Ruth Kelly minister for inequality

http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2171587.ece

Leading article: No exceptions, no exemptions
Published: 21 January 2007
The issue of gay adoption is one of the forward outposts of the struggle for equal rights in this country. Great advances have been made in the past 10 years, after a 30-year pause following the decriminalisation of male homosexuality in 1967. There may be a tendency among some parts of progressive opinion to think that the struggle has been largely won, that social attitudes are changing surprisingly quickly, and that there can be no harm in a bit of "pragmatism" at this stage in order to maintain a consensus behind the next set of reforms.

These reforms are contained in last year's Equality Act, which comes into effect this year. Until now, the most controversial provisions have been those that require the providers of accommodation, including bed-and-breakfasts, to treat gay couples in the same way as straight ones. Those, however, have been agreed and will come into force despite the threat by some B&B owners to defy the law or to close their doors.

What remains to be decided in the detailed regulations that give effect to the law is the matter of gay adoption. Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities, supported by the Prime Minister, wants to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from the requirement to treat gay and straight couples equally. Ms Kelly's spokeswoman describes this as "the pragmatic way forward". It could just as well be described as "the coward's way out", which is paradoxical, given Tony Blair's lectures to his colleagues on the need to take difficult decisions that may not always be popular in the short term.

We agree with Angela Eagle, the Labour MP, who describes the Kelly/Blair position as being like "telling Rosa Parks to wait for the fully integrated bus coming behind".

As Joan Smith argues on the opposite page, Ms Kelly's Catholicism and Mr Blair's Catholicism-by-marriage are not merely interesting as a matter of social observation. They are relevant if they influence the making of public policy, because this is a policy that should be decided on the quality of the arguments for and against. It would seem that the Catholic bishops have persuaded Ms Kelly and Mr Blair that there is a "pragmatic" consideration that outweighs the simple principle of equality. Roman Catholic families are good adopters, it is said, because the opposition of the church to abortion goes together with its promotion of a duty to adopt. But are Catholics going to cease to be good adopters just because their bishops have closed down the Catholic adoption agencies as a form of political protest? We do not believe so.

And there is a "pragmatic" argument on the other side. Gay couples are good adopters too. Of course, there are potential problems for the children brought up in unconventional families, but these are as nothing to the problems of children brought up in care homes. What is more, many of these problems arise from traditional attitudes to gay people, and would be diminished by the spread of tolerance.

We believe, unlike Mr Blair and Ms Kelly, that social acceptance of full equality for gay people will be furthered by brave changes that enshrine that principle in the law - with no exceptions.

Ruth Kelly clearly has no such qualms.

Cherie Blair 'split Cabinet in Catholic adoption row'
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 24 January 2007
Senior cabinet ministers have told MPs privately that Cherie Blair is the cause of the cabinet split over demands to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from equality laws on gay adoption.

The row intensified yesterday when the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, was accused by gay rights campaigners and some Labour MPs of trying to blackmail the Government.

The accusations flew after Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor wrote to cabinet ministers warning them that Catholic adoption agencies would have to close if they were not exempted from the new laws.

The leaders of the Church of England backed Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, warning the Government that religious people may feel that their conscience forbids them from undertaking public work under the new laws. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, wrote to Tony Blair saying: "In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups, the Government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed."

The Equality Act, due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, a committed Catholic, was accused of seeking to gain an opt-out for the Church. But Ms Kelly and the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, have privately told MPs the pressure for an exemption has come from the Prime Minister.

"They said Tony is the one who has been asking for this exemption, not Ruth, who is pretty annoyed at the way she has been presented in the media," said a senior Labour MP. "Another cabinet minister told me it's all coming from Cherie."

Mrs Blair is also a committed Catholic and there has been speculation that Mr Blair will convert to Catholicism when he leaves office. He and his wife had a private audience with Pope John Paul II and Mr Blair met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican last June. The Prime Minister went to Catholic Mass in Miami over the New Year break.

The Prime Minister's office confirmed yesterday that Mr Blair had taken charge of the issue and was "looking for a way through". The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "This is an issue with sensitivities on all sides and the Prime Minister recognises that. This is not a straightforward black and white issue. This is an issue where there are sensitivities on all sides and we have to respect those but equally find a way through."

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who is normally loyal to the Prime Minister, said it was "difficult to see" how an exemption could be justified.

Angela Eagle, who serves on a committee of senior Labour MPs who meet Mr Blair every week, said the position the Government was being placed in was close to "blackmail".

In his letter, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said it would be an " unnecessary tragedy" if legislation forced the closure of the Catholic adoption services.

Terry Sanderson, head of the National Secular Society, said: "The Catholic Church must not be permitted to control our legislature through this kind of blackmail."

I don't know why I am even following this story to be honest

Frankly, while amusing, the cilice is of little consequence here, what is more important is giving creedence to the idea that any religion should be exempted from upholding the law. I imagine that any Catholic doctors who refused to dish out contraception or permit abortions because of their consciences would be censured? Isn't this the same?

They can either choose to carry on doing what they do and fairly treat any caring homosexuals who come to them wising to adopt (although why anyone would want to deal with these bigots I don't know) or they can shut up shop and leave needy children to adoption agencies who will obey the law.

With you all the way, nationalise all of the religious schools, now.

It is exactly the same. It is a situation where the conscience of the nation as expressed in the law of the Land overrides the corporate conscience of the catholic church and it's subsidiaries.

i mean are you for real about the 'law of the land' (really this government's legislative agenda, it's not what you might call constitutional) representing 'the conscience of the nation'. there is no nation! or if there is, the catholic minority is part of it and up to a point, as with, say, the muslim minority, there is a point at which you're... imposing yourself.

i'm probably the most atheistic person around in that i've never once entertained a religious thought and am usually all for hating on god botherers of all religions, but nationalized schools? ech.

my g/f was one of two non-xtians allowed at her very CoE state school (the other one turned out to be gay -- pwned) and as you say, it was very much better results-wise than other schools in the area. this is cos she's from a cathedral town and whatnot but anyway for blair, religious schools are about 'choice' as with health.

but schools have always been locally controlled.

Badly phrased, there has been far too much of a centralising tendency in education. Choice has been imposed from Whitehall since the early 90s. However the guiding principle that education should be secular, about informing children to make choices (get rid of Citizenship too whilst we're at it).

eh? This is a thread about the adoption business - i have stood up elsewhere on the matter of religious schools as i'm sure have other members of the 'liberal left'. I don't see anyone from the new caring conservative party having this debate.

-- aldo_cowpat (aldo.cowpa...), January 24th, 2007.

Certainly.

(I'm not even Catholic, but it seems odd to single out one individual group with some very choice language and not apply it to everyone that the law will apply to, especially under the guise of 'equality'.)

uh? would you be ok with a muslim adoption agency nixing jewish would-be adopters?

Religious discrimination belongs in a different category because religions is, and should be a choice people make. Gender, Skin Colour, Ethnicity, Sexuality are not choices people make. i would be equally against 'a muslim adoption agency nixing jewish would-be adopters'. And the religious discrimination laws do open up the faith schools to non-faith members, I hope.

Religious discrimination and discrimination on the basis of Gender or Sexuality just do not belong on the same level. For instance, religion does not desrver and incitement to hatred law which amounts to a blasphemy law in some circumstances, but I am much more in favour of incitement to Racial or Sexual Haterd laws.

I wasn't before, I did in that instance because he was the only one that used the word 'bigot'. Which was why I asked him to reuse it.

ed probably wasn't singling out the catholic church until they were the ones being most vocal about this

i don't think it's that easy to stop being religious if you've been raised that way and if you inhabit a particular religio-cultural community in childhood and adolescence. i'm not saying it's the same as your gender or sexuality but to claim it's totally different strikes a false note with me. and indeed sexuality/gender are not as immutable as you make out. to repeat i was not brought up religious.

Talking of which...this morning on the news...

"Archbishop Sentamu warned: "When you over legislate and intervene too much in people's private lives I think in the long run you end up with a statute being used to cure all ills which it cannot."

Great! As soon as the church stops trying to 'intervene too much in people's private lives' as well.

What has that to do with this debate?

I didn't see the thread only B&B owners being bigots.

OK, that's slightly facetious, but they were certainly vocal about it and threatened the very same closures.

I completely agree that individuals within government shouldn't be able to subvert government policy (although the roots of this law come from Europe and isn't an organic British ruling, so quite where it stands against the "the conscience of the nation as expressed in the law of the Land " is more oblique than at first sight), but that's a different topic.

The key point Ed makes here is a very good one: "although why anyone would want to deal with these bigots I don't know". The reason people want to deal with Catholics, Muslims or Jews on adoption is because they're practising Catholics, Muslims or Jews. Which also means they're not homosexuals.

this is totally off the money though, there are plenty gay religious people of all faiths, and obv they're the people who struggle most with trying to reconcile their beliefs with their sexuality.

and yes the b&b owners are bigots as well, if that's what you want us to say.

I don't think it can be stressed enough just how unlikely this scenario is.

Not stable enough couples to adopt, who are still practising members of their church.

I'm leaving this thread now, since I obviously have no idea what it's about..

there are plenty gay religious people of all faiths, and obv they're the people who struggle most with trying to reconcile their beliefs with their sexuality.

would that the state could be this, um, dialectical.

i was going to ask: have they actually said that they would?
-- the original hauntology blogging crew (miltonpinsk...), January 24th, 2007. (later)

Someone from the gov't was on C4 news last night, saying that there have been a handful of Muslim, Jewish, even CofE agencies/groups who have raised some issues with the legislation. But she made it very clear that none of them were raising the stink that the Catholic church was. She said something like: "But their comments were nowhere near the letter we got from the Catholics".

What with this and the thing about christians in the middle east over xmas, i'm really losing faith in Rowan Williams.

http://www.headsofgovernment.co.uk/images/hi-res/RuthKelly.jpg

As I understand, the churches that are opposed to allowing gay couples to adopt see being a 'practising homosexual' as the immoral thing. Catholic adoption agencies have allowed individual gay men to adopt before. It is the practising part which puts it in the category of chosen behaviour, for them. Because, just as you consider that people who have been brought up in a religion can choose not to practise it, these churches consider that people who have homosexual desires can choose not to act on them. Until scientists prove the existence of a gay gene, people can feasibly claim this as a grey area.

I don't see why anti-discrimination legislation should be based only on entirely unchosen identities. You could say that intelligence is largely unchosen, but you couldn't demand that employers not discriminate against stupid people. It is easier just to say that anti-discrimination covers a certain number of identities which society sees as being unacceptable grounds for discrimination; the categories which are included are added to as society becomes more enlightened and tolerant. Trying to rationalise it with the chosen/unchosen distinction is just unnecessary.