Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Former vicar barred from fostering after refusing to have gay couples in his home

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. How detached from reality are they that they didn’t think there’d be reprocusions from saying that?

  2. Ah, so they’re not homophobic but they think that having gay people [shock horror] in their home may be detrimental to their family life. Oh please … more hypocritical people [he cheated on his wife] using their religion as an excuse for their homophobia.

  3. I totally agree with this decision. He’s not fir to be a parent of any sort, especially a foster parent, if he is going to indoctrinate children with prejudice and hateful bigotry. Take the ‘litmus test’ and see how he would be dealt with if he refused to participate in a handover to a black or mixed-race couple, and let children absorb attitudes that ethnic minorities are inferior to whites. He’s obviously a nasty piece of work.

  4. David North 9 Aug 2010, 2:55pm

    And what if either of his own children turn out as gay, let alone the poor adopted child.

    Fire and brimstone all round no doubt.

    This man is not fit to be a parent let alone an adoptive parent.

  5. Keith Lynwood 9 Aug 2010, 3:14pm

    What! You let a vicar become a foster parent. Don’t you know they are all paedophiles….I wouldn’t have one in my house.

  6. Dr Robin Guthrie 9 Aug 2010, 3:30pm

    “It is vital that as Christians we are allowed to live out our faith in public and not be eliminated from this kind of vital community work due to oppressive equalities legislation.”

    No.

    It is vital that people like him understand that equality
    is not oppressive.

    Equality is as is states. EQUAL.

    This adulterer, a cardinal sin in his own teachings wishes to apply his bigotry and paint himself as the victim.

    The Daily Mail is awash with bigoted comments on this idiot.

    Scary ignorant stuff….

  7. marjangles 9 Aug 2010, 3:50pm

    Typical, these type of christians moan about their rights being limited because they are not allowed to tread on the rights of others. Christians such as these say that gay people are seeking extra rights whereas in reality it’s people like these who think their so called christianity should exempt them from the laws that everyone else has to adhere to.

    And I have news for him, by 5 and 7 kids are perfectly able to understand the concept of different sexualities. My boyfriend has 20 nieces and nephews (it’s a nightmare remembering all those birthdays!) and all of them of all ages understand that their uncle likes men in the way that daddy and mummy like each other and that there’s nothing wrong with that. Sure they have questions but they aren’t confused or upset by it.

  8. I think he may as well just have said:-

    “It is vital that as Christians we are allowed to discriminate whoever we want, however we want and the oppressive equalities legislation should just exsist for Christians… stuff everyone else!”

    Ignorant people should Never be allowed to have children let alone foster them. But then what do you expect, it is a religion after all.

    I hope they lose the appeal but lets see how Nasty the Christian Legal Centre gets if they do!

  9. The couple claimed that their five-year-old daughter and seven-year-old son would be confused by a same-sex couple and they did not want to answer their children’s questions on the issue.

    Seems it is less about their children than about their own reluctance/embarrassment to answer their children’s questions. If their uncomfortableness is indicative, how would they do any better with foster children?

  10. “Christian beliefs on marriage and the family produce wonderful, vibrant communities and we need to have the confidence to speak about this and live out our faith.” — Yeah, so vibrant and wonderful that this particular ‘man of God’ cheated on his first wife! Oh, the double standards these pestilential Christians use!

  11. darkmoonman 9 Aug 2010, 5:19pm

    “We are not homophobic and have worked alongside gay people …”

    Why, some of my best friends are …

  12. If you read the article on the Lancashire Evening Telegraph (the local paper for this story) – here – he even admits to having had an affair!

    Nice to be able to pick and choose which Christian beliefs you follow

  13. Another hypocrite using some unquestionable, unverifiable divinity to justify his own very human prejudice. I presume he’ll be volunteering to be stoned for his adultery then?

    No matter how young his children, bigotry is LEARNED. Children who grow up understanding about equality don’t bat an eye at same sex couples. And I fail to see how having gay couples in his house would affect him in any way whatsoever. Sounds like an excuse to me – ‘Look! I’m being victimised for being a Christian!” Yeah, except he’s NOT.

  14. Sex cheat vicar spreads fear and prejudice.

  15. This:

    “Typical, these type of christians moan about their rights being limited because they are not allowed to tread on the rights of others.”

    just encompasses the whole situation.

    They desperately need to be allowed to be bigoted about something, since stoning is no longer allowed in the civilised world. Attacking gays is the last outpost of their hatred. I’ve never known a group of more spiteful hateful people than the types of nuts organised religions breed. And they’re the ones supposed to setting everyone The Example of tolerance and humanity!

  16. he had an affair yet he wants to attack others over mistranslated and misunderstood words in a book! he’s anbother homophobic hypocrite and he cannot see his own colours

  17. I really struggle to understand this man’s logic – he’s happy to be involved with the adoption process with a same-sex couple, so long as they don’t come into his home in case it confuses his own children?

    Of course, this could be a rather pathetic excuse to prevent him from being involved with same-sex couples as surely he realises that part of the adoption process involves the potential parents visiting the child(ren) in their foster home? What sort of message does it send to the potential adoptive child(ren) when they have to be picked up and dropped off at a social services building? What if another foster child is being prepared to be adopted by a heterosexual couple at the same time, with that couple being welcomed into the foster home? It is basically saying “This family is more normal than your family”.

    Many potential gay and lesbian adoptive parents have found that while they meet the approval of social services, some foster parents often cause a lot of disruption to the adoption process due to their own opinions on same-sex adoption.

  18. Unfortunate, because of the needy children who will be left alone in care homes because of this.

    At the end of the day, sexuality is still an adult issue, and so long as they agree not to indoctrinate the children, it shpould be o.k.

    How many Gay/liberal couples are fostering children. by the way?

  19. “At the end of the day, sexuality is still an adult issue, and so long as they agree not to indoctrinate the children, it shpould be o.k.”

    But how can they guarantee that won’t happen? And even if they don’t, putting in special restrictions when working with gay couples will send the message to potential adoptive child(ren) that having two mothers or two fathers is shameful and something to be embarrassed about, preventing a successful adoption from the outset. I’d imagine that he would also ban discussion of it in his home, in case his own children catch wind of the foster child(ren)’s “new mummies or daddies”.

    I can’t seem to find any statistics regarding gay and lesbian foster parents, although the official statistics on same-sex adoption show just under 100 gay and lesbian couples a year adopt in England and Wales (from 2005 onwards, when adoption by same-sex couples became legal).

  20. Does he ban blacks from coming into his home for fear of having to explain why the colour of their skin is different? Does he ban divorcees from his house for fear of having to explain why they are no longer married? This guy is a disgrace and should not be allowed near children.

  21. What if one of his children or one of the foster children were gay and being fed this kind of odium? It would mess them up badly. Damaging children like that is nothing short of child abuse.

  22. indoctrinating? is that like how hetero couples flaunt their wedding rings and stuff or talk about each other? FFS – how blind can you be not to see the hypocrisy?

  23. John:
    > How detached from reality are they that they didn’t
    > think there’d be reprocusions from saying that?

    It would be unbelievable to suggest that they were not inviting equalities action against themselves, with the Christian Legal Centre awaiting in the wings.

    This is just another of the succession of cases the Christian Legal Centre and associates are using to test for a weak point in the new laws intended to protect ordinary people from their abuse. The suggestion of likely harm to children seems to have originated from experiments with focus groups in the US, and is clearly now a technique being used by many parts of their network.

    It was used with success in the campaign for Proposition 8 in California, and, from that, on this very issue, we now have the benefit of the federal court judgment in Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al.:-

    | …The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about
    | gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from
    | inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians. FF
    | 79-80; See PX0016 Video, Have You Thought About It? (video of a
    | young girl asking whether the viewer has considered the
    | consequences to her of Proposition 8 but not explaining what
    | those consequences might be). At trial, proponents’ counsel
    | attempted through cross- examination to show that the campaign
    | wanted to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage
    | in school. See PX0390A Video, Ron Prentice Addressing
    | Supporters of Proposition 8, Excerpt; Tr 132:25-133:3
    | (proponents’ counsel to Katami: “But the fact is that what the
    | Yes on 8 campaign was pointing at, is that kids would be taught
    | about same-sex relationships in first and second grade; isn’t
    | that a fact, that that’s what they were referring to?”). The
    | evidence shows, however, that Proposition 8 played on a fear
    | that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into
    | homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who
    | are not heterosexual. FF 79; PX0099 Video, It’s Already
    | Happened (mother’s expression of horror upon realizing her
    | daughter now knows she can marry a princess).

    The referenced videos are online at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/evidence/index.html

    You will note that there is usually care to avoid being explicit on the nature of the harm, but the impression is that the core of the fear being played upon is children learning that it is normal, and OK to have same-sex attractions. And persecuting same-sex couples is obviously one way to impart the message that, if you love someone else of the same-sex people will hate you.

    This presumably has to go hand in hand with a belief that no one is naturally either straight or LGBT. Either that or they know their children might be LGB and want to trick them into a lifetime of unhappiness through ignorance, which presumably would be cause for their children to be taken into care.

    Either way it could hardly stand up to examination in a court of law. I just hope that, if a case such as this, in the UK, goes to court, those responsible for implementing equality will be fully aware of the arguments and dissect it as effectively as has been done in Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al.

  24. Andrew:
    > the official statistics on same-sex adoption show just under
    > 100 gay and lesbian couples a year adopt in England and Wales
    > (from 2005 onwards, when adoption by same-sex couples became
    > legal).

    Can you say where you found those, please?

    Just a thought: are those all adoptions from care, or do they include where one partner adopts the child of the other partner in cementing a couple?

    Is there any statistic on adoptions by people of transsexual history alongside those? I’m hearing conflicting reports, but some say that where a male-to-female is involved adoptions are being prevented by social workers insisting that a child would have to consent to being adopted by such a person (or a couple including such a person), but that no child is mature enough to understand the issue. They have access to the gender recognition register so know everyone who has gone through that process. Even if they didn’t they would wish to see the birth certificates, which would immediately give it away.

  25. @oatc – those are the statistics provided by the Office for National Statistics, which show that in 2007 and 2008, a total of 170 same sex couples adopted (those are the only stats available at the moment, 2009′s stats will be produced later this year). As these were only adoptions by same-sex couples, none of these would have been step-parent adoptions – the sexual orientation of single person adopters are not held on record.

    As for the transgender issue, as far as I know there are no statistics on that. I would imagine that social workers’ own prejudices may be playing a part in individual cases. I think that most children would be more than capable of understanding the idea of a transgender person so that seems like a very weak argument, although I do agree children should always be able to give informed consent as to who should be able to adopt them.

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