Gay, and sad

The Lewisham social services appear to have taken leave of their senses. Dismayed that a two-year-old boy has been sharing a room with an older boy, they have planned his removal from his foster parents, the one home that he has known all his life, and will be handing him to a homosexual couple with the aim of adoption. There is no suggestion that the boy had been maltreated. From what we know, he was well attached to his foster mother, father and siblings. It was simply enough that he was sharing a room, however innocently, with an older boy. When The Daily Telegraph contacted Lewisham for its comments, its immediate reaction was to threaten an injunction. Repeated assurances to its legal department that the paper had no intention whatsoever of identifying the boy or his foster family fell on deaf ears. By 8pm it was attempting to persuade Mr Justice Wall to prevent publication of the story.

Whether or not the social services are justified in presuming that sexual abuse is rife in foster homes, this is not alleged in this case, and it is surely peculiar that they should seek a homosexual couple for remedy. Only married couples are allowed to adopt. There is no provision under English law for cohabiting men to adopt jointly. When it occurs, it is surreptitious. Only one of the men is listed as the official parent, so that the adoption can be falsely categorised as a single-father case. The courts are now acquiescing in this ruse. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss,. President of the High Court's Family Division, appeared to endorse it last month when she praised the "increasing number of cases where a child is cared for by parents of the same sex". The law has been stretched beyond the intent of Parliament by judicial activists with an ideological agenda.

Indeed, the law hardly seems to count when it conflicts with homosexual activists' demands for further privileges. London health authorities are violating Section 28 of the Local Government Act by offering a guide to the etiquette of "cruising and cottaging" - encouraging homosexual acts with strangers in public lavatories. The Prison Service is being stymied in its efforts to enforce its ban on homosexual activity because a judge has ruled that prison officers must provide condoms to gay prisoners.

One might be forgiven for thinking that the law treats homosexuality as a "normal" and "valid" alternative to heterosexuality. It does not. The 1967 Sexual Offences Act, which offered a defence for the practice, none the less did not legalise it. For the militant homosexual groups, however, tolerance is not enough. They demand active approval and insist on debilitating the institution of marriage in their fury to break down all barriers. What is reprehensible is that so much of Labour's governing class is willing to play along. - Editorial, 13nov99

[One thing to notice is the linking of homosexuals with attack on the family with Labour govt. This points to an alliance between homosexuals and anti-family radical feminists, both of whom are heavily represented in Vanity Blair's Cabinet.]

Secret in the interests of whom?

"Charles Moore, the editor of The Daily Telegraph, said: 'We welcome the judge's refusal to impose an injunction on us and do not understand Lewisham council's attempts to obstruct a proper resolution of the issue. While we absolutely agree with, and insist on, the need to handle stories of this nature sensitively, it is imperative that local aothorities and others [judges? - Ed] should not be able to avoid public scrutiny by sheltering behind laws designed to protect children.'" - 13nov99, p7