Suppose your government took an 11-year old child away from you–you’ve been his foster parents for two years–and put him in an institution. The reason? You’re Christians who believe homosexuality isn’t right.
They live in Somerset County in England. They have fostered nearly 30 children in the last 6 years. They won’t be fostering anymore, unless their court challenge succeeds. The Somerset County Council asked them to sign a statement that they would teach their foster children that homosexual relationships were on par with marriages. They refused. The Council took their 11-year old foster child who had been with them for two years. The Council put the boy in a council hostel.
Obviously the Council is a PC ass (or, if English law really does require the Council to act that way, the law is a PC ass). There’s not much to say about that aspect of it.
Here’s where something could be said. My instinct, if I were in that couple’s shoes, would be to lie like billy-o. Assuming that I’d be unlikely to have any legal trouble for it, my instinct would be to sign the statement in a flash and ignore it just as quick. Are my instincts right? Caring for children is a Christly work. On the other hand, lying is bad and so is disobeying those who are lawfully in authority. And perhaps “heightening the contradictions” by complying with unjust laws gets the law changed quicker.
Update: the situation has apparently been resolved, though its difficult to tell whether the Council caved or the Matherick’s caved or the whole thing was a misunderstanding or the conflict has been papered over with platitudes. See here and here. (Hat tip to Kaimi Wenger).
Harping on pet issues is not a good way to attract readers.
Adam,
If you are willing to commit an act of civil disobedience only when you are unlikely to suffer any consequences for doing so, you’ve already ceded most of your moral authority. If, on the other hand, you are willing to lie like billy-o–even if you believe you may suffer real harm as a result–because the Christly work is of such importance that your personal comfort is a secondary concern, then you have arrived at a place where it makes sense to ask whether the ends justify the means. Perhaps you would be, in fact, willing to do so and it isn’t clear from your post. If not, then I don’t think there is any question that you ought to comply with the law.
Generally I’m sympathetic with the state’s efforts to place children in environments in which the state judges they are most likely to thrive. Since the responsibility lies first with the state as the children are its wards, in close cases like this I think the state’s judgements need to be respected. One can always, of course, work to change the system if they feel it is not pursuing the correct course.
revelets,
Adam’s goal has never been to attract readers.
Legalistically (and since you’re apparently a lawyer), custody doesn’t magically inhere in the Mathericks. It belongs to the state. And in light of that, the state has the right to decide who are appropriate foster parents. Assuming that the policy is the product of a basically democratic society, I think the state has to have that right. The alternative is allowing adults to seize or retain custody of minors no matter how objectionable their views.
What does this willingness to lie say about your fitness as a member of the bar?
By refusing the sign the agreement, they have probably done a great deal to promote their cause. If they had signed no one would be reading about it. Now many know about this obsurd policy, which is a good thing. By the way, it would be just as obsurd, in my opinion, if they were to make foster parents sign a statement saying that they would teach children that homosexuality was wrong.
I do agree with #2 that the state has the right to decide who can be foster parents, but the state is also accountable to the people.
“What does this willingness to lie say about your fitness as a member of the bar?”
I agree–Adam should be disbarred for posing a hypothetical in which he says he might lie. Clearly a line has been crossed.
Lying is bad. So is sending children out of a familiar home into what is likely to be an unkind fate.
Our world seems designed to force us to choose between principles, establishing our own hierarchy of values. The cliched dilemma is, if the Gestapo knocks at your door and asks whether you are hiding Jews and you are, do you tell the truth?
Of course not, I hope most people would say. There are principles more important than being accurate with police representing a corrupt regime. A few, comfortably asleep, might suggest the issue is a matter for the bar. Or maybe many. It won’t matter.
I’m with Adam. I’d take care of the kids, and feel bad about a world in which truth mattered so little.
I simply would not foster children or live in a jurisdiction like that. Thank goodness for the 1st amendment.
Personally I suspect that in jurisdiction like this it will become increasingly difficult to openly adhere to LDS standards and just as importantly preach them. I am still waiting to read of the first case in which a GA is detained at Heathrow after LOC regarding SSM comments are made in a LDS conference.
I think those days are coming. This incident is a hint of what is to come.
Well, I realize Adam is not anywhere near actually living out this hypothetical. But one can easily see how a foster parent who was also a lawyer would face that dilemma if it became necessary to formally attest to his or her beliefs about homosexuality, or to the truthfulness of his or her statements to the foster care authorities in general.
Two years ago Librarian of Congress Jim Billington told a story to some students of mine I’d invited him to speak to. He was in Russia when the Soviet regime collapsed. He said that the army was surrounding the Kremlin and their orders were to take control, but that Russian babushka’s were sending a different message: stop. The kids in the tanks obeyed their grandmothers.
He said that over a few tense hours a different moral authority than that of the state asserted itself.
It reminded me of a different story of Russian women. This one told by Solzhenitsyn. The trains carrying prisoners to the Gulags had to stop in small villages to get water for the steam engines but prisoners were not given food or water, and armed soldiers were posted to prevent locals from getting close to the prisoners, so that no information could be moved. He said that though the men–well trained in business and government–obeyed the authorities, the women, accustomed to responding to concrete needs, ignored them and took food and water to prisoners.
As governments become more corrupt, the dilemmas faced by good people become more difficult.
Well Adam – Where do I send my protest letter to?
Thanks for the clarification z. I have to admit, I thought you were just being hostile b/c you disagreed w/ Adam’s stance on homosexuality. Please accept my apologies.
z, your questions may be relevant, but your tone suggests you ask them more out of a desire to stick it to Adam than to further the point of this discussion. My apologies if I misunderstand your intent; my gratitude for your keeping your comments general and avoiding the personal.
No problem, Mathew. And what about the converse– should children be placed with homosexual foster parents, rather than in institutional care? Surely homosexual parents are better than no parents at all
[Editor: please avoid this threadjack, all. I'll delete further comments in this vein.]
If you are willing to commit an act of civil disobedience only when you are unlikely to suffer any consequences for doing so, you’ve already ceded most of your moral authority. If, on the other hand, you are willing to lie like billy-o–even if you believe you may suffer real harm as a result–because the Christly work is of such importance that your personal comfort is a secondary concern, then you have arrived at a place where it makes sense to ask whether the ends justify the means.
I think I understand where you’re coming from but I’m not trying to claim any moral authority here. I’m not privileging my instincts in this matter. In fact, I put that bit in about not getting in trouble just to make the situation cleaner.
Anyway, you may be right that disobeying lawful authorities can only be justified if it comes at some personal cost, but I don’t see why. Is your thought that if there’s no personal cost we’re too likely to just to ignore them if we feel like it so we need the element of personal cost to make sure that we’re really ignoring them for the right reasons? Makes sense. Here’s the thing, though. In this kind of situation getting thrown in jail would mean that you couldn’t take care of the kid.
Thanks for talking sense to Revelets and Z, though when it comes to Revelets I frankly can’t remember the last time I posted on this subject. I don’t think I ever have.
z,
The homosexual parents I know seem to be every bit as good as most of the other parents I know. That goes for homosexual parents in heterosexual relationships and for same sex couples–so assuming that institutional care isn’t an improvement on parenting, I’m in favor of children being parented. Finally, I’m not sure my personal views ought to decide the issue but since you asked . . .
I agree with all those who said that children in the State’s custody are the State’s responsibility. But I don’t think that solves the problem because that’s just another way of saying the authority of the Council in this situation is lawful, which we already knew. Unless you suggest that the obligation to obey duly constituted authority is absolute, there’s still a question. Though what I’m getting from the responses so far is that there isn’t a good approach to the question–it’s just a judgment call.
Well, maybe the authority isn’t lawful. Maybe it could be a liberty or due process issue. Or first amendment speech or religion, or freedom of association? Aside from that, I think it’s important to consider what other beliefs might be foisted on foster children by others using the same reasoning. Racism? Nazism? Anti-Mormonism? If it’s ok to lie in order to have foster children and also have unpopular beliefs, how do we draw the line?
The Council’s authority may be lawful, but it\’s not Lawful. The Council isn’t just requiring these people to do certain things; it\’s requiring them to purport to believe certain things to to pass those beliefs to a child in their care. The Council in this instance is acting essentially like a church, prescribing belief and behavior on moral grounds. The Mathericks believe that the Council\’s moral instruction is categorically wrong, and they further believe that they cannot obey it without committing moral error. I think civil disobedience isn\’t just acceptable in this situation; I think it\’s a moral duty.
The open question isn’t whether to disobey, it’s how. Lie to keep the child? Refuse to participate, like the Mathericks? Take the boy and run? That\’s the true judgment call.
Aside from that, I think it’s important to consider what other beliefs might be foisted on foster children by others using the same reasoning. Racism? Nazism? Anti-Mormonism? If it’s ok to lie in order to have foster children and also have unpopular beliefs, how do we draw the line?
That’s certainly a consideration, because we do need to set an example for the wicked of keeping the law. But ultimately teaching children racism or Nazism or perhaps even anti-Mormonism is despicable* and failing to preach homosexuality isn’t. (You’re welcome to disagree but this thread isn’t available to you as a forum for that disagreement. The assumption of the post is that the Council is wrong.)
*for the record I would prefer that children be left in a stable home where they were being taught anti-Mormon bigotry then that they be put in an institution and I suppose an argument could be made for the other two too.
Jeremy G.,
I don’t think this is a situation where the Council is forcing the Mathericks to commit moral error. After all, the Council gives them the option to stop being foster parents, which they’ve taken.
———-
All, I got the article about the Matherick’s from Jeremy Gayed’s group blog. On the subject check out the smart distinction he makes between theocratic politics and democratic politics.
Every day, in every way, the authoritarianism of the left becomes more evident.
Lets not get too political about this, TMD et al. I think its a given that what the Council is doing here is wrong, but the question is, what do you do about it?
Adam,
Thanks for the shout-out for The Only Orthodoxy.
Of course the Mathericks weren’t forced to commit moral error–no one can be forced to commit a moral error–the most the state (or another person, or a demon, or any external agent can do) is to offer a choice between compliance with a demand that requires moral error and some negative consequence. Even Thomas More, who was given the choice between moral error and death, was not forced to commit moral error.
When the state imposes on someone a choice between moral error and some meaningful negative consequence, they are trying their level best to force moral error. When the state restricts a persons options to an exclusive bilateral choice between “moral error” or “negative consequence,” the citizen has a moral obligation to reject the moral error. He does not, however, have a moral obligation to accept the negative consequence, to the extent that its in his power to avoid it.
I would do exactly what these people are doing – refuse to comply and scream about it at the top of my lungs without stopping for anything but food, water, sleep and an occasional potty break. If I lied to the authorities, I would help a few more kids; what they are doing has the potential to stop this type of practice – of course, in their own case, but perhaps also in other jurisdictions that have not instituted such restrictions. It is a much smaller scale, but my experience raising a quasi-foster black son in a school run by an unknowingly racist administrator opened my eyes to the need to refuse to back down when in the right – both in defense of that child and in defense of my principles more generally.
Silent acquiescence (whether real or faked) can contribute to a terrible toll. Standing up to something like this openly and boldly might not have any discernible impact, but it might – and if it does, it sometimes ripples outward and literally changes an amazingly widespread portion of the world. I am convinced that many of the greatest social changes in history, even considering war and natural disaster, occurred because one person or a small group of people refused to back down no matter the cost.
It’s a different subject entirely, but Hotel Rwanda is a vivid example – as is Branch Rickey’s determination to break the color barrier in baseball and a woman in my ward’s courage in openly discussing her abusive upbringing despite the pain and humiliation she still feels as a result. I admire these people tremendously – no matter the outcome.
There’s a huge difference, Jeremy G., between being threatening to deprive someone of life, liberty, and property if they don’t comply and threatening to deprive them of some opportunity to do good if they don’t comply. That’s why that Matherick’s refusing to continue as foster parents isn’t civil disobedience, contrary to what you state, since refusing to continue is one of the options the state gives them.
Well, that’s always the question with civil disobedience, isn’t it? Where to draw the line and how to assess the effect on others’ behavior and on the existing social order? My answer would depend on facts such as the availability of another suitable foster family, the likely consequences of disobedience, etc.. It’s hard for me to think that becoming a fugitive family is better for the child than institutionalization, if that’s really what’s at stake. If someone’s going to go to jail over it, the loss of a parent would be traumatic as well. So, especially if it’s possible to continue the supportive relationship outside of foster care, I personally wouldn’t favor civil disobedience in this case. In addition, each child is different (some are even homosexual, which is another layer of complexity). Ultimately it’s fact-dependent, and a probabilistic determination. If you think you can get away with lying, and feel that strongly about it, I could see civil disobedience as a legitimate option.
#22: Fast and pray, of course.
I don’t believe you can always resolve such dilemmas by applying reason and correct principles, though that has much to do with my low tolerance for tedious arguments, which is a failing.
I think the variables and the possibilities are too many–things are too complex. You could use the case to try to raise public awareness and try to change things, if you had the stomach (and other resources for it). You could lie and take care of the kids. You could trust that there are good people in the state and obey the law, hoping the kids got even better foster parents. I could support people who made any of those choices.
I think what we are actually doing in many such situations is voting for the sort of world we intend to live in, as when Christ refuses to answer’s the lawyer’s question about who is a neighbor. Instead of going down the road of precise definitions and policies, he tells a story. The principle remains vague and undefined, and the choice hinges not on precise meanings but on whether one wants to live in a world where strangers stop to help or one where strangers are prey.
There was one incident in my life where I needed to make a serious moral decision–also involving the fate of a child–which I made in a heartbeat, but which members of the church told me went against guidance put out by the general authorities–not doctrine, but guidance. It occurred to me that I would obey the Lord but in this particular case he would need to show up in person and tell me, otherwise I would follow my own heart, as it had been shaped by the gospel. I didn’t want the world that would result from following the advice.
It occurs to me how lame such reasoning sounds to well-trained legal minds. Oh well.
Do you think that it’s accurate to characterize the state taking away a child that the Matherson’s have cared for, nurtured, and from all appearances loved for two years as merely depriving them of some opportunity to do good?
Do you think that it’s accurate to characterize the state taking away a child that the Matherson’s have cared for, nurtured, and from all appearances loved for two years as merely depriving them of some opportunity to do good?
In this case, yes. I don’t think the Matherick’s emotional loss is the State’s intention. Its intention is to deprive them of some opportunity to do good to the child.
Ray (#24) and MLU (#26), those are the best answers I’ve seen. Thanks.
I’m surprised how many commenters accept without caveat the state’s claim that they have primary responsibility for the child’s welfare.
Who would you say does, Matt E.? If the state doesn’t have primary responsibility, then the responsibility would be the child’s actual parents, not the Matherick’s. They only became the child’s foster parents because the state placed the child with them.
———
I’m going to bed all. Stay civil.
I’d like more than O’Rielley Factor version of the facts before really saying anything more. My experience with controversial court cases and hearings is that there are typically two sides to the story, and one of them usually doesn’t get reported in the media.
Before you get your knickers in a twist because the P.C. police are about to snatch away your children and give them to gays, you might want to vet these inflammatory posts a bit better.
While I know nothing of the Mathericks’ situation, I do know this: Adam’s article comes from the British tabloid press. The Daily Mail is an old right-wing publication well known for this kind of article. The Wikipedia entry notes that it’s a “common satirical target” in the UK due to its skewed content. You can read about this publication here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
The Daily Mail is rather like a British version of the National Enquirer or New York Post. This story is almost certainly very distorted.
I hope you didn’t lose too much sleep tonight, Adam.
And dear fellow T & S readers: You’ve Been Punk’d !
Mike,
Well, it’s not fiction. The same basic story — foster parents, under the impression that a new law requires them to promote homosexuality, give up their child — has been carried on the BBC, the Times, and other reputable outlets. However, the Mail version is certainly more charged than some other reported accounts.
Adam,
It’s an interesting story, and thanks for pointing it out. However, to follow up some on Mike’s point, articles in other sources do paint a somewhat different picture. The BBC article makes it sound like the foster parents caused much of the row themselves, to attract publicity.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/articles/2007/10/29/matherick_feature.shtml .
The Times article also seems to indicate that the law in question was a general anti-discrimination law, and that the council members had no intention of forcing anyone to promote homosexuality.
By the way, the whole thing has been amicably settled, as of yesterday. The council and the parents have jointly agreed that the parents can sign the agreement, and that the council will have no expectation that they will promote homosexuality.
From the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2787896.ece
After reading the Times and BBC stories, I’m quite a bit less sympathetic towards these parents. It sounds rather like the parents were the only ones who had this particular impression of the law, that they made a press spectacle out of their misimpression, and perhaps, that they willingly used their child as a pawn to make a political point.
(At least, that’s the impression I get from the articles I’ve seen.)
Thanks for doing the legwork on this Kaimi, and with uncanny dispatch. By the time Adam wakes up, this tempest in a teapot will have passed…..until a GA is arrested at LHR for giving a talk on the LoC at a British stake conference, of course.
Even though the urgency of this post appears to have been suppurated, I’ll share one of my favorite LDS justifications for civil disobedience:
“We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.” (D&C 134:8)
IN the present example, teaching heterosexual marriage would lack “tendency to evil” and disobedience would not be against a “good” law.
As far as I understand the undertaking did not require them to promote homosexuality but required them to assure any child that a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable, and that if burgeoning teenagers had homosexual feelings, they were to encourage them to explore them, and should even offer to help the teenager find like-minded people and organisations, as far as I know.
Recently a magistrate has had to resign from the bench because he did not agree to placing a child for adoption with same-sex parents. Whilst magistrates are there to represent the views of the people, he could not do it as a matter of conscience.
I’m in the same position. As a magistrate I work in family courts and hope I don’t meet the same situation – my conscience would come first, and I would have to request not to sit on the case. If a forced resignation comes, then so be it. I like to think I’m also representing like-minded people who find placing children with same-sex parents unacceptable.
Mike,
The Daily Mail is indeed a filthy rag and should be avoided at all costs.
Kaimi,
I agree with you that the wider impression one gains is that this couple unwisely used their foster children to make a political point. They do not come across sympathetically.
UKAnn,
Well done for being a magistrate.
What do you think about this case? It seems that the legal requirement as you outline it in your first paragraph is actually quite reasonable. Given that a “homosexual lifestyle” after the age of consent is legal in the UK, and given that the local authority has a right to make judgments involving children placed in its care, I find it wholly reasonable that they should expect foster parents to make it clear to homosexual children that a same-sex lifestyle is an option for them. This is not the same as actively promoting the same.
If anti-gay Christians are going to get in a huff all the time over this kind of thing, there will soon be no Christian teachers, magistrates, police, social workers, etc. That would be unfortunate and a rather lame manifestation of a martyrdom complex.
I, for one, applaud the UK’s anti-sexual-discrimination laws. I think we are better for them.
Ronan,
“Should be avoided at all costs”? But then where would I find all the latest about Posh and Becks, mate?
UKAnn,
He resigned from the bench? Um, couldn’t the fellow have just asked to be recused from the particular case?
Hi Ronan. Pete and I pass through LHR frequently, and about the best I can say for it is the incredible range of newspapers available. While I’m more of a Guardian man myself (quel surprise), I always grab the Daily Mail and others. You often get some free DVD with a long-lost failed Schwarzenegger movie, or free bottle of water, or some other little gift. What I love is how the British tabloid press blurs the line between legitimate and quasi-fictional reporting. In the U.S., we prefer to use our TV news broadcasts for that purpose.
Mike,
Plus there are all those pretty girls on the third page, ready to teach you all about human anatomy.
Never noticed that, Kaimi. : )
If anti-gay Christians are going to get in a huff all the time over this kind of thing, there will soon be no Christian teachers, magistrates, police, social workers, etc. That would be unfortunate and a rather lame manifestation of a martyrdom complex.
Yes, they’re just imagining it all. No one is chanting “Christian fascist go away. . .”
Thanks for the information, all. I’m not seeing the Matherick’s as grandstanders and the linked articles from the Times and the BBC don’t contain enough information to make that conclusion unless you are against them in the first place, which I’m clearly not. I’m glad the situation appears to have reached a resolution of some kind. I think anyone can be comfortable signing a statement that they will not “discriminate unfairly” as long as “unfairly” remains unresolved.
And, again, thanks to MLU and Ray for giving the soundest advice. And to Manaen for that quote and analysis.
As far as I understand the undertaking did not require them to promote homosexuality but required them to assure any child that a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable, and that if burgeoning teenagers had homosexual feelings, they were to encourage them to explore them, and should even offer to help the teenager find like-minded people and organisations, as far as I know.
If this is right, it highlights the Christian predicament. Mormon believers, for example, can’t assure children “that a homosexual lifestyle [is] acceptable,” so while Ronan celebrates the UK for their anti-sexual-orientaion mindset, that same mindset leads them to discriminate against Mormons. Would Ronan think the UK better if they didn’t discriminate against Mormons?
Does the the UK require foster parents (gay or straight) to assure children that it’s okay for them to believe homosexual behavior is immoral? Or does the UK condone religious discrimination?
I think anyone can be comfortable signing a statement that they will not “discriminate unfairly†as long as “unfairly†remains unresolved.
Adam, are you suggesting that one can discriminate “fairly,” then? How would you, for example, “discriminate fairly” against persons of African heritage?
Come on, Nick. You’re a lawyer. Why are you pretending not to know the difference between valid and invalid discrimination?
There are any number of ways in which discrimination can be legally acceptable. For example, it may be not barred by statute. I can discriminate against the less-intelligent in my hiring. Or, it may be covered by an exception of some kind. I.e., I can discriminate against Lutherans when deciding who to hire as the next Catholic bishop. I can discriminate against the blind, when deciding who to hire as a bus driver. I can discriminate against men, when deciding who to hire for my Vegas go-go dancers revue. For that matter, statutes may exempt certain organizations from review altogether.
I can discriminate against lawyers when hiring engineers. I could fairly discriminate against persons of African heritage in casting Nazis for my WWII flick. We usually use discrimination as a short hand for ‘unfair’ or ‘invidious discrimination,’ but that’s not really its meaning.
The Daily Mail is indeed a filthy rag and should be avoided at all costs.
I’m not sure what I think about the Matherick case but I agree wholeheartedly with this comment.
True enough, Kaimi and Adam. Adam’s comment seemed to suggest that it’s okay to promise not to “unfairly discriminate,” so long as you can wink and call your discrimination “fair.”
[Adam Greenwood-- bunk]
If foster parents promise not to “unfairly discriminate,” and then call it “fair” to discriminate against a foster child on the basis of whether the child follows their personal religious beliefs, I find that problematic.
I don’t believe for a moment that foster parents (or anyone else) should be required to promote something that goes against their personal religious beliefs. That idea morally offends me, whether I agree with their beliefs or not. At the same time, I’m not comfortable with the idea of foster parents imposing their religious faith on children who are a temporary part of their family. One would hope that social service agencies would have the good sense not to place a gay youth in the Matherick’s home—both for the youth’s sake and the Matherick’s sake. If, for some reason, this became necessary, I’d expect the Mathericks to discourage a minor from engaging in sexual intercourse with anyone, regardless of gender, but I’d find it disturbing for the Mathericks to act against a foster child in a discriminatory manner, simply because the child identified as homosexual.
I can’t describe with absolute clarity what would constitute “unfair discrimination” in this case, other than perhaps punishing a child for identifying as gay. Choosing not to place a male child who identified as gay in the same bedroom as other male children probably isn’t “unfair discrimination.” Other differential treatment might be “unfair discrimination.” I don’t pretend to know UK law, but if this story took place in the United States, I’d be pointing out that the foster parents are acting as agents of the government, and are thus more accountable for discrimination than “regular” parents would ever be.
Oh height of irony, thy name is Mormon.
The same darn thing happened in Utah! The opposite way! The gay couple a huge fight with the Utah family services division over adopting his sisters children.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/meanwhile_in_utah
And the justification is that it’s a rule of law…
Thanks for the comments, all. If you need to add something, email me at adam at times and seasons dot org