Not Saussure

February 9, 2007

Adoption question

Filed under: Catholicism, Law — notsaussure @ 9:20 pm

From The Times (via Tim Worstall)

Being white and already having a mixed-race child (from Mrs Duncan’s previous relationship) meant that they failed the criteria for a normal adoption.

I take the rationale for such a criterion to be to do with the well-being of the adoptive child — it being thought, perhaps, that it’s in the child’s best interests to grow up in an environment where his ethnic background is similar to that of his parents and siblings (Mrs Duncan’s previous partner was an Arab, apparently, and there maybe aren’t that many half-Arab children up for adoption).

But whatever the reason, can anyone explain to me how this criterion is any less discriminatory than the Catholic adoption agencies’ refusal to consider placing children with gay couples, on the grounds that it’s in the child’s best interests to grow up in a family with a male and a female parent (or, in some circumstances, with only one parent) rather than two parents of the same gender? Why hasn’t there been a fuss about this discrimination against couples who’ve already got a child who’s apparently the wrong colour?

Technorati Tags: ,



  1. Some of us have been trying to make a fuss. The most sickening aspect of the “gay adoption” debate (as it became, although the law is much wider and more dangerous than that) was the hypocrisy of those who said too few children were finding adoptive parents so the net needed to be widened.

    In fact, if Social Services did not rule out white parents for black children, rule out parents for being too rich, too middle class, too old or too politically incorrect, the problem would at least be much less.

    State adoption agencies put prospective parents through an assault course that can only be passed by skilful actors or the morally dead. Many prospective parents give up before they begin, rather than submit to the ritual humiliation.

    It is Labour’s commissars, not the Catholic adoption agencies, that keep children away from good homes.

    Comment by Tom Paine — February 10, 2007 @ 1:12 pm

  2. I don’t like to leave comments without anything to say, however Tom Paine has said it all. Spot on.

    Comment by Daily Referendum — February 10, 2007 @ 3:54 pm

  3. Problems always arise wherever there is an attempt by self-interested individuals or groups to impose a judgmental perspective on a simple and sensible principle – like the anti-discrimination legislation. ‘A good home’ which best serves the interests of a child shouldn’t be that difficult to define within the bounds of this legislation. All that needs to happen is for officials to be required to check their personal prejudices at the door.

    Comment by Noosa Lee — February 11, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: