Ruth Gledhill Religion Correspondent of The Times
Pick up your copy of Joy Division: Closer at WHSmith today
The foster couple who quit rather than be forced to promote gay rights have signed the “equalities promise” document at the centre of the row.
But last night it was still unclear whether they would resume care of the 11-year-old foster son they returned to social services.
Pauline and Vincent Matherick, from Chard, Somerset, had refused to sign Somerset County Council’s new contract to implement Labour’s new Sexual Orientation Regulations. The contract was introduced as part of the 2006 Equality Act, which makes discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.
The couple, committed Christians and foster carers to 28 children since 2001, had gained the impression that the contract would force them to promote homosexuality as a lifestyle, which they said they could not do on grounds of conscience.
As a result they resigned as foster carers and relinquished care of the boy they had been looking after, who remains in the child unit where he was taken last Friday.
In a jointly agreed statement, the County Council said yesterday they did not expect the Mathericks to promote homosexuality.
“This issue has aroused huge public interest and strong feelings,” the council said: “They [the Mathericks] have no problem in signing Somerset’s Equalities Promise, which includes an expectation not to discriminate unfairly for reasons of sex, marital status, caring responsibilities or sexual orientation.”
The council continued: “We all agree that the welfare of children is paramount. It is absolutely vital that people come forward as foster carers. This issue may have damaged the image of fostering at a time when vulnerable children need caring homes and Mr and Mrs Matherick join with Somerset County Council in encouraging people to consider fostering.”
The council said it welcomed foster carers from all backgrounds and faiths.
A spokesman for the couple said they had won the right to have their personal convictions and conscientious objections recognised. “The Mathericks hope now to continue to foster children as before.”
Andrea Williams of Christian Concern For Our Nation said: “This is a significant step forward for Christian freedoms in that the Council has agreed not to force Mr and Mrs Matherick to act against their Christian beliefs. This should be of enormous encouragement to all Christians who want to take up the important role of caring for vulnerable children.”
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
In our new series, Tony Hawks takes a dry, wry look at modern life - junk mail, interminable meetings and snooty sales assistants
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
2007
£30,000
2006
£14,337
2008
£39,937
Great car insurance deals online
c.£75,000
GlosFirstmeansbusiness
Gloucestershire
Competitive package
Npower
Midlands
£
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
Competitive Package
Npower
West Midlands
1 & 2 Bed apartments
From £249,995
Great Investment, River Views
Great Dubai Investment Opportunities
from £89,950
low-cost ownership homes in London
Multi–Centre 9 Nights
From only £925pp
View thousands of properties online with your Vacation Rental People
£POA
List your property with two leading travel websites
£POA
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Milkround Job Search - for graduate careers in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
The problem is that homosexual orientation gets conflated with behaviour. Of course no responsible parent, foster, adoptive or natural wants their child to be exposed to homosexual propaganda, or to practise homosexuality. Nobody wants their child to suffer a short life and then die prematurely. Nobody wants their child to be exploited at the most vulnerable time of their life, perhaps when they are confused about their identity, by predatory older people.
On the other hand, people with homosexual feelings should not be discriminated against. It's important to distinguish between these different needs and responsibilities.
Steve Edwards, Edinburgh, Scotland
Yet another none story cooked up by some Christian Cult so they can claim persecution. Not discriminating against a group is not and never will be the same as 'promoting' that group, maybe the difference is too subtle for their faith to handle.
The council was right to obtain new agreements from foster carers in light of the new sexual equality legislation. And if they are found to be promoting anti-homosexuality views to kids in their care then it is right that the council needs to re-assess potential carers in-line with the new legislation. Just as we wouldn't expect kids to be placed in a overtly racist household.
If carers feel they can not commit to equality under these circumstances then they make the choice not to help children in need. Personally I'd put the children first, I would also have thought that this is what Jesus would have done, I don't remember him using children as bargaining chips for his beliefs, but what do I know, I don't submit to a Christian cult
J Green, Stockport,
It seems to me that they were being asked to sign-up to a policy which has no direct relevance to the role they were being asked to perform.
For example, the policy also requires that they not discriminate on the basis of marital status. How many divorced 10 year olds are their in our foster care system?
The question is this. Do we need a foster care system where (a) all carers must be willing to take anyone and treat them the same (like emploers), or (b) do we accept carers who have adiversity of personal backgrounds and beliefs (provided that they are safe) and try and send kids into family situatuions they will fit into?
We are currently trying to operate system (a), which will only work if you have an excessive supply of people who want to be foster parents, such that you can afford to be picky.
In fact we have a scarcity of foster parents because (surprise) people don't want to be treated as extensions of the social services. We may need to consider option (b).
Bob, Reading,
Surely an Equality Act is not about 'promoting' anything other than equality. Can we imagine the headline: Race row foster parents win right not to 'promote' Chineseness?
Rob, Reading, UK
Noticable that most of the comments condeming the parents for their right to choose how to live their lives and defend what they believe in have come from across the Atlantic - suggest you keep them there.
George, glasgow, uk
This couple does not deserve to be foster parents. The damage they have inflicted on an innocent 11 year old boy just so they could make a selfish, radical "christian" statement. Try telling the boy it had nothing to do with him but the stupidity of self-righteous foster parants.
At 50 I still am dealing with the residuals of being passed around the foster system. They have proven beyond a doubt, that they and maybe all Christians are unfit to foster any children.
Kevin Hatt, Ottawa, Canada
What isn't clear from this news is what would be most likely to happen - if, say, three years from now, their foster son at age fourteen realizes he is gay, and continues in placement with them. Regardless of their own conscientious views as these might apply to them leading their own daily lives, the question is still rather up in the air as to just how, exactly, they would continue to care and be fair to such a gay youth. Their freedom of conscience is, then, not exactly at the real center of the real existential dilemma; rather what is at the center maybe, is the conflict between a conscientious duty of fairness and care (irrespective of sexual orientation) as foster parents and their particular negative trash talk beliefs, mainly about queer folks as neighbors and as citizens.
It is that profound conflict which cannot easily be resolved, either by simple appeals to traditional religious belief systems, or by simple civil society. As foster parents they act on behalf of all.
Daniel F, California, USA
This couple made much ado about nothing. No one ever asked them to ``promote `` homosexuality even though some of the media parroted their use of that phrase.
They had been asked whether they would be willing to let a child visit a gay bio parent and partner and whether they would let a gay teen meet with other gay teen, and their answers had indicated their home would not be a welcoming olace for a gay youth or a youth with a gay bio oarent
GregV, Canada,
If people want to be foster parents they must not discriminate against homosexuals or other minorities.
If a foster child declares that he/she is a homosexual and wants to attend some homosexual events or support groups then the foster parents must provide a way for the child to attend.
Even if the child is not a homosexual but has a friend that is and wants to attend some event or show support for his/her friend then they should be allowed to do so.
The foster parents must not attempt to "change" the child and should not be allowed to take the child to places that claim homosexuality is wrong.
If this couple's superstitious beliefs prevent them from doing their secular duties then they should not be foster parents.
Monty, Phoenix, AZ, USA
The bigots get there way..............
Dave North, Bridgend, Wales