“There can be no exemptions..

..for faith based adoption agencies from the new sexual orientation regulations.” As the BBC report, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, have announced that there will be no exemptions for faith-based adotion agencies, exemptions which the Churches had been demanding. But there is an element of compromise, as had been suggested.. those faith-based adoption agencies will be given until the end of 2008 to acclimatise themselves to the new reality, described as an “unnecessarily long” time by the Lib Dems, and in the meantime there will be a statutory duty to refer same-sex couples to an agency which will work with them.From the Downing St. statement

I start from a very firm foundation: there is no place in our society for discrimination. That is why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that is why there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering publicly-funded services from regulations which prevent discrimination.

This will be made clear in the regulations that the Government will lay before Parliament shortly. In the interests of children, they will include a transition period before these regulations come fully into force at the end of 2008 for existing adoption agencies. This will be coupled, during this period, with a statutory duty for any adoption agency which does not process applications from same sex couples to refer them to another agency. I have also asked for a regular independent assessment from adoption and child welfare experts on the impact of the sexual orientation regulations on adoption in order to maintain the existing body of expertise.

, ,

  • Democracy prevails, sense has returned, you cannot be half-pregnant, 2008, reluctantly accept it as this is a victory for democracy over religion.

  • joeCanuck

    Art Hostage

    I agree.
    The Canadian Supreme Court, when they find that a law is unconstitutional, sometimes gives the government a year or two to rewrite the law.
    Not perfect but pragmatic.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    JoeCanuck: “The Canadian Supreme Court, when they find that a law is unconstitutional, sometimes gives the government a year or two to rewrite the law.
    Not perfect but pragmatic. ”

    Like they did for the Canadian socialized medicine program, at least in Quebec, ruling that “access to a waiting list does not equate with access to healthcare.”

    The gov’t sort that one out yet?

  • joeCanuck

    No Dread.
    Still dragging their heels for the rest of the country.
    Quebecers now have open access (I think) to private medicine.
    The government are way behind the public on this issue; we already have a two tier system in that not everything is covered under our “public” health service.
    And even for those procedures that are covered, if you want to spend your own money to jump the queue, you simply go down to the States. About 90% of Canadians live no more than 100 miles from the border.

  • Nevin

    Art Hostage, half-pregnant is a rather unusual metaphor for same-sex partners.

  • Art Hostage, half-pregnant is a rather unusual metaphor for same-sex partners.

    The reference half-pregnant was to the law being applied to everyone or not at all.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Art Hostage: “The reference half-pregnant was to the law being applied to everyone or not at all.”

    One wonders how much this intrusion into religious dogma will ultimately end up costing the state, once the religious organizations decide to pull the plug on their operations and leave the whole of the task to state.

  • let them pull the plug!

  • BeardyBoy

    Let us hope we never have to rely on the state – budgets and all that – hope your child is never one of the more difficult to adopt- just look at how the state treats powerless children at Muckamore?

  • In an ideal world, of course, children would have both strong male and female role-models while growing up. In the absence of parents, I suppose it’ll have to be Big Brother and the like…

  • jml

    The single biggest piece of discrimination in Britain is the Act of Succession, which is the cornerstone of the whole shooting match. I wonder when the MPs will get around to amending that?

    The state has no business interfering in the moral judgement of the Catholic, or any other Christian Church, when it comes to family since these organisations do more for the family than the Govt. will ever do. The Catholic position is one of conscience, in that it believes the family starts with a man and a woman bound in God’s love through marriage. Nothing much wrong with that really. This is the crux of the matter, there is no discrimination. The church is NOT saying that gay people wouldn’t make good parents, the church wouldn’t refer gays to other organisations if that were the case.

    The astounding hypocrisy of the Govt. aside, I wonder if the Church can get around this legislation by subcontracting the gay parents out to ‘specialist’ organisations.