Reader comments · Scotland: Catholic adoption agency which does not consider gay people wins back charitable status · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Scotland: Catholic adoption agency which does not consider gay people wins back charitable status

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Sense at last. Its not right that people should be penalised for doing what they believe is right. And I think its sad that children who are so vulnerable would have been casualties of spite and politics just so a minority group and the PC brigade could make a point. Gay people who want to adopt should go to another agency, find a child to love, and get on with family life.

    1. get out, you nasty UKIP filth!

    2. Bobbleobble 1 Feb 2014, 11:26am

      How is it sensible to narrow the pool of potential adoptees? And surely it can be argued the other way, that vulnerable children are casualties of the Catholic Church’s insistence that they cleave to dogma and must be placed above the law. How are they not being spiteful? How are they showing love to the children in their care by demanding they be allowed to discriminate?

      We have many laws preventing people doing what they believe is right. Just because someone holds a belief does not mean that belief is good or should be allowed to hold sway in society. If the Catholic Church object to gay people adopting then they should get out of the adoption business.

    3. Religious dogmas should not be imposed on a secular society ether and should not be exempt from the law of the land.

    4. We will not consider non-white/interracial/racial/mixed faith/atheist couples, the children are in a better care with Us. Freedom for all! See how that would go down.

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Feb 2014, 12:29pm

      You hateful bigot! How would you like it if catholics were banned from adopting children, any group for that matter? Moreover, how would you feel if you were banned because of your bigotry? Stupid bitch! Your defence of a paedophile protecting cult speaks volumes.

    6. That There Other David 1 Feb 2014, 1:15pm

      So if I believe it’s right to punch every Catholic I meet in the face then I shouldn’t be prosecuted for such?

      That question should hopefully point out the idiocy of your position. Religion should be fazed out of our society, not given special exemptions to law.

    7. What’s ‘sad’ (disgusting, actually) is that homophobes (Catholic or otherwise) should be allowed to adopt at all: a homophobic home is not a safe, loving place to bring up children, at least 1-in-20 of whom are likely to be gay and groomed into hate themselves by people who ‘believe this is right’….

    8. Colin (Queenstown/London) 1 Feb 2014, 7:36pm

      If you actually believe what you have written then shame on you.
      I’m Scottish by birth and lived there for 25 years. Attitudes like the comment here are the reason.
      The catholic church is a sad organisation which separates people, judges them and controls them. Whats wrong with people who need religion. Scared to live! Scared to die!

    9. The discriminatory practices of this group are not directed just at a minority group eg. gay people. It is directed at the overall majority of society unless catholics became a majority in Scotland – which i doubt. (there has been years when civil partnerships exceeded catholic weddings). They were found to be discriminating against applicants who were non-catholic in addition to gay people so that is like 9x% of society.

      1. If so many of you hate the church and would prefer it to be destroyed, how come you still want to get in married in one – makes no sense.

    10. Cassius Johnston 6 Feb 2014, 2:22pm

      Choice is not a right, may the church have it’s rights to choose not to and may we encourage “tolerance” to those with different views. why rush into mistakes?

  2. onesecond 1 Feb 2014, 9:53am

    That is a scandal. How can such a hateful organisation maintain a charitable status when it promotes discrimination?

    1. The catholic church still yields a formidable power over weak minds. Those in its claws usually know no better than acquiescing to anything vatican Inc tells them to do. And it still holds many politicians in its payroll. Until this vile organisation has been expunged from this planet, we’ll keep seeing more of the same.

  3. It is called freedom, as strange as this may seems to onesecond

    1. With Catholic organisations it tends to be called institutional child abuse, and that is the furthest thing from charity it is possible to be.

    2. Yep, freedom to discriminate. I guess there would be no problem if an adoption agency had a ‘no Papists’ policy, because woo freedom.

    3. In my adoption agency we don’t consider religious people (especially Catholics) worthy of adopting.
      How does that sound? Should I be a charity? After all, that is what I believe to be right.

    4. The Catholic Church seems very keen on the freedom of its servants to abuse children, judging by the amount of it that has been going on. Why this bizarre organisation with its insistence on sexual repression is allowed anywhere near children is beyond me.

    5. PantoHorse 3 Feb 2014, 9:29am

      Whenever someone starts a post here with ‘It’s called…”, Sorry, but…” or “It’s a known fact…” you can just about 100% guarantee the rest that follows will be ill informed nonsense.

  4. jackAlison 1 Feb 2014, 10:22am

    St magaret’s may bask in the sunshine of bigoted self rightousness. However, setting a precedent of breaking the law will eventually be overturned.

  5. dangermouse 1 Feb 2014, 10:27am

    St Margaret’s policy states that “We expect applicants to have been married for at least two years”. So in two years time they will have to accept married gay couples ………

    1. Well, in two years, they will revise the policy to state that couples have to have been married for three years. . . and so on. Then they will say that couples have to have been married in a Catholic Church.

  6. So bigotry is given the rubber stamp under the law again? Disgraceful decision and further proof of the value of Christian “love”

  7. Equality Network 1 Feb 2014, 11:01am

    Dangermouse is correct that St Margaret’s will have to accept same-sex married couples. The Equality Network has not yet seen the full judgement by the Scottish Charity Appeals Panel, but we understand that St Margaret’s told the Panel that they do accept civil partners as adopters and treat them the same as married couples. We have been told that the Panel’s ruling was based on that assurance. But we won’t comment fully until we’ve seen the whole judgement.

    If that assurance is the case, and St Margaret’s treat civil partners the same as married couples, that’s good news. If on the other hand, St Margaret’s intend to discriminate against same-sex couples (which is what has been suggested in the past), then the ruling is a mistake.

    1. I imagine St Margaret’s has just agreed with everything the Scottish Charity Regulator wants simply in the hope no gay married couples ever approach the adoption agency.

      All their future leaflets, flyers and/or other literature will need to be closely examined.

    2. Colin (Queenstown/London) 1 Feb 2014, 7:38pm

      Thank you for this update. Appreciated

    3. According to the first ruling they were found to operate a priority system. You got higher priority if you were a couple, catholic, married for at least 2 years. You got lower priority if you were married less than 2 years, civil partners, single, non catholic.

      I wonder how that priority system will be amended. They place children who have special needs so it seems kind of odd that they would turn down couples who met the requirements to place that child but were not catholic… that is not even a condition that affects a child’s welfare.

    4. GulliverUK 2 Feb 2014, 12:23pm

      So in essence they refused to comply, trying to test if their charitable status would really be removed, then they had it removed, then had a change of heart when almost all their funding went, they relented, agreed to act like normal sane people, got their charitable status returned, and now we have to wait and see if they are liars and cheats. Most other Catholic sponsored charities in adoption simply removed their association with the Catholic church when the original adoption equality legislation came in – the 2007 SORs – and they had until, I think, 2008/9 to comply.

      It’s PUBLIC money, MY money, and I don’t want it used to fund discrimination against me, or any other LGBT persons. Let’s hope they are not discriminating – the first case reported of them doing so and they must lose their charitable status without possibility of appeal.

      1. Remember, when the SOR’s were being introduced, the SNP Scottish government wanted complete exemption for catholic adoption agencies, but the UK government (Labour) refused. So the SNP government advised St. Margaret’s on how to get around the SOR’s instead.

  8. I’m a bit baffled by this ruling as presented here. It seems to boil down to saying it’s all right to disobey any law that you don’t like. I can’t believe that’s correct.

  9. Hope there’s nothing dodgy going on…like before. Does the OSCR have their “assurances” in writing for example? (Mind you, I doubt they would be worth the paper they’re written on with that shower of ravi-shankers.)

    Now awaiting the response of the National Secular Society on the case.

  10. “The Catholic Church, which runs and partly funds the agency, has said work would continue as normal.” – And by ‘normal’ they mean str8.

  11. What the headline should read is “homophobic adoption agency in Scotland wins the right to be homophobic.”

    Imagine the uproar if a racist adoption agency had won the right to not place white kids with black families.

    One rule for racism, another for homophobia.

  12. Anyone else think that a married gay couple would be treated the same as a married straight one by this Agency, despite whatever assurances they might have given? No, me neither. Charity begins at home. But not in the homes of Scottish gays it seems.

  13. St Margaret’s policy states that “We expect applicants to have been married for at least two years”.

    We will be hearing from St Margaret’s again in just over two years time when they reject a gay couple that meet their silly requirement of having been married for two years.

  14. The biggest issue here is not whether Catholic adoption agencies should be allowed to refuse gay couples the right to adopt, but whether homophobic Catholics (or anyone else) of any kind should be allowed to adopt children at all, given that there’s at least a 1-in-20 chance that that child will be gay and should not have to brought up (‘groomed’) to believe that it is in anyway inferior (‘intrinsically disordered’ was I think the last Pope’s disgusting phrase) to anyone else. This amounts to psychological abuse, and should be treated as a very serious child protection issue disqualifying anyone with discriminatory beliefs from being permitted to adopt children, who will already have suffered sufficient trauma without having more needlessly forced on them. By definition, a ‘homophobic home’ can never be a safe, loving place for a child – even a straight child suffers by being taught to hate and discriminate against others, as does the whole of society. Sickening!!

    1. Stephen O 1 Feb 2014, 7:28pm

      A child belongs with a mother and a father, that’s not ideology but nature, Not saying that any other arrangement is never acceptable but cannot be equivalent to the idealised option of a prospective mother and father! Not everyone who wants to adopt is allowed to, it’s a discriminatory process by design. I can understand why an agency would rather place children with a mum and dad than with two blokes… I think you probably do as well!

    2. Er no the chance is 1 in 100. I know it might make you feel better to pretend its 1 in 20, but lies never help in the long run.

      1. bobbleobble 3 Feb 2014, 11:24am

        Doesn’t negate the point though. There is a possibility, however remote, that a child in their care could be gay.

  15. Religiously motivated organizations should once and for all be legally excluded from anything of such vital interest to society as arranging the adoption of children. As this dreadful group makes clear, they are likely to put dogmatic and supernaturalist criteria before rational and knowledge-based considerations of child welfare.

    1. You are a Fascist! The RC church is the biggest provider of aid and healthcare globally. They also don’t threaten to withdraw such support from those who don’t share their views unlike the UN and their threats against struggling African nations whose (admittedly)backward attitudes to LGBT issues don’t square with their own!

      1. And you are a user of insulting hyperbole. If I were a fascist I would want them arrested and imprisoned and denied the right to express their views. I frankly don’t care what other good works they do. Read the article again. This avowedly Roman Catholic organisation is not prepared to place people legally too young to consent in potentially loving homes if the latter do not exhibit their supernatural beliefs or conform to their sexual prejudices. This organisation owes explicit allegiance to an organisation which has actively campaigned against equal rights for lgbt people all over the world and would inculcate children to follow this lead. Who or what exactly is ‘fascist’?

  16. Stephen O 1 Feb 2014, 7:20pm

    St Margaret’s is an old institution doing good work long before crackpots like Keith Porteous Wood tried to destroy them. Tell me that they are less deserving of the label “charity” than pressure groups like Stonewall and the NSS who have no interest in helping anyone except their own political groups!

  17. I find their views entirely distasteful and would utterly hate it if they ever became mainstream again.

    But in the end, I think that on balance this was probably the right decision. We might wish that the whole world wholeheartedly subscribed to every ideal of the LGBTI movement. But the reality is that however much we would wish it otherwise, there is a small minority of the country who subscribe to a hardline christian ideology.

    By making them martyrs to “secular intolerance” we paradoxically make them stronger. Tolerate them and ignore them and they will wither on the branch.

    The Churches are just an expression of an extremely conservative position and either that position will change with time or, if it cannot as the dogmatic religions say they cannot, they will die out as adherents leave for more churches, mosques and synagogues that are not so out f step with the modern world.

    1. it isn’t balance.

      giving one group – intolerant or otherwise – the right to flaunt the law is anything BUT balance.

      it matter very little in the grand scheme of things whether a small or large group believe in intolerance.
      The law is the law and as such is applicable to one and all.

  18. So the equality law is meaningless, since it is not actually applied. The oversight charity register organization and its members should be sued for violating the law.

  19. This is very disappointing, to say the least. I’ve been following the story of St. Margaret’s since 2009 when it was reported in the news that they were discriminsting against gay people and had been doing so since 2007 when the SNP Scottish government helped them to get around the UK-wide equality laws brought in that year.

    Over the last 5 years, I’ve written to MSPs, MPs and MEPs, but none were interested. I understand that the Scottish goverment still support St. Margaret’s – it was certainly their position last March when this ruling was first made.

    I can’t believe that a few days before MSPs are due to vote on equal marriage, a ruling like this can be made and that the Scottish government, in this particular situation, support religious bigotry over gay equality.

    1. Over the last 5 years, I’ve written to MSPs, MPs and MEPs, but none were interested

      You know why that is?

      Because its the children who are important here, not the egos of self-righteous homosexuals who have some need to generate constant conflict and ill-feeling.

      1. Bobbleobble 3 Feb 2014, 11:20am

        Or presumably the egos of the self righteous religious who are so intent on discriminating quite possibly against the interests if the children they’re purporting to care so much about.

  20. Firstly, the most worrying aspect about this is that the Charity Appeals board seems to have willingly defied the Equality Act with its decision. Even worse, the Scottish government in Holyrood seems to be openly encouraging this. Surely, this case should be taken to court?

    Secondly, if this agency really was putting the welfare of the children first, then surely they should be looking for the best families possible, regardless of those parents’ marital status, or religious belief or sexual orientation. But that isn’t what’s happening. Instead this taxpayer-funded Catholic adoption agency is saying that ONLY parents who are Catholic, married for at least 2 years, and who are heterosexual can adopt their children. This excludes a huge number of families who could provide a loving, stable home for those kids.

    Surely we must ask why we allow such a practice to continue? And even more so, we should be asking why the taxpayer is still expected to fund this ludicrous practice at all.

  21. Helge Vladimir Tiller 2 Feb 2014, 10:02am

    Are you tired of religion like me ? RELIGION has been suppressing homosexuals for hundreds of years ! Read History- They should simply not !!! be allowed to discriminate. like this. PERIOD !

    1. Its quite possible they will still discriminate against married couples but not CU couples. A big part of all teh problem is giving gays equal rights to MARRIAGE.

      BTW it is not reliigion has been discriminating against gays. they discriminate or have done so against virrtually every minority. They create fear (which leads to hatred) to keep people askingg the hard questions – like is the whole thing the drooppings of a BULL, but really about power , money and control

      Catholic church created the fouddnations of the holocaust of the jews

      Mass murdered millions of Muslimss during the crusades – society has long memories

      The “HOLY” Inquistion of torture and Burnings

      The myth of the virgin – Mary was most likely raped by a roman sodier in a socety where she could have been stoned to death (there were dozens of “sons of God: in Egyptian MYTHeololgy eg Osirus – son of the sUn god RA and father of the god Horos Then there was Alexander the great – pulled out of the forehead Zeus.

  22. patsywiltse 2 Feb 2014, 12:32pm


  23. I think its sad to see the extreme selfishness from homosexuals regarding this agency.

    The agency believes a child does best being raised by a mother and father. This natural arrangement is vastly superior to two homosexual parents, of either gender.

    Our parents represent the first people of the same and opposite sex whom we form relationships with. These relationships are very important, educational and go on to influence all other relationships in our lifetime. Clearly, a child raised with two homosexual parents is at a disadvantage here. They only have one dimensional parents – a single gender – and ones who cannot even relate properly to most people of the same gender, due to their same-sex attraction.

    The adoption agency’s argument is driven for the good of children – this is their sole criteria. Homosexual critics are driven by pure self-interest. The children are just another vehicle to convince themselves that they are “equal”.

  24. Same sex parenting is absurd and does children a disservice.

    Children are not a natural feature (and can never be) of a same sex relationship.

    Therefore, how could a homosexual couple ever genuinely desire children?

    Its like saying a fish desires to ride a bike.

    Its clear that any sentiments toward parenting are simply a desire to ape heterosexual couples, so inadequates can feel “equal”.

    If people choose to be in a homosexual relationship, they should at least have the courage of their convictions.

    Homosexuals are wrong to put concerns about padding their own egos over child welfare.

  25. Homosexual people often talk of how difficult they found growing up in an environment where they were “different” to others and how isolated and alone they felt.

    Why do they then want to inflict this isolation and sense of alienation on children with a normal, heterosexual identity? How extremely uncaring and selfish.

    Most children will grow up with a properly ordered and healthy sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Why should they be made to feel their sexuality is somehow “odd”, by presenting homosexuality as the norm to them?

    Worse, their homosexual parents cannot relate to heterosexuality and so are poorly placed to give life and relationship advice.

  26. Lets be honest, none of the ranting commentators here care two hoots about the children the agency works to help.

    They are only outraged because someone – an adoption agency in this case – has a different opinion than them.

    And the mere existence of this different opinion brings their fragile, false confidence crashing down.

    Because deep down, they know homosexuality does not equal heterosexuality. The extreme anger and hate on show constantly on this website demonstrates that loud and clear.

    Many people like to project their personal issues onto the opinions of others, to pretend the opinions are the source of the issues.

    I am always stuck by how similar the comments on this site about religious people are to comments about black people and jews on sites such as Stormfront. Pure unthinking hate.

  27. According to the ruling, page 71, ‘The Panel has decided that there is indirect discrimination but that that indirect discrimination is allowed in terms of The Equality Act because it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.’

    I hope it now goes to a higher court to interpret The Equality Act in this case.

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.