Couple Lose Foster Care Right Over Homosexuality Stance

LONDON — A British court has ruled that a Christian couple cannot care for foster children because they disapprove of homosexuality.

Judges at London's Royal Courts of Justice ruled that laws protecting gays from discrimination take precedence over the couple's religious beliefs.

Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65-years old, had previously fostered children in the 1990s, but what one social worker described as their "strong views" on homosexuality raised red flags with authorities in the English city of Derby when they were interviewed in 2007.

Eunice Johns said Monday that she was "extremely distressed" by the decision, which Christian groups also condemned.

But the judges ruled that Britain was "a secular state, not a theocracy."

Comments

[Anaxamenes]

03:23 PM on 03/08/2011

Because being a foster child is hard enough, they shouldn't have to worry if they are gay or not, just that they will be taken care of. I wish more judges in this country would point out that we are a secular state, not a theocracy.

[EndangeredJackalope]

10:30 AM on 03/03/2011

All you have to do is think about what if they were fostering a young gay child.
What if this was a white family, deeply racist, fostering a young black child?

[Andre Fabre]

09:48 AM on 03/03/2011

When are we going to understand that negative points of view, regarding where they come from, are not good for a child's upbringing?

In the case of the foster parents in this article, what if a child they were giving foster care turns out to be a gay child? How is that going to make the child feel when the care giver portraits gay people under a negative light due to personal religious beliefs?

Not fair for the child.

[Suresp77]

09:46 AM on 03/03/2011

where's the "Like" button? that last line is one I wish we would hear more of in this country, that we are "a secular state, not a theocracy."

[ZenCrusader]

09:43 AM on 03/03/2011

They could be raising gay children and in a homophobic household, this should should be avoided if known and when possible. I applaud the decision.

[20yearnavyvet]

09:39 AM on 03/03/2011

While I can see the reasoning behind this decision I still believe, IMHO, that it is a bad decision. Whatever the fosters' points of view on homosexuality is won't make or break what those fostered believe for themselves. Just look at how many parents, foster or otherwise, stongly disapprove of homosexuality here in the States and how many of their children see things completely differently. A ruling like this can only widen the divide that already exists.

And yes, I am gay.

[EndangeredJackalope]

10:39 AM on 03/03/2011

What if you were being fostered by parents who were extremely homophobic.
Its probably hard enough with biological parents like that. Imagine what shaky emotional ground you're already on before coming to foster care, then having to be indoctrinated with their homophobia.

I think if we were reading this story after the fact -- Gay Adolescent Foster Child Commits Suicide After Homophobic Family Placement -- we'd all be on the same page. How many kids like this don't make a headline, and just grow up to be severely emotionally damaged people. Not all, but that's still bad odds for a kid who's already got a hard road in front of them.

[schnauzergirl]

10:57 AM on 03/03/2011

What if the religious views of this couple required them to teach the child that Jews are all inhabited by demons and are evil? Or that women are to always obey men and should always look down when a man is speaking to her? None of that is illegal, but it would make them very bad candidates for foster care/adoption.

[brentchicago]

09:30 AM on 03/03/2011

Ok...sorry guys, I read their comments. I think this decision is wrong. There are many grey areas in life. I think it is really difficult for a state to police the religious beliefs of foster parents. Just saying.....But the big question is where do you draw the line? I think their beliefs on gays is wrong.....but where does this type of policing end?

[brentchicago]

09:23 AM on 03/03/2011

I wish there was more information on their position. There are so many children in the world that need love and care. As a gay man I would obviously NOT support their position on homosexuality and I have seen first hand the damage that can be done by prejudice. But there is no difference between prejudices, racial or sexual orientation.

[Kevin Atlanta]

08:16 AM on 03/03/2011

The Brits have gotten this one right too.
After the Bed & Breakfast flack with the Cults of Jesus Inc working to inflict their narrow, petty world-view on everyone else this decision is perfect.
There is no excuse now or ever for these Missionaries of Hate to find voice in public or to inflict their illness upon anyone else ever.
Pray to your magic wizard in the sky and I'll keep working in reality and we'll see who gets results first.

[Wendy Scoggins]

10:08 AM on 03/03/2011

First of all, disapproval does not equal hate, and I find it unfair that homosexuals often conflate the two. I may disapprove of the promiscuous lifestyle of some of my coworkers, but I do not hate them. I may disapprove of my friend's decision to sleep with her ex-husband, but I do not hate her. Those who accuse others of "hate" simply because they disapprove of certain lifestyles or decisions are simply throwing fuel on a fire that really needs to go out already. Homosexuals need to realize and acknowledge that they are only making relations worse with Christians with these kinds of unfair labels and accusations. Besides, if you are hating on the "haters" for their hatred, how are you any better?

Second of all, to narrow the number of willing foster parents only serves to hurt foster children. I find it alarming that the state feels perfectly free to remove foster children from people willing to care for them simply because they harbor views that are politically incorrect. Where should the line be drawn? What views might YOU hold that would cause the state to act against you?

I believe in the rights of gays to marry, and I also believe in the rights of others to disapprove. We have to be careful not to so readily embrace the rights of others being infringed upon, because when they are, the rights of everyone are threatened.

[schnauzergirl]

11:00 AM on 03/03/2011

If the couple had said they believe black people should not have the same rights as white people, but that they don't hate the blacks, would you be ok with them fostering a child?

[beachbum101]

12:21 PM on 03/05/2011

I applaud your open mindset on marriage equality, however I do feel the need to point out a few flaws in your original logic. When you make comparisons to how you disapprove of a person's actions and still love them, you assume 1st - that they care what you think and 2nd - that what they are doing is inherently bad.

That's really what glbt's across the country have been trying to make regular people understand for YEARS. Your Christianity tells you that because of my lifestyle, I will go to hell. My heart tells me that I have found the other half of my soul finally. So personally, I don't really care if you "disapprove but still love the person"

[charlesdickens]

01:03 AM on 03/03/2011

How sad - to be in one's 60's and still practice hatred. I would hope that some shred of wisdom enters the aging process.

[Kevin Atlanta]

08:17 AM on 03/03/2011

Christ-O-Fascism has no room for humanity.

[Monrocsol]

08:49 AM on 03/03/2011

Waste of a soul.

[KenClay]

09:44 PM on 03/02/2011

Gays Love People too!

[AndyPhx]

08:09 PM on 03/02/2011

Let's switch the word homophobic with the word racist. Should the foster care system knowingly place children in a hostile, racist environment? There is NO difference here. Racism was fueled by bigots who used the Bible's teachings and scripture to reinforce their sickening behavior just as they do in defense of their homophobia -- all in the name of God. No difference here folks. None. Nil. Zilch. Zero. Period.

[EmmaDarian]

08:27 PM on 03/02/2011

It's just that simple, really.

Nicely said.

[KDMac]

08:27 PM on 03/02/2011

There is nothing in the information given to indicate that they would be hostile. They just said they couldn't say that homosexuality was okay if asked. If there were anything to indicate they would be hostile, I would agree with your assessment; but if the only risk is that a kid they are babysitting asks about homosexuality and they just avoid it because they can't say it's okay, that doesn't sound hostile to me.

[EmmaDarian]

08:29 PM on 03/02/2011

You don't know what they told the social worker. You only know what they told the press they told the social worker.

And you are calling it babysitting (something new you're trying to justify placing a child with homophobes), but the Johns defined respite care as 3-4 weeks at a time.

[EmmaDarian]

09:08 PM on 03/02/2011

Babysitting makes it sound like a short time, and in other comments, you've said it was an for an evening or overnight. I asked where you got that information, but you won't say, so obviously, you can't.

I've already posted a link to the Johns themselves saying that they provided respite care for 3-4 weeks at a time, and here is the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8355786/Our-Christianity-is-our-lifestyle-we-cant-take-it-on-and-off.html

What is to be gained by introducing false information into the discussion?

[KDMac]

07:49 PM on 03/02/2011

Too bad these people were too honest to just lie to the social workers, this would have been a non-issue.

[HRH]

08:04 PM on 03/02/2011

And, consequently, they could hide their bigotry from everyone forever? And, at their ages (62 & 65), they have never exhibited such bigotry that could be reported to social workers?

[KDMac]

08:07 PM on 03/02/2011

Obviously not. They were foster parents before and no flags were raised.

[EmmaDarian]

08:11 PM on 03/02/2011

Except for the child they might harm.

But it's not a surprise to see that you think they should have lied to get what they wanted, rather than simply follow the rules.

[KDMac]

08:14 PM on 03/02/2011

Just pointing out the irony, hon.

[clerval]

07:39 PM on 03/02/2011

I'm not sure I understand this. The court ruled that this couple could not raise foster children because they are homophobic? I'm gay, and unless they are teaching the kids to physically attack every gay person they see, I don't see why this ruling makes any sense. If they are willing to open their home to a child in need, they should be able to.

[KDMac]

07:41 PM on 03/02/2011

Sorry you'll have to leave. No voices of reason allowed here.

[cwebster]

07:48 PM on 03/02/2011

Well, I can see the court's point. What if the child they foster is gay? Not the best atmosphere for a child to come to terms with his/her sexuality.

[clerval]

08:00 PM on 03/02/2011

I guess, and if their homophobia was overt and vitriolic enough to be readily apparent to a visiting social worker, maybe there is some basis to these claims. I still feel that they should be allowed to raise foster kids though. A home is still a home.

[Christopher Riess]

07:31 PM on 03/02/2011

I thought the UK was under Sharia law. I mean that sincerely.

[juancapez]

08:24 PM on 03/02/2011

"I mean that sincerely."

do yourself a favor: get a passport and see the world. it's nothing like what fox tells you...and by you i mean you.

[cylixdemas]

03:32 AM on 04/12/2011

Riess was being facetious.

[Jericho the Red]

09:54 PM on 03/02/2011

you are just as sincere as Gingrich then