In an alarming example of thought-policing, a couple in the UK recently requested to adopt their two young foster children, but were denied, simply because they expressed the view that children do best with a mother and a father:
The husband and wife have been refused their adoption request by a council after officials became “concerned” when they expressed shock at the possibility of a gay couple adopting the children… Chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre Andrea Williams argued the couple’s viewpoint is "lawful and mainstream”.
In denying the couple’s request, the council not only deprived the children of legal parents, but of a home. What is more, the Christian couple were not looking to impose their ideology – they merely wanted to adopt the two children they have grown to love:
[T]he husband told the Sunday Times: “We don’t want to fight or make ideological arguments. We are normal people. He added that they had “not expressed homophobic views, unless Christian beliefs are, by definition, homophobic.”
“We expressed the view that a child needs a mother and a father in modest, temperate terms based on our Christian convictions. We love everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) and we love the children and believe that they would benefit from the foundation offered by a mother and a father.”
The couple detailed the extreme negative consequences which resulted from their comments:
[T]he social worker threatened their status as foster parents might be reviewed because of their views.
And two days later they applied to formally adopt the children themselves, arguing that it would be too distressing for them to be taken away from the people they love after already being neglected by their birth parents.
In their application they said it would be best for the children’s emotional wellbeing.
But the council replied that “having heard that the prospective adopters were a same-sex couple you shared some opinions in relation to this proposed placement which are concerning... as these views could be detrimental to the long-term needs of the children”
Amazingly, the same social workers who rejected the couple’s request had recently praised the couple:
According to the Sunday Times, the couple have been fostering the two young children since early 2016 and in September were praised by social workers for welcoming them with “care and warmth”. They were complemented [sic] on their links with the church which authorities noted had provided a strong support network.
It seems that the need for a child to be raised by a “mummy and a daddy” is being replaced by a “need” to be raised with the “proper” beliefs, according to the social worker. As the husband noted:
“The decision ... appears discriminatory to us and not related to the children’s needs. The children love us: we love them. All the reports show that we are a loving, caring and stable family. What more could a child need?”
The “tolerance” brigade is already thought-policing foster parents. As pointed out by Melanie McDonagh, if this progressive agenda continues to be upheld, it is only a matter of time until biological parents are the next target:
If people are being barred from adopting children because of unsound views on homosexuality, what exactly is there to stop the state from removing children from natural, biological parents who share precisely those views? They’ve come for the foster-parents; how long before they come for the rest of us?
Tragically, this is not the first time a social worker has ignored needs of a child in deference to “discrimination” and a politically-correct agenda. Ultimately, the further a society strays from the traditional definition of marriage, the greater the risk to the family. As evidenced above, it is not the adults who are most affected by the marriage debate – it is the children.
The silent majority in Australia is not blind to the truth. Marriage is the bond that defines and protects the family. The family is the unit that produces, cares for, and protects children. If we surrender marriage to the whim of adults, we will also surrender our children’s rights and wellbeing.
Australians have a tough choice: do we allow same-sex marriage and its accompanying ideologies to be pushed onto us, to rewrite our societal beliefs, and submit to the whims of the moral arbiters of the day? Or do we fight to protect marriage and refuse to conform to the demands of a radical agenda?
No matter what, an issue that drastically affects all Australian men, women, and children is an issue that must be decided by the people in the form of a plebiscite. Marriage is such an issue. This isn’t the first indication of how same-sex marriage would change our society – and it won’t be the last.