What's Missing From This Picture?

An interesting case from Britain, reported by Pink News: A Christian doctor was removed from her position as a member of an adoption panel because she refused to vote on same-sex couples who were being considered as prospective parents. Just to show how far out of whack political correctness has gotten in some places, the reasoning is as follows:

However, in February a same-sex couple applied to the Northamptonshire panel. Dr Matthews told the head of Northamptonshire's children's services, Martin Pratt, that she was intending to abstain from any vote the panel made, and would not discuss her concerns with other panel members so as to not influence their decision.

Despite her promises she was barred from attending the panel and asked instead to meet with Mr Pratt to explain her position. Dr Matthews then told Mr Pratt that she felt unable to recommend same-sex applicants as suitable candidates. A few days Dr Matthews received notice from Mr Pratt informing her of the council's decision to replace her due to the "significant problems" her views created for the adoption service.

In the letter, Mr Pratt stated: "There are three concerns that I have: that we have to comply with the law, that we attract the widest possible range of suitable adopters and that we comply with our own policies.

"I believe that we could not allow a panel member to continue to participate in the process who is unable to consider, on the merits of the application alone, applications to adopt."

Her rationale is the standard-issue Christianist dodge:

In a statement, Dr Matthews said: "I don't feel that placing children for adoption with same-sex couples is the best place for them."

She added: "Mothers are more nurturing and fathers are more challenging and the combination of both is best for the development of a child."

She went on to express concerns that "The children of gay adoptive parents are also more likely to be bullied at school, on top of being singled out as different because they are adopted."

"As a Christian, I don't believe it's an appropriate lifestyle and I don't believe the outcomes for children would be as good as if they were placed with heterosexual couples."

Citing professional and personal reasons, she continued: "I cannot recommend placement in a same-sex household to be in the best interest of a child, despite what politicians may have legislated for."

I fault the panel's director for one thing: she was a medical advisor and her reasons for refusing to vote on gay couples have no scientific basis -- there is no support for any of her "beliefs" in real life. The other reasons he cited are tailor-made as fuel for the Christianist "victim" strategy. Why not use a perfectly valid -- and perfectly ideology-free -- reason?

As it happens, she has been reinstated but is not allowed to vote on any applicants, which seems fair to me.