U.K. Magistrate Removed From Office for Opposing Same-Sex Adoption to File Suit

Page-compressedKENT, U.K. — A U.K. magistrate that was removed from office last year for telling the media that he believes it is best for adoptive children to be placed with a mother and father will now file suit after also being prohibited from returning to his position on the board of the National Health Service (NHS) Trust.

“Richard is being driven from public service simply for expressing the widely-held, lawful belief that children ideally need a mother and a father. First, the magistracy, now the Health Service. Where will this end?” Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Centre, which is representing Richard Page, said in a statement on Tuesday announcing the legal challenge.

As previously reported, Page, who identifies as a Christian, had been a judge for 15 years and sat on the Family Panel of the Kent Central Magistrates Court. He has also worked in mental health for 20 years and is a foster parent.

In 2014, Page was reprimanded for disagreeing with his colleagues in a homosexual adoption case, being told that he was wrongfully being “influenced by his religious beliefs and not by the evidence.” The magistrate stated that he could not agree that placing a child in a same-sex home was “in the best interest of the child.”

Page was subsequently ordered to undergo re-education training due to his dissent.

Last year, in speaking with the BBC for a segment about religion being stifled in public life, Page told reporters about the incident and why he could not concur with his colleagues.

“My responsibility as a magistrate, as I saw it, was to do what I considered best for the child,” he said in the televised segment, “and my feeling was therefore that it would be better if it was a man and woman who were the adopted parents.”

  • Connect with Christian News

As a result, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) announced that Page had been removed from the bench over his statement to the BBC.

“The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice found Mr Page’s comments would have caused a reasonable person to conclude he was biased and prejudiced against single sex adopters; they considered this to be serious misconduct which brought the magistracy into disrepute,” a spokesman said in a statement. “They have therefore removed Mr Page from the magistracy.”

Following the matter, Kent and Medway Social Care Partnership Trust (KMPT) Chairman Andrew Ling contacted the UK NHS Trust Development Authority and requested that he be suspended as a non-executive director of the board. According to its website, KMPT “provide[s] mental health, learning disability and substance misuse services as well as other specialist services to 1.7 million people across Kent and Medway.”

“The recent publicity you have courted is likely to further undermine the confidence staff, particularly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) staff, have in the leadership of the Trust,” Ling wrote. “Links between the stigma often associated with being LGBT and poor mental health are well established. It is vital that patients and local population are confident that KMPT will challenge stigma or discrimination and treat everyone fairly and impartially.”

Page was suspended from his role, and in August of this year, he was informed that a panel considered whether or not he should be permitted to return to his role at the NHS Trust. While the panel received approximately 6,500 comments in favor of Page and only one objection, the decision was still unanimously “no,” that “it was not in the interests of the health service for you to serve as a non-executive director in the NHS.”

The panel said that Page’s expression of his beliefs was “likely to have had a negative impact on the confidence of staff, patients and the public in you as a local NHS leader.” It virtually barred him from serving in the future, as he received correspondence advising that “[t]he panel also agreed that the adverse impact on your credibility would continue into the future.”

“This is another in a growing list of cases where Christians are being squeezed out of different areas of public life simply for expressing their beliefs,” Williams said on Tuesday in announcing that a legal challenge is now in the works. “This is the harsh reality of how the current ‘equality and diversity’ framework is being applied and imposed. It is not bringing people together but driving them apart. The whole framework needs to be overhauled.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Michael C

    If I’m understanding this story correctly, Page ignored the law and issued a ruling on the basis of his religious beliefs. Some would use the term “activist judge” in this situation. Later, he publicly disparaged a minority population to an international news outlet.

    Do I have that right?

    • libertynottyranny

      Only if the “law” states that he is not entitled to an opinion – otherwise you have it completely wrong.

      The basis for their decision to remove him was an assumption that he formed his opinion based on his religious affiliation. Which in itself is a discriminatory conclusion. Love how the liberal mind (doesn’t) works – decrying discrimination, while discriminating. Truly, a mental disorder.

      • johndoe

        Bring your sharia law!

      • Michael C

        Maybe he should have ruled according to “sharia” law

        As a public official, he expected others to submit to his religious beliefs. He attempted to force members of the public live in accordance with his personal religion’s laws. Does it get more “sharia law” than that?

        • calduncan

          It is truly amazing in 2016 that someone could be as ignorant as you are, not knowing the difference between two religions.

          Sharia is not an aspect of Christianity, it is an aspect of Islam.
          Two different religions: Christianity, Islam.
          Christians do not impose sharia law. Muslims impose sharia law. Christians have always opposed sharia law, because under sharia, Christians are second-class citizens.

          You need some education. Get someone to show you how to use Wikipedia, at least do some rudimentary reading about sharia and Muslims. It’s the 21st century, there is no excuse for such abysmal ignorance.

          • Michael C

            Forcing non-Christians to adhere to Christian rules is just like Muslims forcing non-Muslims to adhere to Muslim rules.

            Using the government to enforce Christian laws is the Christian version of sharia.

          • Ira Pistos

            “Forcing non-Christians to adhere to Christian rules is just like Muslims forcing non-Muslims to adhere to Muslim rules.”

            Nobody does this. That’s a myth.
            Further, why compare it to what islam does? If you had a valid point in the comparison then you could have used an actual Christian example to grant weight and authority to your assertion.

            “Using the government to enforce Christian laws is the Christian version of sharia.”

            This is another myth. Nobody does this.
            There is no Christian version of sharia. If you had a valid example of this you could have instead referenced it rather than using a term that holds no relevance to Christianity.

            Grasping for external labels to stick upon Christianity rather than referencing an actual Christian example is a weak tactic, void of functional reasoning.

            You clearly believe the things you’ve been told to think and can repeat them ably. However, sidestepping reality and tilting at fictions and straw windmills is useless except to ensure avoidance of the truth and reinforcing your false faith.

        • libertynottyranny

          The irony is that you’re perfectly tolerant of leftists ruling from the bench according to their “religious” views – whether they be secular humanist, pagan earth worshippers, or anything but Christianity. Those are all impartial jurors unbiased by their religious & political beliefs & biases.

          But some how you “know” that this man arrived at his conclusion (that two men who engage in unnatural acts are less suitable than a man & wife at adopting & raising a little boy). Somehow, he could only come to that conclusion b/c of his religious affiliation?

          • Michael C

            The irony is that you’re perfectly tolerant of leftists ruling from the bench according to their religious views

            I’m guessing that you’re talking about the constitutional right for gay couples to be treated equally by having their marriages recognized by the state. Dozens of judges (on the left and the right) issued their decisions based on the Constitution, not their religious beliefs. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

            But some how you “know” that this man arrived at his conclusion […] b/c of his religious affiliation.

            Well, here’s what he says for himself; “I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to convince me that placing a child in the care of a same-sex couple can be as holistically beneficial to a child as placing them with a mum and dad as God and nature intended.” That sure sounds heavily influence by his personal religious beliefs, notsomuch by the law.

            God has given this generation over to a debased mind…

            …and Page’s responsibility was to man’s law. That’s the job he voluntarily signed up for. If he wanted to enforce God’s law, he was in the wrong job.

    • Ira Pistos

      No, you’re not taking it in correctly. He ignored no law and in fact followed the only law that matters.

      “Later, he publicly disparaged a minority population to an international news outlet.”

      By stating that he believed children should have parents?

      He was driven out of public office and is being ostracized for that belief.

      • Michael C

        He ignored no law and in fact followed the only law that matters.

        …and what law would that be?

        • Ira Pistos

          Ultimately, the only law that matters is the law of God.

          In obedience to His law we are certainly responsible to obey the laws of nations so long as they do not stand against His law.

          This magistrate violated no standing law of his nation.

  • Pappagallo

    A decadent and sick culture persecutes its decent citizens. This is just so wrong.

  • Becky

    “Page was…told that he was wrongfully being ‘influenced by his religious beliefs and not by the evidence.'”

    There’s plenty of evidence revealing that children need a mother and a father. More importantly…since the creation of man, children have been raised solely by a mother and a father quite successfully and naturally…the way it’s meant to be. There’s no evidence that could ever defy what Almighty God has spoken, beginning with his commandment that children are to honor their mother and their father (Exodus 20:12).

    There are insidious people currently in power that want to abolish the age of consent to seemingly eliminate the enormous problem with pederasty (and child pornography) in the UK. They’re trying to cover-up sin and that’s why it doesn’t make any sense. The “rights” that were given to homosexuals was the gateway for the imminent legalisation of pederasty.

    The last days will be like Sodom and Gomorrah, even the youngest would willingly partake in sex with adults (Genesis 19:4-11). Before you know it, perverted adults will have the right to engage sexually with children and if you oppose it you’ll be accused of discrimination.

    • Michael C

      The “rights” that were given to homosexuals is the gateway for the imminent legalisation of pederasty.

      At the time of the founding of the United States, men could marry girls as young as seven years old. Do you blame this on gay people?

      • Sharon_at_home

        I looked this up because it seemed off somehow. What I found was that Delaware was the only state that set the age at 7. The other states were usually 10 – 12. I wouldn’t blame this on gay people, but it would make me wonder about what on earth was in their minds when a girl of 7 would not reach puberty – when they could consummate the marriage – for up to 5 or 6 years. Sounds more like pedophilia to me.

        • Michael C

          I was also appalled when I learned of these facts. Our laws today make much more sense.

          The recognition of the marriages between consenting adults does not lead to legalized pederasty. Becky’s comment was absurd and nonsensical.

      • Becky

        Absolute rubbish. Firstly, whilst the US isn’t absolved of their liability in acts of pederasty/pedophilia (eg nambla), this story pertains to the UK and not the US. Secondly, of course children do best with stable, committed parents. However, there are no studies proving that those stable, committed parents were homosexuals…at all.

        • Michael C

          Whilst?

          You’re attempting to claim that the rights of privacy and the pursuit of happiness and protections from discrimination and the legal recognition of the marriages of consenting adults directly leads to pedophilia. I’m simply calling you out. How do any of these things directly lead to child abuse. It makes no sense. I’m seeing no correlation or causation.

          There are plenty of studies that show that children fare as well with stable, committed gay parents as they do with stable, committed straight parents. We can start with Mark Regnerus’ NFSS.

          • Becky

            Whilst is English…like while is to Americans. Btw, I’m American now, but some words are well-rooted.

            You don’t see the correlation? How odd. There’s a disquieting amount of evidence proving that there’s a profound correlation. Firstly, the majority of pedophiles are males. Secondly, records reveal that more than half of sexual offense cases are against boys. Thirdly, records reveal that male homosexuals, a very small percentage of the populace btw, are committing sexual offences against boys far more than male heterosexuals are committing sexual offenses against girls (source: CDC, DOJ). Finally, homosexual activist groups are fervently placing their male homosexuals in authoritative positions over innocent children (teachers, club leaders, church leaders and now parenting) and it is frightening, at very least. Quite especially when there exist homosexual groups such as Nambla (US) that promote pederasty/pedophilia. Else what’s their urgency to place homosexual men in these positions?

            Mark Regnerus’ (was he ever attacked by the homosexual activists!) study assessed that children raised by homosexuals had “suboptimal outcomes” in most classifications…not so with children raised by a father and mother. The results weren’t surprising really. Homosexuality is a sin…a perversion…that cannot beget normalcy neither morality. A child subjected to that sin, day in/day out, is being terribly hurt and sentenced to “suboptimal outcomes”.

          • Michael C

            There it is! All the stuff that groups like FRC constantly push on folks to make them afraid of and disgusted by gay people. I knew it would come flying out if I just asked the right questions. I’m always amazed that people equate pedophilia with sexual orientation, like abusing a young girl is just another form of heterosexuality or abusing a young boy is just another form of homosexuality. It’s not. A male who abuses a young boy isn’t necessarily gay because abusing children isn’t just another form of sexual orientation.

            And Regnerus’ NFSS did not study children who were raised by gay parents so it obviously cannot make any claims about the efficacy of gay parenting.

            Out of all the data collected by Regnerus, only a couple subjects had actually been raised by same-sex parents. When asked by a lawyer in a federal court how those subjects fared when compared to those raised by intact, married, opposite-sex parents, his response was “pretty good.”

            Here we are with the most widely publicized, “gold standard” study funded and produced with the sole purpose of attempting to sway the courts away from legally recognizing the marriages of gay couples and it turns out that they actually found no significant difference between children raised by gay couples and children raised by straight couples.

          • Becky

            The FRC isn’t alone…it is aligned with Abiding Truth Ministries (US), the Coalition for marriage (UK) and Cornerstone (UK) (and many others), so I’d say their beliefs are quite good and based on facts.

            “People” don’t arbitrarily equate homosexuality with pedophilia…the records indicate that homosexual males are indeed committing more sexual offenses against boys than heterosexual men commit against girls (considering they’re a small percentage of the pop.). It’s a substantially serious matter.

            “A male who abuses a young boy isn’t necessarily gay…”

            Where are the facts on that one??

            Regnerus analysed over 200 children with homosexual “parents”! You’re completely contorting the truth…very much like any homosexual activist. Btw, Regnerus testified that children belong in a traditional family unit…a married father and mother.

            It isn’t only Regnerus’ study that reveals the obvious…homosexuality is unnatural and cannot function as natural under any setting.

          • Michael C

            “A male who abuses a young boy isn’t necessarily gay…” Where are the facts on that one??

            Men who abuse boys aren’t necessarily attracted to men (the definition of homosexuality). Much of the time, these men are actually engaged in heterosexual relationships.

            Nonetheless, what does any of this baloney have to do with my initial comment? How does the recognition of the rights of gay people lead to the legalization of pedophilia? That part still makes zero sense.

            Regnerus analysed over 200 children with homosexual “parents”!

            How many of these subjects were actually raised by same-sex parents? He compared them to adults raised (from birth to adulthood) by their biological parents. How many adults did he survey who were raised (from birth to adulthood) by their same-sex parents? Go do your research and come back with a number for me.

          • Becky

            Rubbish. Your repeated claim doesn’t make it true.

            Based on studies and records, I’ve clearly answered your questions on why homosexuals should not be able to adopt children, most especially homosexual males adopting boys.

            Funny. According to you, Regnerus’ study didn’t muster enough “subjects” (children raised by homosexuals) to be able to come to the sound conclusion that children are better raised by married, biological fathers and mothers. Yet, there were enough “subjects” to conclude they came out “pretty good”…”they actually found no significant difference between children raised by gay couples and children raised by straight couples”.

            Since you support homosexuality, I don’t expect you to comprehend the facts neither do I expect you to accept them. However, that doesn’t change the facts.

          • Michael C

            According to you, Regnerus’ study didn’t muster enough “subjects” (children raised by homosexuals) to be able to come to the sound conclusion that children are better raised by married, biological fathers and mothers.

            Regnerus’ survey did not include enough subjects to make any sort of claim about the efficacy of gay parenting. There were only 2 participants in his study who had actually been raised by a same-sex couple.

            Yet, there were enough “subjects” to conclude they came out “pretty good”

            By the metric established by Mark Regnerus, he himself stated that those two participants turned out “pretty good” when compared with those who had been raised by their biological, married, opposite-sex parents. He cited no significant differences between them. It’s very possible that their outcomes were even better than those of the average participant who was raised by their straight parents.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Is UK protecting its own children properly? Sodomic force is too strong both in UK and USA. Something is seriously going wrong in the Western white men’s land. Christians in the West must uphold God’s holiness and Biblical purity, no matter what.

  • Pottendorf

    Fear the Lord, you his holy people,
    for those who fear him lack nothing.
    The lions may grow weak and hungry,
    but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing.