British Court to Anti-Gay Couple: No Foster Kids

Photo by <a href="">Tobit2</a>/Wikipedia

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Recently, a British royal court denied foster care rights to a married couple because they disapprove of homosexuality. Owen and Eunice Johns, who are Pentecostal Christians, fostered children in the 1990s without trouble. But things changed after the passage of a sexual orientation non-discrimination provision in Great Britian’s Equality Act 2006: When the Johns applied in 2007, a social worker barred them because they wanted the right to teach kids that a gay lifestyle is immoral. So, they filed a legal challenge based on religious discrimination.

The Equality Act extension also prevented Christian adoption agencies from turning away gay couples in the United Kingdom, which allows civil unions but not same-sex marriage. Pope Benedict urged British Catholics last year to resist the legislation with “missionary zeal” to defend religious freedom, but nearly all of the UK’s Catholic adoption agencies chose to close their doors or break ties with the church to comply with the change in law. In the eyes of the church, Monday’s ruling is a fresh attack on its beliefs.

But if a similar law existed in the US, it may have helped protect gay foster kids like Kenneth Jones. Passed around in a system that condones foster parents’ anti-gay views, Jones routinely endured harassment at home because of his sexual orientation. (And when it comes to gay people adopting and providing foster care, American law is in a state of flux: Mississippi and Utah prevent same-sex couples from adopting, whereas state circuit courts in Arkansas and Florida recently declared similar bans unconstitutional.)

For now, religious conservatives in the US are still delaying same-sex marriage rights by claiming that gays are inadequate parents. Needless to say, those claims aren’t backed up by any significant science. But that probably won’t stop likely GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum from arguing against gay marriage and adoption, nor Newt Gingrich from pointing to the British court’s ruling as further evidence that “gay and secular fascism” is on the march.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend