I knew it.

Sooner or later, the National Organization for Marriage’s phony Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance would feature Eunice and Owen Johns, the British couple who were allegedly told that they could not be foster parents because of their Christian beliefs:

NOM’s blog even exacerbates the lie by saying the following:

NOM’s Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance just released this incredibly moving—and yet chilling—video interviewing Eunice and Owen Johns, a black Pentecostal married couple in Great Britain whose own government told them they were not fit to foster a child unless they were willing to advocate for gay sex.

Of course this is a lie. The Johns were denied the ability to be foster parents because their beliefs could interfere with the welfare of a child, especially if that child was gay or lesbian.

And according to Robert Pigott, BBC News religious affairs correspondent:

The case is likely to be seen as a landmark decision, as senior judges ruled so decisively against any idea that attitudes might be justified purely because they were Christian in origin.

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not.

Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.


The summary of the decision, particularly the part regarding how in 2007, the couple was assessed by Jenny Shaw, an independent social worker, tells the entire story:

Referring to the discussion on 23 July 2007, Ms Shaw said:

“both Eunice and Owen expressed strong views on homosexuality, stating that it is “against God’s laws and morals”. They explained that these views stemmed from their religious convictions and beliefs. Eunice explained at a later interview, that she had always been brought up to believe that having a different sexual orientation was unnatural and wrong, and that these convictions had not come about as a result of being “saved”.

In our initial discussion on this issue, when asked if, given their views, they would be able to support a young person who, for example was confused about their sexuality, the answer was in the negative. Eunice at this time also mentioned a visit she had made to San Francisco, in relation to it being a city with many gay inhabitants. She commented that she did not like it and felt uncomfortable while she was there.”

They are also recorded as telling Ms Shaw that they would not feel able to take a child to a mosque.

Then there is this discussion:

Referring to a subsequent discussion with Mrs Johns on 7 August 2007 (Mr Johns was not there) Ms Shaw said:

“I expressed my concerns regarding their views on homosexuality and said that I felt that these did not equate with the Fostering Standards where they related to the need to value diversity, address a child’s needs in relation to their sexuality, enhance the child’s feeling of self-worth and help the child to deal with all forms of discrimination. I emphasised the need for carers to value people regardless of their sexual orientation. Eunice responded by saying that she could not compromise her beliefs, but that she did value people as individuals and would be able to support a young person on that basis. Eunice informed me that her nephew, who lived in the U.S., is gay, and that she has been to stay with him and his partner, and had not treated them any differently from anyone else.

I discussed with Eunice, four possible scenarios, and asked how she might support the young person:

1 Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.

2 A young person who is being bullied in school regarding their sexual orientation.

3 A young person who bullies others regarding the above.

4 Someone in their care whose parents are gay.

Eunice’s response to the first situation was that she would support any child. She did not offer any explanation as to how she would go about this. On a previous occasion when the question had been put to Owen, he responded by saying that he would “gently turn them round”. In the second situation, Eunice said she would give reassurance and tell the child to ignore it.

In response to the third situation, Eunice said she didn’t know what she would do. In the case of someone whose parents are gay, Eunice said that it wouldn’t matter, and that she would work with any one.”

She recorded her judgement as being that “Eunice’s response to these hypothetical situations was somewhat superficial, and ignored the impact that her strong beliefs on the issue, could have on her work with young people.” However, at a much earlier stage in the process Mrs Johns had assured a social worker that she would never seek to impose her belief system on a child or to denigrate the parents for their lifestyle or sexual orientation.

Mr Johns’s response to the first postulated scenario is, it might be thought, particularly revealing. There can be no doubting the meaning and significance of his reference to “turning” such a child round.

So basically this is not a case of Christians being discriminated against because they would not “affirm homosexuality.” This was a case of a couple whose beliefs could pose serious problems for a child they would potentially provide a home for. Period.

In pushing these phony victims, NOM tries to create the false narrative that marriage equality will lead to discrimination against Christians. However, I think this “project” has backfired against the organization, revealing how it is willing to deceive in order to push its agenda:

Related posts:

Frank Turek is a liar

NOM’s newest ‘victim’ of alleged ‘gay intolerance’ is another dud for the organization

NOM’s ‘defense alliance’ backfiring

NOM accused of distorting controversy in Canada

Alvin McEwen

Alvin McEwen

4 Comments