Saturday, January 27, 2007

Andrew Pierce Defends Ruth Kelly

My friend Andrew Pierce has written a most powerful ARTICLE in today's TELEGRAPH on the gay adoption issue. Andrew, who's gay, was adopted and for the first three years of his life was looked after by Catholic nuns. His message is that others should not be denied the start in life he had. He concludes the article...

Yes, the Church stance is a slight on gay couples – but, for heaven's sake, use your brain. Gays would not have gone to Catholic adoption agencies in the first place. While important principles are at stake, there is something far more important here. Decades of experience will be lost if the agencies are squeezed out by the conflicting forces of Church and State. It may be the last thing you would expect from a gay man, but for once, and probably the only time, I am with Ruth Kelly; however, she is far too damaged as a politician to make the argument for an exemption for the Catholic Church. But there should be one. The Catholic adoption agencies looked after me until I was placed into the arms of adoptive parents who loved me from the moment they first took me home. It is appalling even to contemplate taking that privilege away from hundreds of other kids just because they cannot be placed with gay parents.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think most fair minded people have just go used to having gay's in there communities and attitude's of you dont bother me and I wont bother you had formed , these politicians have now tipped the balance with this law and now have a war on two fronts ,the public and the church ,equal rights for both communities have now been thrown out the window gay's will be blamed

Anonymous said...

we must be carefull not to let this become the beginning of a schism between state and church.

there are too many who would like to capitalise on such a split, although the decision that the PM finally arrives must be for the right reasons, not purely for political advantage.

Anonymous said...

anti discrimination is morally and now by law compulsory, and embraces everyone.

Faith however, ultimately is a matter of choice.

griswold said...

A bit of fairminded common sense at last. Never thought I would attribute such qualities to the frivolous Mr Pierce. Well said Andrew.

SYDNEY said...

A powerful and respected article about humanity and its handling of children.It is also more potent because it is from a writer who has a history of creating wrath and destruction to many powerful people whose views he disagrees with.It is even more surprising because he is also an ardent fighter of the Gay Cause.
Perhaps Andrew sees that this ideological struggle is a step too far and will serve the Gay Community no favours.
Andrew would you kindly expand on this blog what you mean about the Roman Catholic churchs views on Homosexuality being "intrinsically disordered".
Certainly my views on you have somewhat changed following this swift article.

Anonymous said...

If gays wouldn't go to a catholic adoption agency then what objection does the catholic lobby have, apart from their inherent bigotry, to being required to not discriminate against their non-existent clients?

FRED said...

Ref Sydney The Roman Catholic Church does not approve of a penus being placed in the anal passage as it serves no purpose of procreation.It does not believe children should be in a situation where this practice can be observed.It is not against non practising Homosexuals.It preaches that marriage between a man and a woman is sacred.

Anonymous said...

ian - i think the point would be that IF, [and that is a big caveat] a couple did go to a Catholic agency and were turned away, any legal action may compel them to change their rules. So even if they didn't 'shut up shop' initially, eventually they would come up against the courts and legal system.

I have a great deal of sympathy with gays who want to adopt [indeed this seems to be a majority view according to Newsnight]. However, on 'PM' last night a lady said her daughter had one child with a husband, and that she had then split up. She then had a second child with her second partner, another lesbian.

The second child had found it very difficult to adapt and was now self harming. Clearly this shows that 'splitting-up' heterosexual couples can have an impact. It also shows there may be impacts of same-sex parenting that may not yet be fully understood.

I think we need to consider that some people want to tread warily on this, until we have more of a track record of the benefits & problems involved. Public opinion may have changed in a couple of years - trying to force this upon people who have an objection through conscience is only going to store up problems.

Benedict White said...

Interesting article you link to Iain. I think the real issue is whether this country is bog enough for people with different Ideas. I hope it is.

Besides which just how big a problem is this?

Anonymous said...

This has never been about equality, its always been about a left wing political agenda to use the EUssr to unite minority groups throuugh the human rights loby, against mainstream English Culture.
Now people have started to realise that these people do not want equality, they wish to rule by any means.

Anonymous said...

I've used my brain, such as it is. The church cannot be allowed to hold a gun to the state.

Dr.Doom said...

So who would blogging parents want their children adopted to in the event of death in a car crash?

A lesbian couple?

A Homosexual couple?

A Hetrosexual couple?

Do tell.

Doom

Anonymous said...

No no no no.Andrew is wrong to start with and compounds the error with the reason for exception.

The problem with allowing an exception on religious grounds is at once that precedent is established then any number of bizarre conclusions may follow. Perhaps the pagans might prefer to be allowed to drink the blood of sacrificial Virgins in the manner preordained over thousands of years albeit subject to the dead weight of politically correct laws framed by an irreligious elite. It is clear of course that we have flourishing religions in this country who might very well want to make use of such a precedent for establishing an alternative legal system . This is the problem with framing exceptions on a logic that draws its authority from “faith”. Such considerations have certainly been among the concerns of MP`s in areas of London where they might expect to encounter the results of poorly considered and ad hoc legislation .The curse of the age and usually prompted by some trendy media flareup

Start from this newly born “thought crime”. “A mother and father would be the best arrangement for a child”. we can proceed happily without resort to a religious authority not accepted by most participants in the adoption of the democracy we live in. Such a statement of opinion is , it would seem , illegal from someone who has authority in the domain of caring for children. We have now , an abysmal system where white parents are denied adoption should the child be black , and in which any would be adopter is regarded as a paedophile until it is proved otherwise over an 18month assault course .It is somewhat out of step not to “discriminate “ ie make a judgement , against a brace of gay men given the overwhelming likelihood the child will have normal sexual inclinations.

Additionally why would two men who happen to enjoy certain hobbies be allowed special privileges unavailable to two men who enjoy train spotting and making marmalade. Why then should any composite we can imagine not be given special protection against “discrimination”?. We have previously noted the incursion of “anti discrimination “ of a most illiberal sort from which it is hard to see any good coming .
These privileges over and above those afforded others stem from the predominance of a gay Lobby in the media and politics. “They “ are not a homogenous group. One gay man does not speak for , or know , all gay men , and we , none of us, have no idea if this will turn out to be a bad thing for children. .There is no evidence for obvious reasons.

Anonymous said...

This is another example of Socialism breaking things that work, the reverse midas touch.

They don't give a shit about the children, only their control, that people obey them in EVERY respect.

Bringing up children with gay parents is an experiment, and does place them at a social disadvantage, how harmful only time can tell.

To the left this risk is simply not important, they want no exceptions to their rule, whilst daring to talk about diversity.

Little Black Sambo said...

Anon 2.06
"Faith ... is a matter of choice."
Not really. Only a mad person could freely CHOOSE his faith.

twirly said...

Anonymous said...
... the decision that the PM finally arrives must be for the right reasons, not purely for political advantage.
2:00 AM

Fat chance of that happening

Tumeric said...

ian said...
If gays wouldn't go to a catholic adoption agency then what objection does the catholic lobby have, apart from their inherent bigotry, to being required to not discriminate against their non-existent clients?

9:32 AM

Obviously, the minute a gay couple is refused by the Catholic church they will claim discrimination and sue. There appears to be enough militant gays who would deliberately engineer such a confrontation.
The gay lobby is as militant as the Muslim lobby and as equally determined to be 'equal' no matter who gets trodden on on the way.

Anonymous said...

I've read that Roman Catholic adoption agencies handle only 4% of the adoptions in Britain. Can anybody seriously argue that the ability of homosexual couples to adopt would be threatened by a very tiny nod to religious freedom? One would think that in the United Kingdom, which is, after all, in some sense an officially Christian country, the occasional accommodation of the nation's religious heritage might be greeted with more, well, tolerance.

Anonymous said...

And cameron says he is going to vote for the bill...... Davis says he wont.

Still happy about that speech now?