Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian registrar who won ‘gay marriage’ case had child out of wedlock

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Not only is her past contradictory to her currently held beliefs, but her stated reasons for being a registrar is contradictory to her refusing to support couples with which she disagrees. Her actions are totally unlawful and if she doesn’t want to do her job, she should be fired! period!

  2. Dave North 15 Jul 2008, 2:25pm

    She should return any compensation immediately and be hauled before a court for fraud as her case was based upon the false premise that her orthodox “faith” overrides all other considerations.

  3. I really hope Islington Council takes this to the appeal stage. This nonsense has to stop. There was a verse attributed to the supposed Jesus of Nazareth, “Let those who are without sin cast the first stone”. Well, she either follows this rule or not. Her conscience as a Christian should tell her to resign, as she is not in a poistion to be above the law and refuse to marry others who – also – fall below her standards she herself cannot meet.

  4. So this woman says “My issue was purely that I did not want to be the one to facilitate same-sex civil partnerships because I do not agree with them.”
    So it would stand to reason then that if a registrar didn’t agree with a black man getting married to a white woman then he can refuse to do it.

  5. I really hope this doesn’t turn into a personal attack on this woman. She is a pawn in this story.

    The Christian Institute has been spending lots of money trying to get the precedent that religious rights are more sacrosanct than gay rights. This is the one case they’ve managed to win. I think it is morally reprehensible that someone can cite religious views as a basis to discriminate against me because of my sexuality. You’re not born religious.

    Lots of commentators are talking about the hypocrisy surrounding this situation. The fact she is a woman undertaking what some would interpret theologically is a man’s role; the fact that she performs secular marriages; the fact that she is far from the paragon of virtue her views might otherwise suggest.

    I’m far more interested in The Christian Institute. Are they a registered charity? Do they receive public funds? These are issues that need serious consideration. If the LGBT community needs to vent it’s wrath anywhere; I respectfully suggest that this Institute (undertaking a systematic & well funded attack on our civil liberties, freedoms & rights) is a far worthier target than some foolish woman who allowed herself to be set up as a “patsy” by religious fundamentalists and now runs the serious risk of being mauled by the press.

  6. I’m not entirely convinced by the hypocrisy argument, but am disgusted that she won her case. Presumbaly she regularly marries couples where one or both are divorced – isn’t this against her religion too? A registrar should be willing and able to carry out registration services to all members of the community, whatever their personal beliefs and this judgement creates a very worrying precedent.

  7. Actually, Neil, I agree with you entirely about the mischievous role of the Christian Institute. This woman has foolishly allowed them to use her. I am sure they won’t allow her to keep any compensation she may be awarded, though perhaps she won’t get much after these disclosures.

  8. Calm down dears – she’s only a hypocritical christian. Pathetic too, but still a blinkered, unthinking follower of some mythical bloke who lives in the sky.

    Astounded that more people haven’t realised that those who proclaim their “religion” the loudest often are the worst at behaving like a human being (thinking here of the Pope signing up to be a member of Hitler Youth and later joining the regular army – once is stupidity, twice is a thought out process)…..

    Silly cow will disappear into a flurry of mud and, hopefully, be sacked after the appeal by Islington. Perhaps the Christian Institute would be kind enough to take her in and look after her and her illegitimate child.

  9. Robert, ex-pat Brit 15 Jul 2008, 3:27pm

    Neil and Chris, don’t lose sight of the fact that this woman is not a child, an adult. She chose to do what she did. This decision to uphold her right and now the revelation of her out of wedlock child is proof enough that this is about hypocrisy, bigotry and homophobia and is unfounded.

    Adrian, you’re right, religion is a choice, a personal decision, nobody comes into this world religious, its “learned behaviour”, unlike our sexual orientation.

    Has anyone noticed that none of the major denominations have come to this woman’s aid and none have commented on this latest revelation. I wonder why?

  10. You stupid, Christians. Do you think gay people are as dumb, and as shallow as you are? You state that you’re not homophobic, yet you are obsessed with any civil equality that they gain. These actions are a huge contradiction to what you say. The worst types of Christians are the ones like the incompitent, registrar whom the article was written for. She masks her unnatural obsession, with the lives of gay people, in religion. Another type, the more honest type, but eaqually matched in mental dysfunctions, are the fire breathing pigs who don’t mask their unnatural rage towards gay people. In any case, the best revenge for gay people is to live out their lives with quality. Something that this graceless fool clearly lacks. Karma will come back around, hard, and fast. When it does, ask yourselves, what did I do to deserve this?

  11. Erroll Clements 15 Jul 2008, 4:21pm

    Hmmmmmmmmmm, she must be ‘Miss Popular’ at work now with the latest revelations, I don’t think that the Christian Institute bothered to check her validity first, they got so carried away with having another go at the gays. I really hope that Islington Council sue her to hell and back for being the two faced bigoted cow that she really is, and also for all the damage done towards their reputation and to the gay community.

  12. One word: Hypocrisy

  13. Outrageous. I am disgusted at her hypocrisy. When I read her views as detailed at the tribunal that she won, I thought they were illogical and stupid but I gave her the benefit of the doubt and assumed she was one of those ultra-religious Christians who genuinely, if wrongly, believe that the Bible opposes homosexuality. But no – she’s a f**king hypocrite who is attempting to legitimise her hatred by giving it a religious basis. Totally UNchristian…
    Oh, and yes, I’m interested in the Christian Institute too.Is it just me or is the UK becoming more and more like the US in the amount of power fundamentalists Christians wield?

  14. Disturbing the language used about Christians in the comments, yet I am guessing the same people would be offended if Christians spoke about homosexuality in the same vane.

    With regard to her son, perhaps people at the Christian Institute recognise that:

    1. People can make mistakes that they later regret.
    2. The Gospel of Jesus is a gospel of forgiveness and grace.
    3. Her commitment to Christianity may have been subsequent to her child being born.

    Is she a hypocrit. No.

    It is possible for those other than the homosexual community to stand up for what they believe. It’s also possible for people not to agree with what the homosexual community believe. Live with it!

  15. shameful decision, she should conduct civil partnerships or find another job, preferably back in nigeria

  16. “Gay rights don’t trump religious rights,” says the Christian Institute. Wrong, CI. Your right to practice your religion ends exactly where it begins to interfere with me practicing my legal civil rights. If this hypocrite applied for her job today, and honestly told the interviewer that she would refuse to perform certain normal parts of her job, for any reason, she would not be hired. Keep her on if you must, but the first time she is heard “counseling” any customer of the state about how God thinks, she should be sacked.

  17. Admittedly she’s a pawn in a much larger game being bankrolled by the Christian Institute, but the words “hoisted by her own petard” spring to mind. She deserves to be taken to task for condemning others using an outdated dogmatic belief system she herself can’t live up to.
    As for the Christian Institute, it’s high time we took the fight to their door for once, rather than standing around like sitting ducks and taking whatever bigotry they care to chuck at us.

  18. as others have said, the Xian Institute really needs ot be our target since they’re the instigators and “bullet makers”.

    At the same time she shouldn’t be let off the hook: she has probably “married” divorcees, and the infertile, and people who are not Xian. Any gay working with this woman would have a disciplinary case against her for harrassment

  19. I was very disappointed to read that Ms Ladele won her case, in South Africa where i’m from several race laws were pased in the late 50′s right up to the mid 60′s. Black and white could not marry and black people certainly could not attend church with white people as it was ‘against God’s will’. As a child I simply believed this nonsense and thought it was normal. I guess it is quite clear that the most hurtful and unjust laws is often passed on the back of someone’s religion. We cannot force Ms Ladele to believe otherwise, however the most scary bit is the fact that the tribunal actually ruled in her favour! I could just not believe she said that she love helping people in need…huh…Im I missing something? I urge Islington Council to appeal. There is no place for her or her two face henchman in society.

  20. Tim Roll-Pickering 15 Jul 2008, 7:11pm

    What almost everyone seems to have overlooked is that Lillian Ladele gave birth nearly thirty years ago. Either she strayed from her faith at the time, a far from unknown thing, or she subsequently found God, again far from unknown. (For one of the most examples look at the American Norma McCorvey, better known as the “Jane Roe” in the landmark abortion case, who found her faith in later life and is now a strong pro life campaigner.)

    As for the often made point about her marrying one or both divorced people, not all Christian denominations have an issue on this (Princess Anne remarried in the Church of Scotland after all). Again I think people are attacking her on entirely false premises.

  21. Haul her out to the city gates and stone the whore and her spawn of Satan as the Bible commands us to do.

  22. Surely the presence of a child born out of wedlock is significant evidence which should mean that the tribunal’s judgement should be re-visited if it wasn’t accounted for in the original ruling? You know, like the police finding a book called ‘How to murder people’ in the home of someone who just got let off a killing spree….

    Anyhow, with this rather bigoted woman – why doesn’t she get a job in a church if she is that religious and wants to help people get married?

    As far as the tribunal goes, should not the legislation rule in favour of gay people, who it is widely accepted, are the way they are because of their genes, and not in favour of Christians who exhibit ‘learned religious behaviour’ that is wholly inconsistent with fact or science. I am all for them holding their beliefs but do not see why this minority should have extra rights over anyone else. Fair do’s eh?

    PS: Someone give the woman a copy of the excellent film ‘For the Bible tells me so’ and she can learn how REAL Christians deal with homosexualtiy….
    http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexa.htm

  23. I’m a gay Christian; sorry, but there it is. I agree with those who say the Christian Institute should be investigated and their activities examined very closely and their eyesight more so as they seem to be so selective in what they bring out of the Old Testament to back up their opinions and ultimate hatred of people like us; yes, people, not animals; people who can make informed decisions about what they choose to believe and duck for cover when fundamentalists start firing brickbats and opinions in every direction but themselves. I learned a long time ago that when you point out another’s ‘mistakes’, there are four fingers heading right back at you. Or do they point all fingers? Funny, the Nazis did that. Is there something we should know? Maybe they should get a hold of The West Wing, series 2, episode 25, The Midterms. There is a classic scene where Jed Bartlet turns the whole Leviticus anti-gay argument on its head and shows how selective narrow minded bigots can be. A wise man once wrote, ‘A closed mind is a locked door to opportunity.’ It’s a shame that with dwindling numbers in Churches that certain ‘fundamentalists’ put themselves and their prejudices before God and the future of the Church. Surely Jesus welcomed everyone, even tax gatherers, publicans and sinners; even ate with them. I don’t recall seeing where there was an embargo on gays.It’s one law for all, or none at all. Maybe the registrar should have read up on casting the first stone before she added to the pile of the Institute. And are they so without sin themselves? Who approached who? She-them, or they- her?

  24. ken in london 15 Jul 2008, 8:52pm

    She should be stoned to death. This is an outrage. The fact it was 30 years ago does not mean that God can ignore her wickedness.
    You think I am mad…..well she started it!

  25. This woman purposely withheld the fact that she had a child out of wedlock – otherwise she could not have won her argument based on the reasons she gave. I think those who are defending her on this comment board should consider that fact.

    Also, if person cannot perform all of their job functions as a result of their religious beliefs, they should be transferred to something that they can do, or leave the job. I can just imagine the amount of inconvenience customers and coworkers are going to go through to try to make up for these people. Plus the fact that there are so many interpretations of each type of religion as to what is wrong, right, what they should and should not be doing, that an employer cannot question the fashion in which the employee requests the accomodation – it leaves the field wide open and the employer’s hands tied. I can say that I follow XYZ religion – that cannot be questioned – and that I also cannot do XYZ as part of my job because of it – and the employer can to nothing about it but accomodate….

  26. I trust that the local authority is going to appeal this decision in the light of new evidence. Clearly what will have to be identified is exactly when she did find got.

    They will also have to delve into her private life and establish whether she has been living a celibate life in accordance with the teaching of the good book, or whether she’s been a complete Leg’s Up Lucy.

    I’m sure it can’t be that difficult to establish whether she is a genuine religious nutcase, or whether she’s a bigoted, hypocritical slut who just doesn’t want to marry gay people.

  27. Is anyone surprised? This is typical of how so-called “Christians” operate. Sign the on-line petition to ask Islington to appeal the case: http://gopetition.com/petitions/lillian-ladele.html

  28. Sister Mary Clarence 16 Jul 2008, 1:02am

    Unmarried mother of one, Lillian, seems also to be a bit confused about her role as a registrar – we just need her to read a few f**king words out of a book to acknowledge the State’s recognition of a civil partnership, she’s not John-the-f**king-Baptist. I don’t think anyone is looking for her blessing or approval of their civil partnership. What she does or doesn’t think is really here now there.

    I’d like to know if she has similarly pulled her religious trump card on any unsuspecting mother to be, keen to tie the knot before she drops. I suspect not.

  29. john wilfred sharp 16 Jul 2008, 5:31am

    she must be the virgin Mary.
    i am gay ,atheist,bastard and illegitamate child and the church disriminates of those that too , i suppose that is all they do in religions is dicriminate , how stupid peopel can be ,they sure wish i was in hell , well hell is on earth with all the so called good folks wishing we where dead .( hell and god do not exist by the way )

  30. @Tim R-P: the bible I believe is clear about marriage being indissoluble. The RCC adheres to this, as did the CoE before Charles wanted his blessing. These people either belioeve the bible is infallible or it isn’t. But of course they DO pick and choose.

  31. William - Dublin 16 Jul 2008, 8:18am

    What a load of hypocrisy. This woman clearly picks the bits of religion that suit her bigotry best, she is a disgrace.

  32. Tim Roll-Pickering 16 Jul 2008, 10:05am

    @apYrs I’ve not seen anything in the media that says which denomination she is, and as you feel the need to list more than one I suspect you haven’t either. As for Biblican fundamentalism once more people are personally deciding what is and isn’t “orthodox Christianity” rather than looking at what the teachings and traditions of the relevant denominations. There is no contradiction here except in the minds of the self-righteous who think they can impose their doctrines on others (and no, that’s not what Ladele was doing).

  33. Priceless! Another case of hypocrisy! She clearly was thinking about her so called religious beliefs when she was ankles to Jesus – making a baby! Sack the bitch!

  34. Jesurgislac 16 Jul 2008, 12:27pm

    If you read the tribunal’s judgement, it’s clear they primarily supported Ladele because she could show she had been bulled by her manager and her colleagues, and that her manager’s hostility predated her refusal to perform civil partnership ceremonies.

    The tribunal’s judgement on whether she could refuse to perform civil partnership ceremonies was that her employer could have accommodated her bigoted beliefs without providing a lesser service, and since they were justified by what she claimed to be a religious stance, they should have done so.

    That she could prove bullying definitely supported her claim for religious discrimination. Frankly, no one comes out well from this tribunal.

  35. Petr Capek 16 Jul 2008, 9:04pm

    It’s typical of the pink lobby to swing into action to attack anyone who dares voice a contrary opinion. The vitriol which has been orchestrated against this poor woman who is merely trying to reconcile her personal beliefs with the way she leads her life is in sharp contrast to the quiet dignity she is displaying in the face of these attacks.

    If you insist on undergoing a civil partnership, find someone who is happy to help you do so – that is your prerogative – but why do you insist on bringing the full force of the law down on someone in order to force them to do something they’re clearly uncomfortable with?

    Who’s being intolerant now, eh?

  36. @Petr Capek
    because she’s a public servant obliged (or should be) to serve ALL the community. An opt-out for gay CP may be OK with you, but what other services THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE PERFORMED BY ANOTHER PERSON would you allow a religious person to opt out of.

    It’s true the case is one of harrassment, but she is very lucky a counter-grievence wasn’t raised against her.

  37. Laurence Ling 17 Jul 2008, 9:12am

    So gay people are being intolerant?? I don’t think so – it is a simple case made complicated by fundamentalist christians, I tend to agree this lady is merely a foolish and indoctrinated pawn in the game.

    Fact. Civil Partnerships are legal
    Fact. This person is a registrar employed to conduct Civil Partnerships
    Fact. She refuses to adhere to her contract of employment.
    Result. Should be a disciplinary process leading to termination of employment.

    As a gay man, as part of my employment I am required to visit countries where homosexuality is illegal ( including her home country of Nigeria). If I refuse I am in breach of contract – those countries offend me deeply, indeed are potentially ‘life threatening’ – but that is my job – perhaps I should put this situation before a tribunal – but then I do not have an ‘agenda’ that is as hateful and divisive as that of christaian fundamentalists

  38. Tim Roll-Pickering 17 Jul 2008, 2:12pm

    Your second fact is potentially wrong. One of the points of contention in the tribunal is that Ladele was designated a registrar for Civil Partnerships (explicit designation for each of the registration tasks is required) without her consent and in spite of her having already raised her concerns in advance. She had already raised her religious objections to performing civil partnerships, and was far from the only registrar in the country to do so, but the office management were unwilling to accommodate this. And reading between the lines it appears the unwillingness was rooted in personality clashes that predated the introduction of civil partnerships, and the tribunal found there was unreasonable bullying in the office.

  39. Sister Mary Clarence 18 Jul 2008, 9:37am

    Petr Capek, I think you’re missing the fact that it is the tip of the iceberb. What if a fireman refused to put out a fire at the home of a gay person, because he or she as a firmly held belief that gay people should burn in hell?

  40. AussieDingo1983 18 Jul 2008, 10:08am

    Yes she is a hypocrit, but not because she had a child out of wedlock which can be acceptable under Christian rules if she “repented” for her “sin” of daring to have sex outside of marriage. She is a hypocrit in the way that all pseudo-christians are. They claim that the bible is the word of their god and must be obeyed, yet they don’t stone their children to death for talking back, they don’t abstain from pig-flesh or shellfish-flesh, they judge others, they wear clothes made of more than one type of cloth, and don’t follow many of the other 1000s of rules in the bible. And nor do they claim to try. Yet they grab onto a few phrases that may or may not forbid same-sex relationships. Real Christians ignore stupid biblical rules that contradict the overall teachings of Jesus CHRIST, you know, that guy they named their religion after. If pseudo-christians like her want to be real Christians, they should probably spend a little more time in the new testament getting to know Jesus of Nazareth a little better.

    If I was in her job and I declared that I was from The Church of Holy White Saints, could I be excluded from marrying black people like her? No?!? Why not, if my deep seated religious beliefs are that black people are not human, and it is immoral to marry them, why shouldn’t I be able to exclude myself? … Oh yeah, ’cause that would be WRONG!!! Shame on that court/tribunal/whatever for finding in her favour, on this issue. If she was in fact harrassed, then find in her favour on that (because if she were genuinely harrassed that is not acceptable, no matter what you think of her), but not on this stupid “I’m A Christian, Get Me Out Of Here” issue. If she can’t do her job, she should find a new one, simple as that. I sat next to an old guy at a bus stop once who for some reason started a rant about all these pesky women doing things like anchoring the news and stuff! He reckoned they belonged in the kitchen. He had a mate who was a school teacher (oh, his poor students) who decided to retire when he found out that the new school principal/headteacher was going to be a woman and there was aparently no way he was going to take orders from a woman. Good riddence I say. If people can’t do their job because of their bigotries, they should get out. People working in the public service (or private business for that matter) should not be able to discriminate based on gender (inc. the gender of one’s partner), skin colour, religion, etc.

  41. Andrew Horne 18 Jul 2008, 12:24pm

    If she is a committed Christian then surely she must believe that ANY civil marriage outside a Christian church is a sham, unsanctioned by God. Therefore her whole job as a civil registrar is against her religion and actually promotes adultery (in the Biblical sense). She ignores that fact because she is either too stupid to realise this is the case, or simply because it does not suit her – apparently she earns over £30K a year. She is a bigot and a hypocrite and her case shows the stupidity of the law that seems to be protecting her.

  42. Iheardavoice 20 Jul 2008, 4:26pm

    God has told me that paying tax is an abomination, it’s immoral and tax collectors will burn in hell. He has told me to form a new Christian lobby organisation, ‘The Taxian Institute’. We will fund the legal cases of people who refuse to pay tax because it is against our religious belief. We will of course be registering as a charity. If anyone sees anything wrong with this, perhaps you should ask the Charities Commissioner why WE can’t be a charity when The Christian Institute can.

  43. Frank Tamplin 22 Jul 2008, 11:26am

    Perhaps this person should go back to the bits of teh bible that decree that homosexuality is ab abomination, she will also find that women who commit adultery (sex outside wedlock) should be taken outside the walls of the city and stoned to death

  44. She must be without sin. She threw the first stone!! Perhaps she thinks she is sinless…

  45. Lets all join the christian institute on facebook and comment on their bigoted news stories!

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Christian-Institute/78436661801?ref=mf

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all