Dina tweeted this article from the UK Daily Mail.
A Christian magistrate has been disciplined by a Tory Cabinet Minister for expressing the belief that children should be raised by both a mother and a father.
Richard Page told colleagues behind closed doors during an adoption case that he thought it would be better for a child to be brought up in a traditional family rather than by a gay couple.
He was shocked a week later when he found he had been reported to the judges’ watchdog for alleged prejudice, and was suspended from sitting on family court cases.
Mr Page, an experienced NHS manager, has now been found guilty of serious misconduct by Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling – who previously spoke in support of a Christian couple who turned away a gay couple from their B&B.
He has also been ordered to go on an equality course before he is allowed back in the courtroom.
The married 68-year-old was told he had broken the oath sworn by all Justices of the Peace (JPs) as well as Labour’s controversial Equality Act, by being guided by his religious views and discriminating against the same-sex adoptive parents.
Last night, critics said the case was another example of how people who hold traditional Christian views feel they have no freedom of speech and find it difficult to hold public office in modern Britain.
Mr Page told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is tremendous pressure to keep quiet and go along with what is seen to be politically correct.
‘Everyone else seems to be allowed to stand up for their beliefs except for Christians.’ Mr Page was called on to consider an adoption order at a family court last July.
As a lay judge he is not required to be legally qualified and is meant to ‘bring a broad experience of life to the bench’ in making decisions. Because of the controversial secretive nature of such hearings, The Mail on Sunday cannot publish details of the case.
[…]‘I think there is something about a man, a woman and a baby, that it’s natural and therefore the others are not. That is the comment that I made,’ he said.
‘Therefore, since my task as a magistrate is to do the best for the child, my feeling was, quite reasonably, that a man and a woman would be better.’
I found it shocking that a Tory (Conservative Party) Cabinet minister would discipline this man, although I know that the Conservative Party in the UK is pro-same-sex marriage.
What is interesting is Grayling’s change of mind on conscience vs gay rights:
2010 As Shadow Home Secretary:
He backs Christian couple’s right to ban gay couple from their B&B (he subsequently lost his job)
‘I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences. If you look at the case of “Should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from their hotel?”… I took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home
December 2014 as Lord Chancellor:
He disciplines Christian JP who suggested a man and a woman would be better parents for child than gay couple
‘The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice have Issued Mr Richard Page JP, a Magistrate assigned to the Central Kent Bench with a reprimand. Mr Page, whilst sitting in the Family Court, was found to have been influenced by his religious beliefs and not by the evidence.
‘The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice considered that this amounted to serious misconduct and that Mr Page should have recused himself from the matter.’
[…]As Shadow Home Secretary in 2010, Mr Grayling had backed a Christian couple’s right to turn away a gay couple from their B&B – and as a result of the furore initially missed out on a Cabinet post after the Election.
Wow. So this Anglican Christian initially used to support Christians doing what their consciences dictate, then after losing his job over it, he changed his mind, and now thinks the secular state should decide.I guess to me, being someone who is not in charge of other people and not very important, the most important thing to do with my life is to do whatever God approves of. At the end of the day, only his opinion matters.
I think what shocks me the most is the fact that Mr. Page was disciplined for just stating common sense about what children need. I wonder which parent the Conservative Party MP thinks a child can do without? Is it a mother? No, we have evidence showing that the mother is vital to boys and girls. Is it the father? I think everyone is well aware now what fatherlessness does to a child – be it a boy or a girl. So here is a Christian man trying to put himself in the place of this child and asking himself – what does a child need? A child needs a mother and father. Apparently, this is some sort of crime to say in the UK.
9 thoughts on “Christian magistrate punished for saying children need a mother and a father”
I think you’ve seen this before, but here’s some statistics from the study that was done a couple years ago.
Oh my goodness, you are the guy that just got hat-tipped in the latest Dalrock post. That post on “10 Women that Christian Men Should Not Marry” was very good.
This thing you found:
I did blog on the Regnerus study when it came out, by the way! But it never hurts to give it another look.
Hah, hi. I have used your blog extensively to build this page:
Although I primarily blog on Christian masculinity, it’s important to understand that without logical evidence there is no Christianity.
Or rather, God exists independent of logical reasoning, but evidential logical reasoning supports faith.
Everybody has to know about the resurrection!
The article mentioned was mostly good, but had one very serious flaw.
In the article about 10 Women not to marry, he makes a good point about not marrying a divorced woman. But then he takes it too far:
“Jesus clearly taught that unless the first marriage ended due to a partner’s sexual infidelity, a second marriage is to be considered invalid and adulterous. A divorced woman, therefore, is off limits for a Christian man–unrepentant adultery being a sin that prevents one from obtaining eternal life (1 Cor 6:9).”
This same pastor clarifies, in case you weren’t sure what he was getting at, in his other article about 10 Men not to marry:
“What to do if you’re in a 2nd marriage that’s really viewed as adultery in the eyes of God? Same thing I would advise a “married” gay couple in NY state if they came to faith in Christ–immediately break it up! Of course, it won’t be emotionally easy, but the eternal destiny of your soul depends upon a correct response on this issue (1 Cor 6:9).”
It is certainly adultery to marry a divorced woman, but it isn’t adultery to continue to be married to a divorced woman. It isn’t an invalid marriage. Once it’s done, it’s done, and to break a second marriage vow would be wrong. In fact, once the second marriage is made, it would be sin to divorce and go back to the first marriage (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Jeremiah 3:1). Even the NT says that those who come to the knowledge of the truth, if they are married, should not seek to divorce (I Corinthians 7:27). Further divorce is never advocated in scripture and is harmful to everyone involved.
So, while most of the other advice is good, I would avoid spreading these articles because of the very harmful advice on that one topic.
Reblogged this on Will S.' Culture War Blog.
Do what’s right. Until it gets tough. Then cave. Got it.
Feminism has been attacking the idea that a mother and father are both needed for years :( Just wrote a piece about it here: