The Daily Mail, a British online newspaper, is reporting on a Christian couple who have been refused the opportunity to provide foster care to children due to their Christian convictions for taking the biblical stance on homosexuality. It seems that the couple, during their interview was asked: “Do you know, you would have to tell them that it’s OK to be homosexual?”. Said Mrs. Johns: “I couldn’t do that because my Christian beliefs won’t let me. Morally, I couldn’t do that. Spiritually I couldn’t do that”. With that, the couple, who had previously fostered nearly 20 children without controversy, were refused. It appears their beliefs are in conflict with Derby City Council’s equality policy, which was drawn up under the terms of the Sexual Orientation Act. Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights charity, Stonewall, opined: ‘Too often in fostering cases nowadays it’s forgotten that it is the interests of a child, and not the prejudices of a parent, that matter.”
While this incident did not happen in America, and our laws are not to be imposed upon another nation; I still cannot help but to think the rationale is off kilter. What is at the center of the issue is the Johns’ religious beliefs and the government censorship on behalf of a small group of citizens (1.5% of the population according to the Office for National Statistics), of those beliefs. It appears that because the Johns’ were unwilling to champion and advocate (rather than simply tolerate) homosexual behavior, they were considered unfit. Consider what that means, to be unfit to care for children.
Here in America over the last decade or so, there has been a fervent push by advocates to legislate approval of the homosexual lifestyle. From same-sex marriage legislation, to coercing schools to implement curriculum for children as young as 5 years old promoting homosexuality. It is not hard to see this scenario coming to the U.S. once homosexuality is permanently considered as immutable as skin color and gender. At that point, voicing opinions that certain sexual behaviors are immoral will be considered discrimination and hate speech. What naturally follows is government intrusion to the free exercise of religion under the banner of tolerance.
What I fail to understand is how the Johns not advocating for homosexual behavior is a detriment to the child. What is it that promoting homosexual behavior is in the child’s best interest? What this case illuminates is that the opinions of homosexuals trumps that of Christians. If I didn’t know better I would think Mr. Summerskill is more concerned with putting homosexual’s feelings ahead of the child’s placement in a home with people who have a history of caring for children in need. That unless you are an active voice for homosexuality you may not care for foster children. This then raises another question. If not championing homosexuality makes a potential foster family unfit to care for children, is the same true for natural parents? If the natural parents of a child will not voice approval for homosexuality, by the standards of Mr. Summerskill, the Derby City Council, and the Sexual Orientation Act, they too are unfit to raise children. What now do we do? Do we take the natural children from their parents? It would seem that if the Derby City Council considers people unfit due to anti-homosexuality opinions, it should apply across the board. If it is the opinions themselves which is the factor, then it should not matter whether the child is the biological offspring of the parents. Unfit is unfit.
Is the government willing to remove children from homes of parents who have the audacity to oppose homosexual behavior? I would have to say it is negligent on the part of the government to allow the children to remain if in fact the opinions the Johns expressed, deem you unfit . You see, “unfit” is a label you assign to someone who is incapable of meeting the basic needs of the child. “Unfit” parents ought to have their children removed because the child is in danger. Are opinions on sexual behaviors a standard by which parents are measured to provide care?
The term “homosexual agenda” is mocked by advocates for the lifestyle. However, in cases such as the Johns’, it is glaring that there is a political movement which is being advanced. Tolerance, in its true sense is not the issue here, it is advocacy. Until you become a voice for their cause, you are silenced, either by law or ridicule. This surpasses live and let live, and plunges into suppression of dissenting opinions. It is clear, if you care to partake in the freedoms of speech they enjoy, dissent is not an option.
______________________________________
Related Articles: Can You Feel The Love?, Unlock That Closet, Prop 8 Struck Down
Sifting Reality 
Any Thoughts?