Act? Surely Christians are merely asking for something similar in the adoption field?

Or perhaps you don't agree with conscience clauses per se?

[Reagan Fan]

Mark, you are funny.

I was a fan of Reagan's a very long time before I'd ever even heard of Briggs or the Log Cabin Republicans. I was responding to a specific comment above.

The reasons I admire Reagan so much can be understood if you read the book "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism", which details his battles with Communism from the 1950s until his last active days in politics.

The man was a political colosus.

[Michael McGowan]

Like most Cultural Marxists and many "liberal" Tory MPs, Justin clearly doesn't accept that freedom of conscience should apply to those with whom he disagrees.

[Mark McCartney]

>>I was a fan of Reagan's<<

Really?

The unreconstructed Cameroon tripe you spout here sets you well apart from any of the Regan fans I know.

I don't think you'd sit too well in the Republican Party either.

[Reagan Fan]

Mark, that depends on which part of the Republican Party you're talking about. Sure, I'm no fan of Pat Buchanan or Rick Santorum (they are both very different from one another, though both have their positive sides I wouldn't particularly hold either of them up as political heroes of mine), but I do admire Reagan, Giuliani, Cheney, and Schwarzenegger and have many friends in Washington DC who work for House Republicans (I know no Senatorial staffers).

Incidentally I looked up what Cultural Marxism is:

"Cultural Marxists think that the Christian religion and its values, particularly sexual morality, demotivate the working classes from rising up and revolting against the class system, and that such values need to be rejected."

I'm no Cultural Marxist. I DON'T think that Christianity demotivates the working classes, I don't think it should be rejected and I don't believe in revolution. I suspect most of the people you like to label Cultural Marxists are no such thing.

[Annabel Herriott]

Actually, there is an enormouse group of older children who do well with an alternative family grouping. These are the children who life has treated badly, and feel positively inferior/out of it, when placed with a "normal" family.
They tend to settle down as if with" like minded" people, if you will. No preference, no prejudgice as our old pal Farage likes to say. They dont feel alien any more.
And just because someone is gay, it does not preclude maternal/paternal feelings, and often quite skilled and inspirational parenting.
How do I know this? I was a "specialist" foster mother in the 1980s. I had girls placed with me that I was totally out of my depth with. But I know that a couple of women would have been really valuable to quite a few of them.
This was after my "normal" adoptive children, (one gay) had grown up and gone to lead successful lives. Kevin is running a resteraunt in Salisbury, if Graeme et al want to look him up!!!!

[Mark Fulford]

"can't you say exactly the same things about agnostic/atheist teaching..... which would be the inevitable alternative?"

Michael, no, I’m not singling out religion with look for the evidence. It's a principle that should apply to all questions – I wish our Parliament had done it better on Iraq, for example. On the matter at hand, here’s some expert evidence from the cultural Marxists :-) at the American Academy of Pediatrics on outcomes of gay adoption.

[changetowin]

I agree with the Editor that the Conservative should be commenting on this. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with him over what the party should be saying. The Conservative Party believes that persecution against people based on things intrinsic to a person's being and outside their control (e.g. skin colour, sexual orientation) is wrong. Ruth Kelly is Minister for Equality - charged with promoting equality. Clearly, the Conservatives should be supporting equality for all rather than its alternative and should be calling for Ruth Kelly's head.

[Michael McGowan]

You may very well be right, Annabel, but your comments are hardly relevant. The question is whether it is right to use the criminal law to force people to provide a service despite the fact they have conscientious objections, whether we share those objections or not (I do not). Exactly the same issues apply to abortion and to conscientious objection in time of war. Amusing to find the "social liberal" Mr Hinchcliffe lining up alongside Hitler, who shot German conscientious objectors.

[Michael McGowan]

Changetowinbutwhatsthepoint? clearly doesn't believe in conscientious objection either. Tells us a lot about the nice shiny "modern" Conservative Party.

Mark, ethics are not susceptible to empiricism in the way that weapons of mass destruction, or their absence, are.

[CDM]

"As an Ulster Protestant, I have never so admired Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor for taking a stand on this issue."

When religious nuts on opposing sides start to agree, it's normally a sign to steer well clear of whatever's being suggested.

As the Catholic Church is providing a public service, this shouldn't be an "issue of conscience". It should comply with all the rules that other service providers have to comply with. If their bigotry prevents them from doing this, they should transfer their adoption service to someone who actually cares about the children's welfare.

[Mark Fulford]

"Mark, ethics are not susceptible to empiricism"

Heaven, Hell and Limbo certainly are. I'd argue the ethics are too because you can measure (or at least try to) the outcome of those ethics.

"conscientious objections"

Conscientious objection can be used as a mask for prejudice.

[Mark Fulford]

"Mark, ethics are not susceptible to empiricism"

Heaven, Hell and Limbo certainly are. I'd argue the ethics are too because you can measure (or at least try to) the outcome of those ethics.

"conscientious objections"

Conscientious objection can be used as a mask for prejudice.

[Mark McCartney]

>>"Cultural Marxists think that the Christian religion and its values, particularly sexual morality, demotivate the working classes from rising up and revolting against the class system, and that such values need to be rejected."<<

That represents a classic strand of Marxism but if you study the influence of Marxist revisionists such as Gramsci and Marcuse which reaches down to today's current New Labour government you will see how most of that statement can be preserved while bringing it into line with current Euro-socialist practice.

Try taking out "demotivate...class system" and replace it, let's say, with "militates against the imposition of equality", and you get the drift.

This is the status quo which Cameroon "Tories" are content to uphold, thereby proving Michael McGowan's contention that "many Modernising Conservatives are authoritarian secularists whose "liberal" credentials are a sham."

Changetowin's totally predictable post is a case in point.

[malcolm]

Amazed at your comment CDM. Do you really regard the Archbishps as 'religous nuts?'.

[Mark McCartney]

>>Conscientious objection can be used as a mask for prejudice.<<

What do you mean "can be"? Conscientious objection normally does reflect the prejudices of the objector, eg in favour of pacificism.

Why should any free man be required to justify his choices to you, Mark Fulford? Seems you're yet another sham liberal

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Do you really regard the Archbishps as 'religous nuts?'. I, for one, do! Most are self-hating gay drag queens!

[Mark Fulford]

"Why should any free man be required to justify his choices to you, Mark Fulford? Seems you're yet another sham liberal"

Sorry, I can't be bothered to reply to someone who makes a point of being rude.

[The Laughing Cavalier]

Would Mr Fulford please explain to this dumb old dog how Heaven, Hell and Limbo can be subject to empiricism.

[Rudyard.]

So,firstly,two ladies/gents go for adopting a child after first declaring they are both 100% gay,should they then be allowed to adopt a child on their own sayso of being ?

Secondly,can anyone here clearly identify an unknown person as being 100% gay?

Thirdly,this thread has been diverted by some on here,the question is,should the Catholic Church,be allowed diffent rules on adoption of the children it cares for.

The whole problem can be resolved by removing ALL men from the adoption system within the Catholic Church Adoption services.

Not nice,but,would perhaps save the CCA services and those it helps.

[tory papist]

Still no answer from Justin to my question about conscience clauses.

Justin, I take your silence as evidence that you cannot put forward a logical argument as to why the conscience clause is OK in the case of abortion, but not here.

[Anon]

I'm not sure I understood Rudyard's post. But here's a solution.

The Catholic Church throws its toys out the pram and closes down its adoption service because it won't be made to treat gays like anyone else under the law. Those within the service with the best interests of the children at heart transfer there specialist services (in hard to place children) to a non-Catholic adoption agency and continue to act in the paramount interest of the children in their care. Nobody loses out and the Catholic Church is left to continue hating gays and covering up sex scandals.

[Anon]

I'm not sure I understood Rudyard's post. But here's a solution.

The Catholic Church throws its toys out the pram and closes down its adoption service because it won't be made to treat gays like anyone else under the law. Those within the service with the best interests of the children at heart transfer there specialist services (in hard to place children) to a non-Catholic adoption agency and continue to act in the paramount interest of the children in their care. Nobody loses out and the Catholic Church is left to continue hating gays and covering up sex scandals.