Friday, January 26, 2007

Saying No to the gay lobby

Tony can’t quite make up his mind. On the one hand, he supports gay adoptions and on the other, he is now trying to broker a compromise which retains the expertise of the Catholic Church on adoption. Gordon is silent. No fool is Broon-about 800,000 Catholic votes are at stake in the upcoming Scottish Parliament elections.
In truth, the Cabinet is hopelessly split over the issue of new equality laws.
Ruth Kelly, the communities minister, argues for an opt-out for faith-based adoption agencies while Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, insists the new laws must apply across the board. John Reid, the (Catholic?) Home Secretary, has said that Britain's fundamental value of equality could not be overruled by religious organisations or ministers because they harboured "conscientious objections”. Harriet Harman, Lord Falconer and Peter Hain also object to the proposed exemptions. The Gay lobby is in overdrive.
Catholic adoption agencies say they will defy new anti-discrimination laws. It is not only the Catholic Church which opposes gay adoption. Even Catholic Labour MP’s are beginning to stir.
The Church of England and many others have also made representations about this issue. The Muslim Council of Britain said it fully backed the "principled stand" by Church leaders.
I am afraid I am with the religious community on this one. If there is no exemption for faith-based adoption agencies, then the government will effectively force them to work against their consciences. Either that or the adoption agencies will have to close. At present doctors and medical staff can opt out out of involvment with abortions. Will the PC brigade now want to force these individuals to act against their consciences?
Frankly, I would have thought the government might have more pressing issues to consider than waste time on alienating whole sections of the electorate (See here, or here, or here ) Or is this gay adoption affair designed to distract our attention from Labour's manifold failings? Consider the timing....
Is NuLabour really concerned about the fundamental welfare of children here or are they more concerned with social engineering and pushing a gay agenda, an agenda which is supported by only a small minority of the population?
I think we can all guess the answer to that one….

15 comments:

Newmania said...

Thats true IT the "gay " agenda like the "Immigration / race" agenda carries with it many other desirable connotations of with-it-..ness.
I have a few gay friends, and I am relaxed about different orientations I feel myself that recent legislation concerning the pleasantness of the enviroment for Gays was a lot more worrying .

In fact for young children ,there are hundreds of normal married couples who have been unable to breed. Clearly they would be the first choice .

What astonishes me about this , is the need,apparently,to manage attitudes down to this tiny level. I can`t see any reason nearly pressing enough for another Law whatver your views might be .

Another stupid image lead encumbrance on the books but I wouldn`t get all anti gay about it

istanbultory said...

Not anti-gay, N. It's the "gay lobby" and its powerful influence in Whitehall as well as the social engineering aspect I am not keen on. The churches and others are being seriously dissed in the process. Why should they be forced to sign up to an agenda with which they have major moral and theological difficulties?

Graham E said...

Leaving aside the moral rights and wrongs of this surely the far more serious issue here is the priority given to this by Blair's Chancers. We have a disaster in the health service. We have a disaster in the Home Office. We have a looming disaster in in the economy. In fact we have disasters in every area of government. And Parliament is discussing the rights and wrongs of gay adoption. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

I can`t see any reason nearly pressing enough for another Law whatver your views might be .

It is an EU Directive of 13 Dec 2004 and a Labour Party which wants to abolish religion in schools and make the country more like the GDR under Erich Honecker.

There the children of Christians were refused admission to university

nick drew said...

Don't know if you saw This Week last night, but Diane Abbott was more than usually heated on why there should be no exemptions from legislation on religious grounds. Andrew Neil drew attention to how exercised she was on this, and the astute Portillo offered as an explanation: she is worried (he said) that, 'in a constituency like hers', if religious opt-outs are available then 'other fundamentalist groups' would take advantage of this in all sorts of ways.

Abbott nodded in agreement, mouthing the same phrase 'other fundamentalist groups'.

We can all guess whom they had in mind. And it does raise an interesting and far-reaching point.

Newmania said...

It does Nick but the objections to the Gay lobby ( and I am absolutely in agreement with IT on that), are not necessarrily religious in their nature . i do not belive in god ..sometimes..but i still have problems with some of the pro gay legislation.

The problem with basing any legal exception on what is called"religious " grounds is that any moon worshipping bat brain can be termed religious.
The arguement should be on the proper basis and that is where you notice that we have no opposition

nick drew said...

Mr Mania have you seen the latest ConservativeHome questionnaire? They ask about a whole string of potential policy compromises (that might be suggested in the context of a Con/Lib pact) which u are invited to rank under headings like good idea / disappointing but acceptable in pursuit of Power / unacceptable

So - "you notice that we have no opposition" - assuming silence from the Tories on this issue is a Cameroonie expediency, and knowing your overall line on pragmatic support for the Boy Dave, how do you rank this particular 'compromise'?

CityUnslicker said...

IT - you are quite right. It smacks of the approach to fox hunting.

Time is actually carefully spent here appealing to sections of the voting public (err... I mean the media), whilst actually diverting attention away from core issues to which they have no answers.

Peter Mandelson's hands are all over this one. The throwing in of the 'other religons' piece late in the day is particularly clever.

Man in a shed said...

The underlying problem here is the SORs. If you think this issue is causing trouble wait until the endless array of court cases start coming through from gay activists who claim their feeling have been hurt by various slights in providing services. (Shades of disabled activists going from shop to shop to complain about access etc but each one making headline news in the tabloid press).

This legislation is very seriously resented in the mainstream Christian community. I know many people who would normally just leave politics lie and maybe tend to the soft focus spin that NuLabour emit who are getting a rude awakening. I suspect we will start to get a similar battle to the Culture Wars in the US.

But I think cityunslicker has it just right - its another totem for the shameless socialists - who need to balance their lack of principles with some issue to make them feel good about themselves again.

By the way did you catch Peter Kilfoyle being quoted saying of his constituents "My constituents are not the most enlightened people." over the the DT article. I wonder how that will play...

The Devil's Rectum said...

The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.

Voyager said...

Actually this is a 1689 Moment. Labour seems to forget that the world they inhabit is one created by John Churchill turning over the British Army to Prince William of Orange at Torbay to spare another Civil War.

They have played fast and loose with that Settlement and might unleash the 17th Century conflicts again as the C of E disintegrates into fervent Protestant sects backed with US money and a Milirant Islam determined to avoid secularisation


At least this incident has shown us the true fanatics - it is not the relions but the Anti-Religionists

Colin said...

IT, Newmania and Cityunslicker,

I couldn't agree more.

Labour seems to be as fanatic about this issue as the Greens in Germany.

Voyager,

Your observations is correct, namely "the true fanatics - it is not the religions but the Anti-Religionists"

In my view, they are fanatic because anti-religion is just another religion, a sort of Christian sect with Marx as prophet and Cramsci, Habermas et al. as high-priests. The new paradise is equality on earth. And they are as fanatic about their access to paradise as many other religions. In fact, the Christian churches seem to already be more tolerant and reasonable than the faithful of Church of equality.

Peter Hitchens said...

totaly fucking agree.
Mr mania your postings here are at odds with your postings on other blogs.

istanbultory said...

Well, I see we have a meeting of minds. That Conservative Home Survey is certainly an interesting read.....

Newmania said...

Mr mania your postings here are at odds with your postings on other blogs.


Bollocks Peter , provide the evidence I am consistency incarnate..well more or less. Siometimnes I change my mind