Thursday, January 25, 2007

Cabinet rejects exemption on gay adoptions

It now looks certain that Tony Blair is going to have to back down over the gay adoption issue with members of his Cabinet outraged that he planned to cave in to the Catholic Church and allow them exemption from new anti-discrimination legislation.

The new legislation says that it is illegal to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their sexual orientation. The Catholic Church have argued that, because of their religious beliefs, they would not be able to comply with this legislation as it relates to Catholic adoption agencies and that they would have to close the agencies rather than comply. This was taken by many to be a clear threat from the Catholic church that children would suffer if they were not granted the exemption they were demanding.

Ruth Kelly, the Minister for Equality and a practicing Catholic and member of Opus Dei, was the person that Blair chose to guarantee that gay people received equal rights under law. It was always an extraordinary choice guaranteed to leave Miss Kelly compromised at every turn.

However, it now transpires that the person pushing for the Catholic church to receive special treatment was Mr Blair rather than Miss Kelly. Mr Blair, who is widely expected to convert to Catholicism when he leaves office, has been pleading with the Cabinet to allow the Catholic church this exemption.

The Cabinet have been steadfast in their refusal. A refusal that was best summed up by Harriet Harman:

"You can either be against discrimination or you can allow for it. You can't be a little bit against discrimination."
Miss Harman sums up the argument beautifully. This bill is not a bill for adoption, it is a bill to prevent discrimination and it matters not a jot whether or not that discrimination is being carried out because of a religious belief. Discrimination is wrong.

The new compromise designed to break the impasse is unlikely to please Church leaders.
Cabinet sources said the new proposals would require Catholic adoption agencies to consider gay couples - or close down - after a reasonable delay that would allow them to ensure that the children in their care are properly dealt with.

The transitional period could be up to three years, but ministers concede that some agencies may prefer to close rather than consider gay couples. The compromise is far from the complete exemption demanded by Catholic and Anglican leaders, who wrote to members of the cabinet. Their concerns were raised by Ruth Kelly, the communities secretary, who is a staunch Catholic.

Though Downing Street insists the prime minister was not calling for an exemption but merely trying to broker a solution, cabinet colleagues strongly criticised his sympathy for the church's view. Mr Blair's critics will also seize upon the compromise as a sign of his political weakness in the last months of his premiership.

Yesterday Mr Blair held a meeting with a delegation of Labour MPs, including Angela Eagle, Chris Bryant and David Borrows, and a number of Catholic MPs, all of whom argued for no exemption.

Ms Eagle said: "Transition is certainly possible so long as it is sensible and doesn't have to go on forever. We are not being the dogmatic ones in this argument. We are not demanding that gay couples absolutely in all circumstances have to be approved. We are saying they should not be ruled out as a priority."

Blair has always been a very strange man to lead the Labour Party, and when it comes to issues like this he reveals just how little understanding he has about the basic tenets of the movement that he heads.

The very notion that he could "broker a solution" on an issue of principle says that he does not fully understand the principles involved.

Were Blair to remove the word "gay" from any argument he forms in his head when considering these compromise solutions and replace it with the word "black" he would quickly realise how offensive he is being.

Remember, this bill is not about adoption, it is about discrimination.

Discrimination is wrong. Period. And even if one discriminates because of one's religious beliefs, it is nevertheless discrimination.

Click title for full article.

tag: , , , , , , , ,

2 comments:

AF said...

I despair over the Churches moral cherry-picking in recent times.

The Catholic church are proving they actually seem to wield some political power- they could use this power against many things like war, debt, poverty, ID schemes, corruption, crime and injustice- instead what do they choose? Homosexual equality- as if it's even a moral issue?

The church itself is not doing any favours to God or itself by choosing this fight. Why choose one thing to discriminate against out of all of societies sinfulness?

My own personal stance is if you can't serve a gay person you shouldn't be running a business.

Furthermore, and this may come as a surprise, I would rather see a child raised in a stable, loving, educational environment with necessities and needs met by a gay couple, than a straight couple who turned out to be criminals or child molesters (for example).

What's important is the needs and welfare of the child, whether gay, single or straight parents.

Kel said...

I couldn't agree more Alex. The Church has been fighting this and threatening to close down adoption agencies rather than be forced to have to consider gay couples as possible adoptees. Also gay couples have, in the apst, tended to take the older more difficult to manage children which hetrosexual couples are choosing not to take. I know this evidence is merely anectodal, but I did find it interesting.

The other thing I found incredible is that, at a time when the government are passing a law against discrimination, the church is choosing to argue that they should be allowed to discriminate.

As you rightly state, an organisation as powerful should use it's voice where it matters. For instance I was very pleased recently to see the Archbishop of Canterbury's visit to Bethlehem. That's the Church engaging where it's voice can have moral resonance.

In the discrimination issue they simply sound as if they come from another age.