Vincent and Pauline Matherick fought the law, and the law won. The English couple took a stand against a new "anti-discrimination" law in Britain, and now they will lose their 11-year-old foster son.
The Mathericks have cared for the 11-year-old for two years and have taken care of 28 children since volunteering for foster care in 2001. After the British government passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations in 2006, they found themselves morally unable to continue raising children within the foster care system. The retired couple will not be allowed custody of any more children.
The reason? The Mathericks would not sign a pledge stating that they would sit their 11-year-old down and tell him that homosexual relationships are as acceptable as heterosexual relationships.
Mr. and Mrs. Matherick refused on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs to teach that sodomy is acceptable behavior. Religious beliefs? What on earth would make the Mathericks believe that religious beliefs are sacred enough to warrant the respect of the government?
"We have never discriminated against anybody, but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God," said Mr. Matherick.
The social services department denied Mrs. Matherick's request that the child remain with them until a permanent home could be found. The child will be place in a social services hostel instead.
When I have children, I don't plan to tell them that homosexuality is morally acceptable, because I don't think it is. But I better not say that too loudly, lest the Thought Police arrest me and charge me with a "hate crime."
Let's get something straight - having a moral or religious objection to a certain type of sexual behavior is not "discrimination," "homophobia" or "hate," and it certainly isn't grounds to take foster children away from a loving family.
It's never enough for the homosexual lobby to do what they do "behind closed doors," as they like to put it. No, the whole world has to approve of it, too. Everyone from the mayor to the parish priest has to celebrate their deviant sexuality.
The Mathericks have to tell their foster son that it's perfectly OK to sleep with men, even if the Mathericks themselves have a moral objection to it. That's what the government has demanded, and it's "discrimination" not to acquiesce.
Militant homosexuals are seeking to criminalize all opposition to their lifestyle under the fallacy that anyone who disapproves of what they do is "discriminating."
In order to combat the phantom menace of devout Christians, the homosexual movement has appointed itself the deputies of the Thought Police, Speech Police, and Religion Police.
It is now illegal in Saskatchewan, Canada, to print Bible verses in the newspaper if homosexuals find those verses offensive. Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, took out an advertisement in the newspaper in response to a recent gay pride parade.
World Net Daily explains, "The ad's theme was that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. It listed the references to four Bible passages, Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 on the left side. An equal sign was placed between the verse references and a drawing of two males holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol - a red circle with a diagonal bar."
Three gay men brought Owens and the newspaper to court, claiming that they had violated the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. They were found guilty and forced to pay $1,500 (Canadian) to the men. I wonder - are the rights of free speech, free press, and free exercise of religion contained in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code? Guess not.
Saskatchewan appears to recognize only the right of two consenting adults to sodomize each other, but not the rights of other adults to disapprove of it.
The trend is coming to our country as well. Tyler Chase Harper, a San Diego high school student, wore a T-shirt with the words "Homosexuality is shameful" and "Romans 1:27" to school on the same day that another student group was holding a vigil to protest harassment of homosexual students.
Harper was unlawfully punished. I guess his high school had never heard of Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case that addressed free speech in public schools.
The case concerned two high school students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The majority opinion stated: "Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, and therefore are entitled to the free expression of their views as long as there is no substantial or material interference of the educational process."
Harper brought his case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and lost. He is now waiting to hear if the Supreme Court will consider his case.
Apparently, Tinker v. Des Moines doesn't apply when homosexuals are involved. The rest of us have to grow a thick skin and accept that other people are legally allowed to express viewpoints that we might fervently disagree with.
When homosexuals object to something, everyone else's rights go flying out the window. The gay rights movement, in their quest for "rights," have become one of the greatest threats to civil liberties.
Ben Duffy writes on Wednesdays. He can be reached at baduffy@student.umass.edu.
Or, more relevant to the situation, I could not, for example, go up to someone who was wearing a prosthetic leg and call them "deviant" or "shameful" and then blame it on some religious belief stating that using "unnatural devices" to aid in movement after loss of a limb was an abomination (after all, even though it wasn't their choice to lose their limb, it was their choice to get a prosthetic one, right?)This comes down to separation of church and state. Even if you say your religious beliefs tell you to discriminate (Don't forget that eating shellfish is an abomination too guys! This isn't ABOUT religion), you need to follow the law that tells you that you cannot. It's one thing if it's your own biological child, but this goes into play double time if you are taking care of someone who is a ward of the state. The word "state" in that is all you need. You have to follow the law.