Probably they\’re right but still….

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong.

The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values.

I do find this strange.

For a child to be in foster care means that something terrible has already happened. Thei natural family has been ruled incapable of caring for them, they have died, they\’re in prison, something like that.

The alternative to fostering is council care. And as I remarked back a few years on the subject of gay adoption:

The important set of statistics is that which shows that the very worst life chances, the highest probabilities of drug use, homelessness, ill-, mal- and under- education, indeed, the greatest signifier of a life that’s going to be entirely and completely fucked up is growing up in council care.

Really, who gives a damn that Teh Gayers are changing nappies compared to that?

Similarly, who cares that foster parents have, by modern standards, prejudices about teh gayers?

I agree that in a perfect world we might not want such prejudices to be paraded in front of vulnerable children (of course, this is to taste). But that it ain\’t a perfect world is evident by the very fact that we seem to require foster parents.

I get a feeling that this ruling is allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good: are we really so over supplied with foster parents that we can afford to reject some on these grounds?

5 thoughts on “Probably they\’re right but still….”

  1. And also it proves that State morality (cf drugs alcohol) trumps all others including personal morality…

    Also look at kids left in care because they’re brown and the available fosterers at white…

  2. And also it proves that State morality (cf drugs alcohol) trumps all others including personal morality…

    No it doesn’t because in this case, as in other cases involving children within the care system, the state, i.e. a local authority, is acting in loco parentis and is consequently no less entitled to a take a view on the moral environment in which it places a child than a natural parent.

  3. “Their natural family has been ruled incapable of caring for them, they have died, they’re in prison, something like that.”

    And sometimes, simply because they can remove the children under cover of the secretive family court.

    So we may never know if the reason was sound…

  4. So no kids to Muslims cos they don’t eat pork (bad for the piggie industry)
    No kids to anybody who is considering voting BNP (must be total fascists)
    No kids to…… you could find a pseudo reason to eliminate any group
    No kids to openly feminist lesbians cos they don’t like men
    No kids to men ‘cos they are potential rapists

    Much better in care. Helps to keep the police busy when they grow up.

  5. The weird thing about this case is, how did it come to court? That isn’t explained at all. These people may or may not be rampantly homophobic, but how did anyone know about it? Were they just dumb enough to tick the box marked “are you now or have you ever been a homophobe” on the fostering checklist?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *