Excerpted from Judiciary Won’t Allow Christian Beliefs, published Mar 3, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

A magistrate judge in Sheffield, England, has been told he cannot serve on the local court’s Family Panel, even though he’s been recognized as having “an unblemished record and is well regarded by fellow magistrates” because he is a Christian.

“This case is a clear picture of how Christian faith is becoming privatized in society,” said Andrea Williams, of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. “It is yet another example of the repression of Christian conscience and signals the prevalence of a secular ‘new morality’ and the erosion of Christian values at the expense of our children’s welfare.”

The case arose when McClintock realized he would be assigned to hear cases involving adoption by homosexual couples, which are allowed now under England’s Civil Partnerships Act 2002. Realizing the concerns that might arise, he asked that his religious beliefs be accommodated and he be “screened” from such cases.

He also expressed concern that children would be put at risk by the unproven social experiment of homosexual duo adoptions.

“Andrew McClintock believes that the best interests of the child are served by placing them in a situation where they would have both a mother and a father and therefore he could not agree to participate in gay adoption,” Williams said. “The imposition of secular values in every aspect of our lives will force those who hold Christian beliefs out of jobs. It will be to the detriment of the whole of society.”

McClintock took his case to the Employment Tribunal in Sheffield…

The Tribunal, however, said the case did not involve religious freedom or conscience. Further, the Tribunal concluded even if Mr. McClintock had been able to show he made his decision to resign based on his religious beliefs, there still was no case for discrimination.

“If a judge personally has particular views on any subject, he or she must put those views to the back of his or her mind when applying the law of the land impartially,” the Tribunal ordered…

A report in the Telegraph said the decision came as the government in England prepared to introduce a plan to prevent homosexuals from being discriminated against in the “provision of goods and services.” And the report noted the Sexual Orientation Regulations now could require schools to give equal weight in sex education classes to homosexual and heterosexual practices.

From U.S. Supreme Court vacates widely criticized 9th Circuit decision in Poway “T-shirt” case, published Mar 5, 2007, by Alliance Defense Fund:

Nation’s highest court grants request of ADF attorneys to consider case, then vacates 9th Circuit’s approval of censorship of Christian students

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review of the appeal of a high school student represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund who was prohibited from wearing a T-shirt at school expressing his biblical views on homosexual behavior. The court then ruled 8 to 1 to vacate a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit against the student.

“Students simply do not lose their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Two 9th Circuit judges issued an extremely dangerous ruling last year, allowing a school to censor the Christian point of view, while permitting students to speak out in support of homosexual behavior. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court summarily eliminates that ruling, giving us much firmer footing in pursuing this case.”

….ADF attorneys are representing Chase Harper, a student at Poway High School who was prohibited by school officials from wearing a T-shirt expressing his religious point of view on homosexual behavior. A school administrator told Harper to “leave his faith in the car” when his faith might offend others. Harper’s younger sister Kelsie is also represented by ADF attorneys in the case…A copy of ADF’s writ of certiori petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in Harper v. Poway Unified School District can be read at Harper Petition.

A copy of today’s order vacating the 9th Circuit’s ruling can be read at Harper Supreme Court Order.

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the 9th Circuit, which includes the state of California, more times than any of the other federal appellate circuits across the country.

Continue reading at Alliance Defense Fund… 

From The New York Times and the Gospel Truth, by Robert Knight, published Feb 22, 2007, by Culture and Media Institute:

The New York Times has been in the forefront of the conservative Christian-bashing, running voluminous pieces that accuse churches of avoiding taxes and warning darkly that the Christian Right is on the verge of turning the United States into a Talibanesque theocracy.

As liberal politicians pose at churches, salt their speeches with Scripture, and insist that their aggressive drive for more government is pious obedience to the Almighty, they are getting powerful cover from the mainstream media.

The biggest help they are getting, apart from credulous acceptance of their sudden spiritual enthusiasm, is the media’s demonizing of conservative Christians. Religion’s okay only if it mirrors liberal opinion.

The New York Times has been in the forefront of the conservative Christian-bashing, running voluminous pieces that accuse churches of avoiding taxes and warning darkly that the Christian Right is on the verge of turning the United States into a Talibanesque theocracy.

Maintaining this false image takes a lot of repetition and misrepresentation. A perfect example is an article in The New York Times Sunday Magazine (Feb. 18) in which Concerned Women for America’s position on spiritual outreach is so grossly distorted as to constitute a lie.

I had the privilege of directing CWA’s Culture & Family Institute for nearly six years. At no time did I see any CWA representative say or do anything to support the vicious mischaracterization in this Times article.

Here’s the passage, from “Narrowing the Religion Gap” by Gary Rosen, who is identified as managing editor of Commentary magazine:

“On the right, the culprits are familiar, having become stock characters in our politics. In his unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination in 2000, [an Arizona senator and current Presidential candidate] called them ‘the agents of intolerance,’ singling out Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. For a taste of their views, you can visit the Web site of Concerned Women for America (C.W.A.), which bills itself as the ‘nation’s largest public-policy women’s organization.’ Its mission is ‘to protect and promote biblical values among all citizens,’ the Bible being ‘the inerrant Word of God and the final authority on faith and practice.’ As for dissenters from C.W.A.’s stand on issues like the ‘sanctity of human life,’ a handy link to Bible passages explains ‘why you are a sinner and deserve punishment in Hell.'”

Rosen’s reference comes from CWA’s Gospel page, which begins by reminding us that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Nowhere does CWA state or imply that people will be sent to hell because of their views on public policy.

The reference that Rosen pulls out of context continues this way:

“God, however, has made a way for you to join Him in Heaven instead. Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”

This goes for everybody, regardless of background – liberals, conservatives, Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists, Republicans, Democrats, atheists, it does not matter. It has nothing to do with policy or dissenters of any policy.

Are there any editors at The New York Times who still insist on checking facts? Rosen should apologize not only to Concerned Women for America but to the Times editors who trusted him enough to run his piece.

My guess is that most Times editors wouldn’t think of challenging Rosen’s assertion because they share his prejudices. It probably made perfect sense to them. Conservative Christians did not become “stock characters” because of balanced coverage.

Rosen’s main thesis is that everybody should run to the center, and stop worrying so much about nasty issues like abortion and gay rights. He cites several conservatives that he says “have performed a service lately by denouncing the GOP’s pact with such authoritarian bullies.”

Those sweet CWA ladies sure are scary. By the way, one of those “observers on the right” that Rosen names is Andrew Sullivan, the blogger/activist who insists that God approves of promiscuous homosexual behavior, all evidence aside.

Rosen takes some leftists to task for insisting on their own orthodoxies, but in his list of “luminaries” he includes Peter Singer of Princeton, who argues that parents should have a week to decide whether they want to kill a baby after it is born. Singer is also floating the idea that it’s perfectly moral for humans to have sex with animals.

Remember, it isn’t the Singers of this world we’re supposed to fear, it’s the CWA ladies. We know because we saw it in The New York Times.

Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.

UPDATED Mar 6, 2007 — According to Appeals Court Sides With Oakland on Removal of “Natural Family” Sign, by Bob Elgecko, published Mar 5, 2007, by San Francisco Chronicle:

…The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge’s decision two years ago dismissing a lawsuit by the two employees, founders of a religious club called the Good News Employee Association.

In his February 2005 ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said the two had other means of communicating their views, such as talking to co-workers during lunch breaks. He also said the city was entitled to enforce its ban on harassing gay and lesbian employees.

Continue reading at San Francisco Chronicle…

——————————

Excerpted from ‘Natural Family’ Called Derogatory to ‘Gays’, published Feb 15, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

A special session of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being held today at the Stanford University Law School where lawyers are arguing whether the words “natural family, marriage and family values” constitute “hate speech” that could intimidate city of Oakland workers.

The words were used by two city employees who wanted to launch a group of people who shared their interests and posted a notice on a city bulletin board after a series of notices from homosexual activists were delivered to them via the city’s e-mail system, bulletin boards and memo distribution system.

But Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained “statements of a homophobic nature” and promoted “sexual-orientation-based harassment.”

The women, Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, also were threatened with firing from their city jobs because of their posting, according to their lawsuit against the city, which alleges Oakland’s anti-discrimination policy “promotes homosexuality” and “openly denounces Christian values.”

Read the rest of this article »

By Peter LaBarbera

Update on the “sniper” story: an investigator with the Rapid City, S.D., police department has contacted Americans For Truth and told us that South Dakota “gay” activist Barry Wick will not be prosecuted for his “Snipers, take note” comment against this writer, posted on lesbian Pam Spaulding’s blog, because the threat was “too vague.” We have received and accepted a heartfelt apology from Mr. Wick.

Yesterday, I was asked by a suburban Chicago newspaper to comment on former NBA star Tim Hardaway’s comment, “I hate gay people.” I said that what Hardaway said was wrong (he has since apologized): we have always condemned hatred and un-Christian messages like “Rev.” Fred Phelps “God Hates Fags” signs — although of course it is perfectly acceptable to oppose homosexuality.

And Hardaway does have a point about homosexuals in the locker room: we don’t let men shower and dress in women’s locker rooms, so shouldn’t men who define themselves as sexually attracted to other men be relegated to an alternative space? Ditto for lesbians: parents of athletic daughters should be concerned about the presence of lesbian coaches and girls open about their same-sex desires in female locker rooms.

I told the reporter that Hardaway’s comments will only play to the liberal caricature of Christians and religious people who oppose homosexuality on principle as “haters.”

Here’s the problem: the same media and liberals who rush to condemn Hardaway’s comments look the other way when homosexual activists like Pam Spaulding (who runs the “Pam’s House Blend” blog) spew abject hatred against Christians or anyone who speaks out against homosexual behavior. As my friend and former AFTAH Corporate Outreach Director Matt Barber describes in a column below, you don’t have to search very hard on Spaulding’s website to find evidence of her anti-Christian bigotry and hate-mongering.

And yet Duke University lauds Spaulding’s website as “fun” and “snappy.” Can you imagine Duke or any university promoting a “conservative” or religious website that engaged in regular, mean and ugly putdowns of homosexuals? Pam is the online “gay” equivalent of Phelps and his “God Hates Fags” campaign, so why is an institution of “higher learning” that ostensibly advocates “tolerance” promoting her brand of hatred?

Click HERE to write Duke University President Richard Brodhead (or call him at 919-684-2424) about Duke’s promotion of hateful lesbian and Duke employee Pam Spaulding’s anti-Christian website. Politely ask for an official apology for promoting anti-religious bigotry by touting her blog.

The NBA punished Hardaway for his remarks. Yet Duke U. rewards Spaulding with accolades despite her rank bigotry against Christians. (Memo to Pam: try making your points without mocking religion or resorting to sophomoric name-calling. Hate is a two-way street.)

Fact is, Spaulding is far from alone: there are countless examples of hateful homosexual attacks against Christians, like the wicked depiction of my friend and Maine Christian pro-family leader Mike Heath’s wife Paulie below. Yet the same media who fall over themselves in the sprint to condemn “anti-gay hate” show little interest in exposing acts of anti-Christian bigotry by homosexuals. Maybe that’s because most journalists fundamentally agree with the “gay” activist agenda and don’t want to do anything to harm its image–which reporting the truth certainly would.

Conversely, these days many in the media and Hollywood are applying the “hate” (or “homophobe”) label to almost anything that does not support the homosexual activist point of view.

The worst part about the liberals’ hypocritical double-standard on “hate” is that it actually contributes to escalating anti-Christian bigotry in our culture. Tim Hardaway will be blackballed for life unless he grovels in repentance — the press will make sure of that. Meanwhile, homosexual haters like Pam Spaulding are encouraged by the media’s agenda-driven silence.

A Maine homosexual activist posted the crude, digitally-altered graphic above,
of pro-family leader Mike Heath’s lovely wife, Christian songwriter Paulie Heath,
on the Amazon.com website.

P.S. Oh, I almost forgot: here’s a real photo of Paulie Heath, whom you can book for a concert at your church or women’s retreat by clicking HERE:

Matt Barber’s CWA column:

Hate Bloggers, Death Threats and Apologies Abound
By J. Matt Barber, published by Concerned Women for America Feb. 13

Media outlets have given the story fairly wide coverage. Presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards (D- North Carolina) recently named two leftist, anti-Christian bloggers to high profile positions with his campaign. [They subsequently resigned.] …

But another story, with perhaps more serious implications, has gone largely unreported by the mainstream media.

Last week, Concerned Women for America (CWA) broke the news about an apparent threat to the life of pro-family advocate Peter LaBarbera made by a commenter on lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s anti-Christian site Pam’s House Blend.

Spaulding is an information technology manager with Duke University Press, and her employer appears quite proud of its blustering left-wing blogger. Duke Press has even publicly praised and promoted her blog activities, calling them a “mixture of snappy prose, funny postings and serious commentary.”

So, just for fun, let’s see if we can’t yuck it up a bit with Duke University. Let’s take a look at some of Spaulding’s “snappy” and “funny” musings:

On her blog — among other things – Spaulding regularly mocks both Christ and Christians by sarcastically referring to Jesus as “jeebus.” She refers to Christians as both the “Am Taliban” (for American Taliban) and “bible beaters.” She’s doctored photos of the pope, dressing him in drag and women’s makeup, apparently implying that he’s a cross-dressing closet homosexual. Spaulding has likened a well-respected black New Jersey pastor to cult leader and mass murderer Jim Jones, and she has managed to ridicule both Christmas and pro-lifers in one fell swoop with a post titled, “Oh Fetus tree, Oh Fetus tree.”

Side splitting, isn’t it?

And if you think that’s funny, this’ll make you collapse in gales of laughter:

In what was, at the very least, an apparent attempt to intimidate and frighten Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera, who is married with children, someone on House Blend published his home address in a January 13, 2007, thread. Shortly thereafter, someone identified as “Barry G. Wick” suggested that “snipers take note” of LaBarbera’s address. Wick also suggested that shooting LaBarbera would amount to an act of self defense and stated that, “[LaBarbera] and others like him ought to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what future awaits them from a cadre of selected defenders willing to give up everything in order to protect the lives of gay and lesbian citizens.”

Spaulding and other members of her blog so frequently foment hatred toward Christians that it’s no real surprise that one of her posts culminated in this chilling and ostensibly illegal threat to LaBarbera’s life.

Soon after CWA broke the story, Spaulding issued a public apology to LaBarbera and removed the threatening language from her site. She has purportedly banned Wick from her blog. Spaulding indicated that she was unaware of the post, although the threat had been posted for nearly three weeks. LaBarbera was gracious enough to take her at her word and has accepted her apology.

But Spaulding should apologize further.

She should apologize to the millions of Christians around the world whom she mocks and bashes on a daily basis.

She should apologize to pro-family leaders like LaBarbera, Dr. James Dobson, Beverly LaHaye and others whom she unfairly belittles and needlessly berates.

But she probably won’t.

And since one can reasonably infer that Duke University Press has placed its stamp of approval on Spaulding’s anti-Christian tirades, perhaps it’s appropriate for them to apologize on her behalf – that is, if they don’t actually share her backward beliefs.

But don’t hold your breath.

We’ve all seen how collectively stingy Duke University staff can be with apologies. Remember the ad the lynch mob – er – faculty hastily took out condemning the Duke Lacrosse team members accused of rape? They rendered judgment before the ink was dry on the arrest warrant but arrogantly refused to apologize even after it became abundantly clear that the accused would likely be exonerated.

Still, if Duke’s stubborn liberal pride won’t allow them to apologize for enabling, if not endorsing, Spaulding’s hateful screeds, then at the very least Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead will surely denounce the threat made to LaBarbera’s life on the very blog of which Duke is so proud.

It’s a noxious paradox, really. The left loves to pay lip service to the rhetoric of tolerance and diversity, while their own bigotry is betrayed by hateful and intolerant blather such as that which pollutes the cyber-pages of Pam’s House Blend.

And they’re not saying “sorry” for it.

But someone is apologizing.

Last Wednesday, February 7, South Dakota homosexual activist Barry G. Wick faxed a letter to CWA’s Washington D.C. headquarters admitting that he was the author of the threatening House Blend comments. Wick issued what appeared to be a heartfelt apology to LaBarbera and requested that CWA pass along his sincere regrets to the Christian community. Again, LaBarbera has graciously accepted the apology and says that he has forgiven Wick.

We are all sinners – every one. Christians are commanded to forgive others as we pray the Father will forgive us. However, even in forgiveness actions have consequences. We are a nation of laws, and when those laws are violated, there is a legal process that should and must take place.

Objectively speaking, a threat to the life of another is a very serious offense, even if it’s subjectively made in jest. It must always be treated as a bona fide threat. LaBarbera has shared that when he learned of what appeared to be an imminent threat to his person; he contacted the FBI and other appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Federal law is clear. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875 (c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

The legal process is in motion, and as with all serious matters of this type, our unique system of justice will determine the outcome.

In the meantime, the very Christians who are the subject of those insidious threats, hateful words, and intolerant acts of omission will – in LaBarbera’s own words – be praying for “Spaulding, Barry Wick, and all those whose embrace of homosexuality has led them to be consumed by hatred toward Christians and others who defend natural sexuality and marriage.”

Matt Barber is one of the “like-minded men” with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.

In our e-mail version of this story, I mistakenly reported that there were a “series of [pro-violence] posts” on Pam Spaulding’s, when I meant to say “comments.” I confess that I am still learning all the blogging lingo. There was only one controversial POST in question (which we saw) advocating violence; that post contained several violence-endorsing COMMENTS (by Barry Wick) in the overall thread. I apologize for the error — PL

Lesbian activist Pam Spaulding, creator of the “Pam’s House Blend” blog, sent me the following e-mail note at 11:36 CST stating that she did not know that the violence-justifying posts against me were on her blog. She has removed those posts, for which we are grateful. At Americans For Truth, we believe that although our disagreements with pro-homosexual activists are great, we can and should debate the issue of homosexuality with civility, and without resorting to name-calling. — Peter LaBarbera

Here is Spaulding’s note:

Peter,

That string of comments referred to as threats in the CWA piece [“CWA: Pro-Family Leader’s Life Threatened on ‘Gay’ Website”] clearly violates the community standards of the blog, and they have been promptly deleted once I was alerted. Those participating in that subthread have been notified as well.

     I have never advocated for threatening physical harm to anyone, as I have been on the receiving end of the same treatment, along with having my home and phone information published. We may be on the opposite sides of the fence on most matters, but on this we can agree — our families (whether you regard mine as such or not) have a right to be safe.

     I will also place a post on the blog to that effect.

By Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION — Call your U.S. Representative and Senators (202-224-3121) and politely convey your opposition to the new “Hate Crimes” bill that includes “sexual orientation” (HR 254), and ENDA, the “Employment Nondiscrimination Act.” Also, call or write President Bush (202-456-1414) and urge him to veto these two top “gay’-priority bills if they are passed by the Democratic Congress.

If enacted, HR 254 and ENDA would federalize “sexual orientation” law, creating the long-term foundation for widespread anti-religious tyranny in our nation in the name of pro-“gay” tolerance. To see two good ads featuring victims of Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law, click on www.stophatecrimesnow.com. Events in Great Britain should warn us about the grave dangers ahead…

Blair: ‘Gay Rights’ trump religious freedom

When homosexual activists and “gay equality” win, Christians and religious freedom lose. So do children who need a mom and a dad, as the world is witnessing again in Great Britain.

Prime Minister Tony Blair unwittingly cut to the nub of how “sexual orientation” laws inevitably destroy religious freedom when he said that Britain’s “gay”-inclusive nondiscrimination laws should not exempt Catholic adoption agencies that refuse, for reasons of faith, to place children in homosexual households:

“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination.”

Under Blair’s “compromise,” Catholic adoptions agencies will have 21 months to comply with the “sexual orientation” laws, but some say they would rather close down than violate their religious beliefs, BBC News reports.

Christians are fast becoming second-class citizens in Western nations that have bought into the ideology of homosexuality as a civil right. In Canada and France, legislators recently were fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. In 2004, pastor Ake Green was jailed for a month for preaching –– in his small church in Borgholm, Sweden –– that homosexual behavior is an egregious yet forgivable sin. And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might “prejudice” them against a homosexual child put in their care.

Britain’s “gay adoption” travesty parallels that which followed the triumph of homosexual “equality” and legal “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts. Last year, Catholic Charities of Boston ceased all adoption operations in the state after being told that under Massachusetts’ pro-“gay” nondiscrimination law, only agencies that place children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.

Catholic doctrine states that it is “gravely immoral” to put children in such homes:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Source: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons”

But “gay rights” tramples religion in post-Christian England, where the government has lately even set out to prosecute “homophobic” speech. It is almost inconceivable that the same country that gave us the rule of law and limited government –– and powerfully gifted Christian preachers like George Whitfield who helped shape America –– now bows down to the homosexual revolution of organized sin masquerading as “civil rights.”

Queer, indeed.

“Breeders” Still Required
Sad as it is, this is a marketing story for the ages: in a few short decades, “gay liberation” activists went from including the notorious “man-boy love” group NAMBLA in their “pride” parades and mocking married couples as “breeders” –– to passing “sexual orientation” laws worldwide that put government officially in the role of defying Nature and Nature’s God, to quote our Declaration of Independence.

But is it progress to empower a legal and cultural revolution that criminalizes the common sense idea that society should put the welfare of children first by favoring natural parenting (mom and dad) over an experimental version (dad and male lover) that models perversion to innocent children in their own home?

Let’s be clear: Nature discriminates against homosexuality. Same-sex arrangements can never be “equal” to the God-ordained institutions of marriage and family. They cannot produce children by themselves. Homosexual partners cannot acquire a child without involving heterosexual procreation in some way.

Yep, those irritating “breeders” come in handy once in a while.

Read the rest of this article »

This story illustrates the disturbing neo-reality toward which our nation is advancing as we embrace various homosexual “rights.” It will not work both ways: If homosexual adoption is “good,” adoption by faithful Christians (who oppose homosexuality) will be viewed as “evil” and will ultimately be disallowed. If so-called “homophobic hate speech” is outlawed, Christians will necessarily forfeit freedom of speech and will be persecuted for preaching repentance from homosexuality. Law cannot be morally neutral. — Sonja Dalton

——————————-

Excerpted from Adopt? We Were ‘Too Idealistic’, published Jan 25, 2007, by Telegraph (UK):

…My husband and I are a typical, professional couple who left it too late to have children. We married in 1992, when I was in my late thirties. A few years later, I miscarried. In 2000, when we were in our mid-forties, we decided that we wanted to adopt.

We contacted various adoption agencies: all of them had a waiting list of about 18 months…

We were asked a lot of intrusive questions about our family backgrounds. This was understandable and we were happy to comply. James and I are both only children from happy family backgrounds, with parents who stayed together to the end of their lives. Although we first met in our twenties, we had split up. In the time apart, we had both become practising Christians…

We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn’t want to go? We said that it wouldn’t be a problem because, if a child didn’t want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone’s throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind.

We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father.

The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don’t believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn’t agree with the lifestyle they chose…

At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn’t be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn’t the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child?

Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality…

If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith.

Continue reading in Telegraph…