We owe much of our heritage to the British.  In many ways, they are still smarter than we are in governmental matters.  While we struggled for over a week to get our people out of Libya on a rented ferry, they airlifted their citizens out on military aircraft in a matter of hours.  Of course, we are saddled with a government run by academics with no actual business or foreign policy experience. 

However, the Brits are ahead of us in creating silly ministries of unintended consequences.  Parliament passed "Sexual Orientation Regulations", and now UK kids are being yanked away from foster parents who refuse to promote homosexuality to their children.  An influential homosexual pressure group claims that the concept of protecting children under ten from sex is "old fashioned".  

Per a piece in the UK Telegraph, the British High Court has ruled that freedom of sexual orientation "should take precedence" over freedom of religion.

Eunice and Owen Johns are a God-fearing Christian couple, married almost 40 years, who offered a secure and loving family home to foster children aged between five and 10. But they are to be denied the opportunity to do so any longer because they are unwilling to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child. Neither Mr nor Mrs Johns has anything against gay people but they are not in favour of sex before marriage, whatever an individual's orientation. Their views were denounced by Ben Summerskill, of the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, as "old-fashioned". Yet not that long ago they would have been considered mainstream and they are, in any case, the strongly held religious views of the couple.

The reason that they were even asked about their views on homosexuality was because Parliament passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations, making it an offence to discriminate on the grounds that someone is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. These are the same laws under which Peter and Hazelmary Bull, Christian owners of a guest house, were fined last month for refusing to let a gay couple share a room. But in the case of Mr and Mrs Johns, where is the victim? They were not turning anyone away. Quite the contrary - they were offering a home to children who will otherwise end up in care, and there are precious few people who will. Furthermore, since the children would be aged under 10, matters of sexuality are hardly relevant - or is it being suggested that they should be? Astonishingly, the High Court suggested that it was not so much their Christian faith as the moral certainties of the Johns that were potentially harmful to children.