Comment (50)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggUncivil conduct
Refusing to officiate at the celebration of gay civil partnerships may cost a British woman her job.
Lillian Ladele, a Nigerian-born British
registrar, has a conscience which does not permit her to officiate at the
registration of “civil partnerships” for same-sex couples. Her employer, the Islington
Borough in North London, says that she can
keep her conscience, but not her £31,000 job. Now Ms Ladele has taken her
employers to court for discriminating against her religious beliefs.
Islington is Britain’s third most popular borough for civil partnerships and more than 600 gay couples have had ceremonies there since the new form of relationship was legalised in December 2005. But Ladele holds the orthodox Christian view that “marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of others and that this is the God-ordained place for sexual relations.” This constitutes, according to her employers, “discriminating against the homosexual community.” Ms Ladele insists that she has never actually discriminated against anyone, as she has been swapping shifts with her colleagues to avoid tying the knot for same-sex couples.
So basically Lillian Ladele is being threatened with punishment for the thought crime of regarding same-sex marriage as sinful. In fact the punishment began when she voiced misgivings about the new arrangements in August 2004 with her boss, Helen Mendez-Childs. Ms Mendez-Childs ridiculed her and told her that her views were like denying marriage to a black couple. Later on she was denied opportunities to preside over lucrative weddings staged at special premises. She says that her colleagues began to act in a “different, hostile way towards me.” Finally, the borough launched an investigation last year into whether she was guilty of “gross misconduct”.
Writing from Nigeria, I find it amazing that objecting to same-sex marriage constitutes gross misconduct and same-sex marriage doesn’t. It is astonishing that the country which for centuries has regarded itself as the beacon of human freedom should have sunk so low as to punish a woman for following her conscience. And not about a trivial matter, either, but about the nature of the most fundamental of human relationships. I would hazard a guess that 90 percent of the world would agree with Ms Ladele. She does not represent an unhinged minority.
No, it’s probably closer to 98 percent. In fact, the lunacy of gay marriage threatens to split the Anglican Church. Nigerian’s Jasper Akionla, Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, and other African Bishops have stated time and again that it goes against the Gospel, which paradoxically came to us through European missionaries. Akionla is not a lone voice in this regard. The former Nigerian government of Olusegun Obasanjo insisted that it goes against our value system as Africans.
I sometimes wonder if Mother England’s insistence on democratic freedoms is not sheer hypocrisy. On the one hand, we hear her politicians pontificating about Robert Mugabe’s tyranny and abuse of democratic process in Zimbabwe. Yet when a woman asserts her natural right to behave in accordance with a rational conscience, she is bullied, ostracised and threatened with the loss of her job. Ladele’s case shows that “democracy” can also become a monster. Why should your livelihood be threatened because you hold contrary views? Or is freedom of religion dependent on a majority opinion?
What I found excruciatingly offensive was the suggestion that Lillian Ladele’s views were analogous to racism. In fact, I suspect that a subtle new 21st Century racism underlies the harshness with which she is being treated. Even though she represents a traditional moral view, even though it violates her religious views, even though 98 percent of the world agrees, she is not being taken seriously. I suspect that Islington Borough’s argument ultimately is that opposition to same-sex marriage is a primitive way of thinking fit for uncultured people. It is tantamount to racism.
I applaud my sister, Ladele, because no sane Yoruba will acquiescence in such absurdity. What will she tell her relatives? That she has been officiating at gay weddings? Tufiakwa, God forbid! “To most of us mere mortals,” Olukayode Thomas of one of Nigeria’s largest newspapers, The Guardian, writes, “a job that pays about N7 million a year plus other fringe benefits, a dream car, mortgage on a nice house in a good neighbourhood and other goodies of life in a society that works like five fingers, is the ideal job. Many who place material things above their souls will give their arms and legs to keep it.” Well done, Lillian, for daring to swim against the tide!
Nwachukwu Egbunike is a book editor in Ibadan, Nigeria.
“No reason for vows, no reasons for the responsibility, discipline and struggle that makes life truly worthwhile. “
That is probably the single most offensive thing I have ever heard about LGBT people. Folks talk trash (including the “well known” promiscuity of gay men) but that’s just hot air and any rational person knows that most of what is thrown at us is exaggeration if not out right lies. But the statement above cuts right to the heart of our existence. Why don’t you just go ahead and say we’re animals with no self control who offer nothing positive to society? At least be honest!
Andrew asks if there are any statistics. Yes, some and honestly they are disappointing for those of us who believe in monogamy and commitment in a relationship. But, such studies are on minute populations within the gay communities and quite often in the epicenters for sexual excess. I believe that as marriage becomes more common and accepted that we will see a change in couple’s behavior. Also there was an article recently that said the expectation of a very large percentage of young LGBT people was that they would settle down in a monogamous relationship and for many, would raise children. I know that’s not a positive thing in the eyes of the anti-gay folks but I personally think it’s one of the most wonderful things I have read, it gives me hope.
The vow of fidelity between “straight” partners is a standard that is upheld for another reason aside from love and commitment between a man and woman.
The NATURAL!, biologically speaking,the PURPOSE, of the sexual union of the male and female of the species is the conception of a new life; the continuing of the species.
Marriage of man and woman gives order to society; it is the where society comes from.It is the recognition of blood, family ties. Look at the street gangs, whatever ethnicity. Young people with no social or sexual discipline; men who father children and take no responsibility; girls and women who abort or simply cannot care for their children on their own. The children who grow up will repeat, probably in worse fashion than those who produced them.
There are no such concerns in the “gay” lifestyle. No reason for vows, no reasons for the responsibility, discipline and struggle that makes life truly worthwhile.
It`s well known,even bragged about as a symbol of freedom, that “gay” males accept and promote multiple partners and “cheating” as normal aspect of their partnered or “married” life. Hey, why not? What does “gay” sex produce? NOTHING.
There is more to the love of married people than “commitment”, “being with that special person” or even romance.
Andrew Byrne said: “Are there any statistics about the fidelity or infidelity of same-sex partners to their new commitments?”
It can’t be worse than the statistics for straight partners.
Further to Darren’s post, we know that Jesus’ first miracle was the Marriage-Feast of Cana - marriage between a man and a woman. Nothing Jesus said or did in His life was random or insignificant. Here he is deliberately honouring an ancient, natural institution, seen by Jews as a holy ritual and later raised by Christians to a Sacrament. There is nothing sacramental or sacred about a homosexual union.
Yes, there is undoubtedly love between partners of the same sex, as Julia Archer-Ashenden’s post indicates; but Christians also know that all human love has to be purified to be acceptable to God - otherwise it can too easily degenerate into selfishness and lust. This applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
Are there any statistics about the fidelity or infidelity of same-sex partners to their new commitments?
re: Howard Baker`s post The greatest concern is not whether “gay marriage” affects YOU. It`s the effect on children.
It will devalue masculinity and femininity. What will they be taught in sex education class? When they learn about the REPRODUCTIVE(REPRODUCTIVE!!) system will they have to learn about sodomy in the name of “equality”.
Jesus did not specifically mention “homosexuality”, true, but when he mentioned marriage, He spoke ONLY of man and woman, He spoke of his Father`s creation of male and female,
Adam and Eve. He did not mention “partners” or two “people”.
Love and tolerance does not automatically mean approval.
As for the “difference between “gay marriage” and civil unions, civil unions are just a stepping stone. Ms. Ladele is correct in her stand.
I think the whole thing of “gay weddings” (and they are not weddings but civil partnerships which give tax advantages) have become bogged down in a strange mind-set that makes gay people want to copy heterosexuals in the age-old custom of marriage. This was established for the good of the new life that is produced from the coupling of a man and a woman which then becomes a family.
No new life issues from a homosexual couple. Isn’t a bit sad of them that they want to copy the heterosexual, because in all reality they can’t....apart from the tax advantages! And of course they can love each other, but that is not exclusive to marriage.
Well done!
Keep up the fight to exercise your conscience. No one should be forced to do what their conscience does not allow. Why is it that only the “gays” have rights here? We all have a right to our conscience. She was doing this job BEFORE the changes came into play. Allowances need to be made to allow her to keep her job. She was trading her shifts to ensure she did not create an issue for others. Her employer needs to support her efforts and her!
The homosexual movement in the Western world is well organised and, with help from weak politicians, is succeeding in getting its way. In some areas in Britain staff are being told not to refer the children’s parents as MUM and DAD. Could you believe that? Just because some children do not have mums or dads does not mean that the others should be, by law, placed in the same situation as them. Unfortunately, these countries are now in decline. It is for reasons such as this that the confused and uncertain British youth are considered to be the worst off in Europe.
Is Britain any different from China which has been criticised for punishing members of the fulon Gong group?
I will celebrate my 38th wedding anniversary in just under two weeks, and there is no way that the gift of marriage to my wonderful wife is affected by gay marriage. What Mr Egbunike finds to be madness has not provoked any form of mental illness or moral degredation in my wife or myself or in our two grown sons (albeit we all human and therefore flawed). This does not mean that the sort of promiscuity well known in some--but not all--homosexual circles is not madness. It does mean that similarly promiscuous behavior amongst heterosexuals is also madness to EXACTLY the same extent and for the same reasons. However, this actually is not the issue in the problem that Mr. Egbunike addresses.
Ms. Ladele is not being asked to officiate in gay marriage. In fact, she is not entitled to officiate in marriage at all, since she is not ordained in any church and marriage is a religious sacrament. There is a difference that is very important to keep clear. When language gets misused as Mr. Egbunike did in his article, it is a problem that obtains special significance when strong emotions are involved--as they surely are in the issue of homosexuality. Gay marriage and civil unions are not synonymous, and to treat them as if they are is a critical linguistic error that can be a deliberate effort to conflate issues, intensify affect, and ultimately mislead. Mr. Egbunike should be careful not do this, and if it is deliberate, this is tantamount to a lie; and this is certainly not consistent with the teachings or life of Christ. Perhaps he is merely guilty of intellectual carelessness, which is wrong rather than sinful.
It is possible to read The Bible as contravening homosexuality, and therefore indirectly opposing gay marriage. However, The Bible is filled with contradictions. What seems most consistent to me is that Jesus preached a gospel of love and tolerance and said not one word about homosexuality. But this is another argument.
I salute you Ms. Ladele for having the courage to stand-up for your right, for your belief and most of all for God, Almighty! People like you are what this crazy world need.
God bless you and your works for the glory of God.
Emmanuel Ossai, thanks for your observation. However, I have to point out that I have always been apolitical, in so far as a man could avoid overt partisanship. I have never been interested in taking active part in politics, either in Nigeria or in the UK where I live now.
What I wrote about Obasanjo was not at all in bad taste, considering the way he treats everyone around him, and considering the mantle of respectability he wishes to be seen wearing. In all of his books - except the one about Nzeogwu - Obasanjo rejoices in vilifying more people than you could count.
The point I tried to make was the hypocrisy of exceptionalism. Obasanjo and others cannot be talking about homosexuality being unAfrican and yet carrying on in ways less than irreproachable. A heap of sins, crimes and aberrations can also be committed in the name of heterosexuality…
And by the way the surname is not the Igbo ‘Oriaku,’ it’s Oriku, a rather dialectal Yoruba name.
Kudos to Ms Ladele decision. It is not a matter of being against something or someone, but simply of acting in accordance with one´s conscience and Natural Law.
By the way, this is the basic problem of post-modern mankind: people insist in thinking and acting against Natural Law. In doing so, they have to anesthetize their own consciences, inventing all sorts of excuses (human rights, discrimination), all of them without any reason. I am just wondering that next on that path may be an attempt to revoke the Law of Universal Gravitation.
Same-sex marraige, co-habitation or copulation is a sin. Period. There is no religion or culture in this world that supports it. God forbids it. The people who engage in it are perverts and mentally unbalanced.
As for Ms.Ladele I think she is just being greedy. If she feels strongly about the conduct of her employees, then she should do the right thing and resign. Her job requires her to officiate at same-sex marraiges whether she likes the idea or not. She believes she will be judged by God for such an unholy act but what about her colleages that she swaps shifts with. Won’t they be judged too? She wants to eat her cake and have it. That is very un-christian, she should be her brothers keeper and let them know that what they are doing is a sin. Then all the employees can form a coalition and refuse to continue officiating same-sex marriages. Since they can’t sack everybody their employers will be forced to discontinue the ungodly practice. But if it does’nt work out that way she should simply quit and look for a better job that suits her conscience even though it might not be as lucrative. At least she would have done the right thing.
Life is not about luxuries all the time after all this world is not our home. We are only here for a short while, its the legacies that we leave behind that matter. I’m sure she would not want to be remembered as a coward who could not stand up for what is right. My advice - leave the sinful job.
Egbunike, you must be commended for highlighting Lillian’s principled stand against the forces of evil. What I find uncomfortable is Mr. Adebowale Oriaku’s propensity to use his contributions as an avenue to call names and disparage political characters. I believe the strength of an argument will not be lost merely because names have not been named and political figures have not been villified.
Let Mr Oriaku makem his case, which to be frank, is usually powerful but desist from name calling.
Page 2 of 4 : < 1 2 3 4 >