Christian Couple in UK Declared “Unsuitable” to Foster Kids

by Mike Ensley on February 27, 2008 · Comments

From Daily Mail:

They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 20 vulnerable children.

But Eunice and Owen Johns have been forced to abandon their good work because they refuse to tell children as young as ten that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.

To do so, they say, would go against their Christian beliefs.

The devastated couple withdrew an application to their council to continue as foster carers after being told they must condone homosexuality to adhere to gay rights laws.

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation), which came into force last April, makes it illegal for any business or organisation providing a public service to discriminate against anyone because of their sexuality.

The council says its fostering panel felt it would not be following the regulations if it placed a child with a couple who could not comply with the Act.

The couple’s case comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents, who work on a voluntary basis. Around 8,000 more are needed nationally.

I think this situation throws a wrench into the argument of some that pro-gay legislation won’t affect other people’s lives. In this case no one who has claimed a gay identity is being protected, rather people are being discriminated against because of their personal moral convictions.

So how long before Christian parents in the UK (and elsewhere) are declared unfit to raise even their own biological or adopted children because they refuse to buy into gay dogma? Check out the comment from “John”:

…their inflexible Christian standpoint (which actually means one must question their Christianity) means that they are patently unsuitable for nurturing children in the 21st century. …homosexuality is fully accepted in civilised societies as an irreversible, birth given characteristic. To not condone this simple fact is tantamount to bigotry.

Share on ...
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • TwitThis
  • Pownce
  • Print this article!
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • SphereIt
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz

    Related posts (automatically generated)

Tagged as: , , , , , ,

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Interestingly, this "comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents" in many US states which prohibit gay couples and/or individuals from fostering and adopting. It's too bad such legislation is "affecting other peoples lives" here in the US.

    It's hard to take this complaint seriously (even if it has some merit) when anti-gay groups (such as Exodus) continue to aggressively advocate against equality for LGBT families... which in turn negatively affects the children most at need in our society.

    It shouldn't matter, but I wonder how many UK foster/adoptive parents would become ineligible if they were governed by the anti-families law that restrict the ability of suitable gay parents to adopt.

    I guess the question is: why should sexual orientation be an acceptable litmus test but not attitudes towards other citizens? Where is the consistency there?
    • ^
    • v
    Brian, first of all the difference is that these parents are being excluded because of their personal beliefs--not because of their behavior or relationship patterns.

    As for gay adoption, sure I'm personally not a supporter of the idea. My position, however, is based upon what I believe is best for a child, not how much I value the adults. A child needs a mother and a father; the question is who can supply that.

    I also don't think it can be accurately said that Exodus "aggressively advocate[s] against equality for LGBT families." Other than a handful of blogs that might mention it once in a while, to what are you referring?

    And it goes without saying that, in the arena of parenting, heterosexual couples do present an unequal advantage starting from the very nature of it. No LGBT couple (however you'd define that--and some would still probably call you close-minded) can start a family without the contribution of heterosexuality.
    • ^
    • v
    I think this whole thing is sad--on both sides. This isn't about the parents. It's about the children. Period. If the parents have a history of providing good care to children--regardless of being gay or straight, or believing pro-gay or anit-gay, or whatever--then what's the difference? I hear people talk about influence on children. I was raised by Christian parents, but I still turned out gay and supported that for awhile. Others are raised to believe homosexuality is okay and yet when they grow up they disagree. This is a personal decision. Most people actually do tend to think for themselves and don't always believe whatever their parents believe or teach them. So, the question there is irrelevent, I think. So long as the parent takes care of the child, provides for the child, loves the child, that's what should matter. To take children out of a home or not allow certain people to be parents, just because they don't believe what you want them to believe, only serves to hurt all those children out there looking for a good home and a family.

    This is nothing more than a political issue that just wreaks of intolerance and injustice on both sides. Gays want gays and Christians want Christians. Newsflash: You can't force everyone to always believe the exact same things as you. So, stop trying and learn to accept that just because someone doesn't share all your views, doesn't mean that makes them unfit to raise children. It just makes them different from you--no better and no worse.
    • ^
    • v
    Mike, I'm also thinking about what is best for the children. And studies have consistently shown that TWO PARENTS (not "one mother and one father") is what is best for a child. I think what you're referring to is studies that have shown a child with a mother and a father is better off than being raised by a single-parent.

    What is best for a child is to be raised in a stable house, ideally but not necessarily by two parents, and not trapped in the foster care system or in group homes. I think that parents--gay or straight, Christian or non-Christian--who can provide a safe and secure family and are capable of raising children should be allowed foster and adopt. That is what is best for children, even if it doesn't suit an anti-gay political agenda.
    • ^
    • v
    I had heard of this case and it is very sad indeed. Good job on the post and response Mike.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post: Welcome Fay!

Next post: Chasing the Sunset - Flying To San Jose