KENILWORTH, 22 AUGUST 2003 — A card issued last year by the Christian Institute which said: “In the event of my death I do not want my children to be adopted by homosexuals” has been slammed by the Charity Commission as “inappropriate”. The Commission told the Institute to withdraw the card, which they have now reluctantly done.
In response to a complaint by the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA), the Charity Commission launched an enquiry into the card, which was issued during a parliamentary debate about giving adoption rights to gay couples. GALHA had claimed that the card exceeded the charitable remit of the Institute. The Charity Commission’s Tony Dunn said in a letter to GALHA:
“After careful consideration, the Commission took the view that the adoption card should be withdrawn as being inappropriate. The Institute disagreed. We have indicated the need for commentary to be clearly linked to the promotion of a charitable object, particularly as the card did not refer to the Institute directly, nor the basis of its position on the issue of adoption. We do however accept that the nature of the card medium may have made detailed reference to the Institute’s position more difficult than with their other publications. As the card was only available on request to individual parents, or journalists in accompaniment to a press release, the card would however be clearly linked with the Christian Institute, and as such, its beliefs. We are assured by the Institute that they have no plans to revive the card or to produce anything similar in the future.”
The Charity Commission, however, did not think the Christian Institute had “overstepped the mark” as far as charitable restrictions on political campaigning are concerned.
Terry Sanderson, a spokesperson for GALHA, said: “We are pleased that the Christian Institute has been forced to withdraw this card. It was crude, insulting and as far from charitable as it is possible to be. It is annoying that such organisations can receive the tax benefits of charitable status to launch such offensive attacks against innocent people. When it was first reported, there was a general revulsion at such blatant homophobia. We can cope with criticism and disapproval, but this was one step beyond fair comment. This document will have deeply hurt many gay people who are doing their best in difficult circumstances.”