By Hilary White
  LONDON, October 23, 2007 ( – Andrew McClintock is a British magistrate who resigned his position on a family courts panel in Sheffield rather than become involved in family cases in which children might be adopted by homosexual partners. He is appealing a tribunal decision that said he had no right to opt out of such cases.
  The 63 year-old McClintock, a father of four, had written to his employers asking for an exemption just before a law allowing homosexual partners to adopt children came into effect in April. He said he was bound to consider the best interests of children, rather than the legal advances of homosexual partners.
  McClintock is appealing a previous decision by a Sheffield employment tribunal that ruled he had not been the victim of discrimination. His appeal of that decision starts today. He is seeking reinstatement and the right to opt out of such cases. McClintock’s lawyer, Paul Diamond, argued today that he has been the victim of anti-Christian secularising trends in the legal profession since his religious beliefs, in agreement with numerous scientific studies, hold that homosexual partners cannot provide the best environment for children.
  Diamond told the tribunal that there are “rational grounds” for believing that it is not in the best interests of children to be placed with homosexual partners. In his first case, Dean Byrd, Vice-President of the US-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), gave testimony saying that strong statistical evidence shows children adopted by homosexual partners exhibit behavioural problems “not so dissimilar to those raised by divorced heterosexual parents”.
  In his letter, McClintock told the South Yorkshire Courts Panel that the gains made by homosexual activists to allow “gay” adoption have been “an experiment in social science”. Mr Diamond said “It is possible to argue that a child can thrive in a same-sex household. What is more difficult to argue, however, is that it is anything but experimental. This is a judge saying, ‘I’ve got a duty – you wouldn’t experiment with medicine on children; show me the evidence’.”
“A sitting judge was put in the position where he had to stand down. There cannot be a religious bar to office,” Mr. Diamond told the tribunal. “People are religious and do carry their views with them.” McClintock had served as a family court judge for 18 years; he continues to sit in non-family cases.