Reader comments · Catholic church backs legal challenge in gay adoption case · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Catholic church backs legal challenge in gay adoption case

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Hmm, not sure how I feel about this – obviously, if the grandparents win, this could cause a huge backlash on adoption by same sex couples. However, the case may very well fail and as approval for adoption is set by the courts, as far as I’m aware, then there’s a strong liklihood they won’t succeed anyway. It is interesting that this case is fast becoming an issue about gay adoption – after all, the family approved for the children to be adopted. It was only when they heard it would be a gay couple that they got “morally outraged”.

    At least further facts about the case may come to the fore, although whether it will present Edinburgh Council in a better light will remain to be seen.

    As for Peter Hitchens, the man is a waste of oxygen. I’m guessing his massive monobrow is his way of assuring his heterosexuality. . .

  2. Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, a most bigoted Zionist, and Amanda Platell are most evil homopbobes. They, like the primitive Roman Catholic Church, are concerned to try to force their wicked beliefs on others. All three write for the Daily Mail, a paper much concerned to appeal to the bigoted, semi-educated members of society

  3. Sister Mary Clarence 2 Feb 2009, 2:36pm

    I love the line about the mother denouncing the idea of her children being raised by gay people. Jesus f**king Christ like she’s in any position to criticise others.

    I only hope they don’t set up a Madeline McCann still fund to support the court case. Smack head mum will probably cane it all in a week on buying drugs.

    I hope the church do fund a court case. The court has no juristiction over the ‘moral’ issue, or the issue of the children going to a gay couple unless they can be shown to be unfit, so they are on to a loser there.

    All the better if the church pumps every last penny it has into the case and ultimately losses the lot. No one has really managed to come up with any convincing argument why the children should not go to a gay couple, other than the fact that they don’t like gay people. Not in my experience the strongest legal argument.

  4. I’m appalled that the church can do this, this is overtly political….way out of it’s juristiction. As for peter hitchins, i think we’d all be happy if the man never wrote another word about homosexuals as he obvioulsy knows nothing about us, but he’s made a career out of it

  5. How did Christopher Hitchens manage to be relatively sane when his brother Peter is such a complete jerk? There’s only one newspaper in the UK that would hire people that bigoted…

  6. Andrew Quick 2 Feb 2009, 3:48pm

    This makes my blood boil. How dare the church get invloved. Having said that they dio like children don’t they?
    It’s quite clear the mum is only doing this to make money.
    Also didn’t the grand parents raise an un fit mother?

  7. There is no objective evidence to suggest that a child is harmed by fostering him or her out to a gay or lesbian couple. At the moment, none of us know the facts, because we don’t know why the social services chose this couple over the grandparents.

    In any case, with the matter coming to court, would it not be inappropriate to comment further until a judgement is reached. I suspect SMC above is right, but I think it would be right to await the court’s judgement.

  8. Dan Mcillroy 2 Feb 2009, 4:21pm

    These kids were being looked after by their grandparents who called in Social Services and asked them to take care of the kids because they could no longer do it. Now, all of a sudden, they are able to care for them and want them back. Hmm

  9. It’s time Stonewall turned up the heat a bit, that response it too wet. This is the result of a 6 day campaign by the Mail / Christian Institute

    (flapjack hits the nail on the head – i cannot believe that bigoted prick peter is in any way related to the great christopher hitchens…)

  10. I’d like to know who the businessmen and professionals funding this are so I can boycott their products/goods/services.

  11. I am sure it the be will same “businessmen and professionals” that supported the Keep The Clause campaign.

    However, I am confident the Scottish courts will be discerning enough on the matter; they will know exactly were the heirachy of RC Church is coming from on the issue. They will also have all the relevant details on the parents and “grandparents”.

    The protection of children is at the heart of all legisalation in Scotland.

    All the best.


  12. Hurrah for the Church in Scotland, taking on the Establishment on behalf of the poor. VICTORY IS OURS!
    From a primitive, half-educated Catholic.

  13. PCG, Germany 3 Feb 2009, 12:11am

    I do not really understand this. If the kids have Grandparents who can care for them within the their own family, why the hell are these children being placed for adoption???? This does not make any sense at all.

    People are only supposed to adopt those children who have no-one else to care for them or those children whose parents or grandparents are not fit to care for them. Well, if the grandparents have the condition to care for these children, then the grandparents should have carry on their upbringing.

    For the Gay Couple, I would just say that there many orphans to be adopted, get one or two of them…

  14. Rob Alexander 3 Feb 2009, 8:05am

    Andrew is right – the grandparents have already brought up one child who became a heroin addict… This is pure homophobia – a Catholic Church specialism.

  15. Taking the decision to the courts will not change the decision as it is the courts who agreed the placement!

    This seems to me to be a newspaper selling exercise – drag the story out further to continue to enrage it’s readership…

  16. PJW – Funny you should mention it, Charlie Brooker of the Guardian’s TV review section has just invented a word for that…
    “nowtrage (nowt-rage) n. Lame and unconvincing tabloid outrage designed to create a self-perpetuating storm of controversy. Also, nowtrageous (adj); eg: “This Jonathan Ross pensioner sex-joke story in the News of the World is embarrassingly nowtrageous.””

  17. Simon Murphy 3 Feb 2009, 11:12am

    The catholic church is an evil, facist cult and its leaders are ignorant bigots motivated by hatred of women, children and gay people. If hell actually existed the catholic hierarchy would all end up their for their evil bigotry.

  18. Firstly being gay isn’t just about “what you do in the Bedroom”, it is about identity and social and emotional structures.

    Secondly, it is irrelevant what the sexuality of the couple is. In this case, I think the Grandparents should have legal guardianship, they are next of kin, and not exactly ancient. Age discrimination in play here. Irrelevant of the grandarents view of us.

  19. “As well as the moral issue there is also a legal question, which needs to be explored,” a church spokesperson told The Scotsman.

    The RC church has little currency in a debate about morality, so what is “the legal question”?

    Even their spokesmen look and sound like deeply dysfunctional people.

    All the best.


  20. I’m sure the Catholic Church wants to look after the children.
    After all, look how it looks after all the folk who were abused by their clergy. NOT!

  21. Sister Mary Clarence 5 Feb 2009, 7:19pm

    Does anyone here advocating the children be left with the grandparents actually know anything about the grandparents at all?

    We’ve heard them bleating to the press about the wrongs of ‘gays’ adopting their children, but we don’t have any sort of background (other than the fact that they reared a junkie and are in ill-health) to base a decision about whether they would be fit parents.

    Does the grandfather, or the grandmother, have a drug history (like their daughter)?

    Statistically there is a high chance the mother is a thief, does this run in the family?

    Do the grandparents have a source of income that would enable them to support the children?

    Would the children face ongoing disruption and risk remaining connected to the mother if adopted by the grandparents?

    Has there been violent or physically abusive to them before. What about mental cruelty? Could we be assured that this would cease if the mother still had access to them?

    How serious are the medical conditions of the grandparents, both can be debilitating, or relatively minor?

    Do either of the grandparents have criminal record?

    Have either of them been convicted of offences of violent or of a sexual nature?

    We don’t know, but you can bet social services do.

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