|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 28, 2011 13:15:13 GMT
Monday 28 February 2011
Log in | Register Telegraph.co.uk
* Home * News * Sport * Finance * Comment * Culture * Travel * Lifestyle * Fashion * Technology
* Jobs * Dating * Offers
* UK * World * Politics * Obituaries * Royal Wedding * Earth * Science * Health News * Education * Celebrities * Weird News * News Blogs
Religion Christian couple face foster ruling over views on homosexuality The High Court will today rule in a case involving a Christian couple who say they were ''doomed not to be approved'' as foster carers because of their traditional views on homosexuality. Eunice and Owen Johns: Homosexuality row foster couple to go to High Court Owen and Eunice Johns Photo: DAVID BURGES 2:45AM GMT 28 Feb 2011
Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, said issues were raised over their suitability as foster carers after they told social workers they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.
The Pentecostal Christian couple from Derby had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers.
But at a hearing last year, two High Court judges, sitting at Nottingham Crown Court, heard the couple withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns over their attitudes towards homosexuality.
At the hearing of the case, the couple's lawyer Paul Diamond told the court the couple were ''doomed not to be approved'', which was why they agreed with Derby City Council to seek clarification of the law from the High Court.
He said: ''I will be submitting that the promotion of values is something that the court should be protecting and promoting, especially when these religious values are recognised as giving a moral framework to values in our country.
Related Articles
* Homosexuality row foster couple to go to High Court 01 Nov 2010
''No-one is disputing that the duty of every public authority is to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child.''
Mr Diamond said it would not be ''sensible'' to place an adolescent practising homosexuality in a familial relationship that was disapproving.
''Likewise, religion or moral values should not be singled out for this consideration.''
The case, thought to be the first of its kind, has been described by Christian lawyers as vital for Christian freedoms.
Mr Diamond said the couple, who had fostered 15 children in the past, wanted to be respite carers for short-term placements for a single child between five and 10.
He said: ''They say they would offer a secure and loving home relationship to a young child whose family are unable to cope and need a short break.''
Derby City Council has said previously its first duty was to the children in its care, some of whom are very vulnerable.
A spokeswoman said the council welcomed applications from people wishing to be foster carers but added that not everyone who applied was accepted, for a variety of reasons.
Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson will give a ruling at the High Court in London today at 2pm.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Feb 28, 2011 18:12:45 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896From the BBC article: The wording here makes it sound as if they would simply refuse to offer a positive moral judgment on homosexuality, rather than declaring that they would make negative moral judgments on it. What if they promised to simply say 'no comment' if asked about homosexuality by a child (many parents would do that with regards to all sexual matters, rightly or wrongly)? They wouldn't have to be positive about things they believe to be wrong, and nor would a child be on the receiving end of negative judgments, Would that be a compromise or not good enough?
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 28, 2011 19:59:30 GMT
To me this is not about Christianity and more about a couple with entrenched views that may be counterproductive to the children placed with them, who will already have had too much sadness and confusion in their lives.
No adult has the right to foster or adopt. The vetting process cannot be about the adults it must be about the welfare of the children.
If the views you hold could have a negative impact on a child or, as in the case of most foster children, teenager, then you are not fit to adopt or foster.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 28, 2011 22:05:43 GMT
Thanks for this article Lin!
I can't imagine parents being indifferent to whether or not their child developes heterosexually or homosexually!
If the views on homosexuality of Eunice and Owen Johns are the only thing that is holding up the adoption then this is a farce!
I hope the higher court doesn't pander to the pro homosexual lobbyists!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 28, 2011 22:19:47 GMT
Owen and Eunice Johnswww.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8353180/Foster-parents-defeated-by-the-new-Inquisition.html QUOTE: Eunice and Owen Johns are a God-fearing Christian couple, married almost 40 years, who offered a secure and loving family home to foster children aged between five and 10. But they are to be denied the opportunity to do so any longer because they are unwilling to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child. Neither Mr nor Mrs Johns has anything against gay people but they are not in favour of sex before marriage, whatever an individual's orientation. Their views were denounced by Ben Summerskill, of the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, as "old-fashioned". Yet not that long ago they would have been considered mainstream and they are, in any case, the strongly held religious views of the couple. The reason that they were even asked about their views on homosexuality was because Parliament passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations, making it an offence to discriminate on the grounds that someone is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. These are the same laws under which Peter and Hazelmary Bull, Christian owners of a guest house, were fined last month for refusing to let a gay couple share a room. But in the case of Mr and Mrs Johns, where is the victim? They were not turning anyone away. Quite the contrary – they were offering a home to children who will otherwise end up in care, and there are precious few people who will. Furthermore, since the children would be aged under 10, matters of sexuality are hardly relevant – or is it being suggested that they should be? Astonishingly, the High Court suggested that it was not so much their Christian faith as the moral certainties of the Johns that were potentially harmful to children. There is another troubling aspect of this case. Equality laws are supposed to uphold the rights to religious belief. Yet the High Court ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds. Why has it been left to judges to decide whose rights trump those of others? This should have been decided by Parliament but, yet again, another sloppily drafted measure will have far-reaching consequences for freedom of conscience in this country. Already the Roman Catholic Church has had to close its adoption agencies because they cannot conform to the law. Perhaps there is a historical irony here, because we are witnessing a modern, secular Inquisition – a determined effort to force everyone to accept a new set of orthodoxies or face damnation as social heretics if they refuse. Parliament and the courts should protect people like Mr and Mrs Johns, but have thrown them to the wolves. It is a disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 28, 2011 22:48:50 GMT
Thanks for this article Lin!
I can't imagine parents being indifferent to whether or not their child developes heterosexually or homosexually!
If the views on homosexuality of Eunice and Owen Johns are the only thing that is holding up the adoption then this is a farce!
I hope the higher court doesn't pander to the pro homosexual lobbyists! You mean the British Government? It's not pandering to a lobby it's upholding British law! They lost the High Court battle. Religious extremists have no place caring for vulnerable children. They can have their views, what they cannot do is foster. If they cannot behave toward all children in the way we require they don't get to be foster parents. And by seeking this publicity they prove that they are not thinking about anyone other than themselves and their causes! Imagine a 10 year old boy confused about his sexuality, he's not sure if he's straight, gay, transgender or transvestite - what support would these two give him? None. Good call by the social worker - they seem bang on the money with their judgement here. The Council is absolutely right to refuse fostering to a couple with such extreme views. Social workers must always put the welfare and safety of the children first and not put them into an environment that is unbalanced in any way, whether that is in religious terms or any other. If anything untoward happened to children who the Council had placed in such homes, there would be a national outcry. That is why the rules are so stringent.
|
|