
Christian Registrar Who Refused Gay Marriage Had Child Out Of Wedlock
LILLIAN Ladele will not preside ove gay marriages. Why? Because she is a righteous Christian and adheres to the world of The Bible:
A civil registrar who claimed her Christian belief is so fundamental that she cannot conduct civil partnerships is an unmarried single mother.
During an employment tribunal Lillian Ladele, 47, who was born and raised in Nigeria, claimed that she was discriminated against by Islington Council on the grounds of her religious belief.
She told the Mail that she gave birth to an illegitimate son when she was 20.
“I would never claim to be perfect,” she said.
The revelation has led to accusations that she was not properly cross-examined at the tribunal about the nature of her religious faith - details of her extra-marital sexual activities only came to light at the weekend.
The tribunal’s judgement read:
“Ms Ladele is a Christian. Her unchallenged evidence was that she holds the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others and that marriage is the God-ordained place for sexual relations.
“She could not reconcile her faith with taking an active part in enabling same-sex unions to be formed.
“She told us that she believed this to be contrary to God’s instructions that sexual relations belong exclusively between a man and a woman within marriage.”
Ms Ladele told the Mail that while working as a registrar in Islington she told her superiors:
“I would not be able to conduct civil partnerships because it states in the Bible that marriage occurs between a man and a woman, not people of the same sex, and, as a Christian, I try to follow what the Bible teaches.
“I’m not homophobic. I’ve never had a problem with gay people or their lifestyle.
“My issue was purely that I did not want to be the one to facilitate same-sex civil partnerships because I do not agree with them.”
Stonewall’s Ben Summerskill tells PinkNews.co.uk:
“We will seek to intervene formally in any appeal process if the opportunity arises,” chief executive
“In the light of the revelations over the weekend that Miss Ladele has in fact had a child out of wedlock it does seem that the tribunal should have tested the exact nature of her claimed religious beliefs rather harder.
“It remains difficult to escape the conclusion that the principal motivation in this case for Ms Ladele, and for the Christian Institute who funded her, was prejudice against gay people and not a strongly-held religious position at all.”
Indeed…
Posted: 17th, July 2008 | In: Police Log, Tabloids, Twitterings Comments (6) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments





July 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“Surely very selective in her application of faith”
I’d suggest that that statement applies to around 99.9% of people who claim to be Christians.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:32 am
Traditionally registry offices marry the people that the church won’t. In particular she must havehappily presided over the marriage of many divorcee’s which is also frowned upon her by her religion.
Surely very selective in her application of faith
July 17th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I suppose it would be vulgar of me to enquire whether Ms Ladele’s testimony as to her religious faith was linked in any way to a hoped for payment from the tribunal?
Yes, I thought it would…
July 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
From the Catholic point of view - having a baby out of wedlock is a sin that you would confess to and be absolved of and as long as you’re really trying not to commit it again then you’re fine (even if you do commit it again and have to confess again).
I’m not sure if marrying gay people is a sin (I doubt it) - but if it was it would be a sin that you couldn’t resolve not to commit and therefore couldn’t be absolved of and therefore wouldn’t be able to take part in communion.
Other Christian denominations might have a similar interpretation of sin - so to be fair to her she could still be a proper orthodox Christian and a single mother.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Just someone is a Christians doesn’t mean they can’t be a sinner. That’s kind of the point of the whole thing, isn’t it?
July 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Oh those little sins of omission that the devout faithful tend to overlook.
Same sex partnerships and children conceived out of wedlock bother me not at all, as long as they are happy. People who disapprove of either bother me not at all, provided its their personal view.
But if they must drag religion into something, squeaky clean all across the board.