What are we to make of the court case of Eunice and Owen Johns, apparently refused permission to continue fostering because they could not tell a child that they thought homosexuality was a good thing?
Simon Vibert of Wycliffe Hall thinks that a Rubicon has been crossed. This judgement signals a fundamental change in English law. In a similar vein the blogger Cranmer sees the comments from the judges on equality and secularism as making nonsense of elements of our constitution, including the establishment of the Church. Of course, it could be an open question to ask ‘Which should change?’ (And anyway, I can never tell whether Cranmer is simply parodying the views he appears to hold.) The BBC report includes comments from Robert Pigott on points of law, though I don’t know how qualified he is.
Melanie Philips is of course up in arms, though still makes some good points. Allison Pearson makes sensible points in a similar direction appealing to common sense. Andrew Brown’s comments are, as expected, rather cynical, and there is a more measured response from Peter Ould who looks at the details of the case, including what was and what was not decided. It is interesting to note that the judges were critical of lawyers on both sides and thought the case should not have been brought. John Richardson has a similarly detailed comment, where he wants to qualify Peter’s conclusion, though also notes some positive comments in the judgement.
Perhaps the most interesting comment comes from Gavin Drake, Communications Officer in Lichfield Diocese, who points out that, technically, nothing has actually been decided. The report from Christian Concern has their own take, but includes a link to the full judgement itself.
A interesting comment was made in a Jubilee Centre paper by Julian Rivers, Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Bristol. His final paragraph about absolutism, written in 2009, seems eerily prescient.
Summary from Evangelical Alliance here.
Do add links to comments you find as they appear.