Homosexuality causes stupidity

Homosexuality is a leading cause of stupidity in public life.

Andrew McClintock, a self-declared Christian, claims he was forced to resign as magistrate because it offended his conscience that he might be put in a position where he inadvertently sanctioned the removal of a child from its natural family and that it might be placed --- oh, the horror of it --- in the care of a gay couple. Today, he is taking his case to a tribunal. I hope --- and I speak as someone who does darken the threshold of churches --- he loses.

Ah, the magic word, "conscience". Now the word conscience must never be confused with the word "prejudice". You have to understand this --- people you agree with have consciences; those you disagree with have prejudices. See, it's easy, isn't it? Now, it's disturbing that a magistrate, someone whose duty it is to uphold the law without ifs and buts or fears and favours, should think that when his conscience/prejudices sees fit, he can take a pick-and-choose approach to his duties.  A good judge, magistrate or lawyer rightly leaves his conscience outside the courtroom. If they don't, we wouldn't live under the rule of law, but under the whims, convictions and prejudices of men. The law would become as arbitrary as a Saudi court. So there is no bar to Christians or Muslims or Pastafarians serving as judges or magistrates but there is a bar to Christians, Muslims or Pastafarians who want to privilege their religious faith over the law. McClintock has not been "victimised" because of his religious faith.

But Mr McClintock's lawyer also claimed that his client had "rational" grounds to think that children would be best off being adopted by heterosexual couples. Maybe he's right. In the best of all possible words, there would be lovely married couples, who floss their teeth and say their prayers, queuing up to adopt kids. But in the best of all possible worlds, kids don't need to be adopted.

And maybe, just maybe, Mr McClintock might be able to point me to the evidence that shows gay couples make terrible parents. You know, a major, long-term study which shows that excessive exposure to Versace cushions and the music of the Pet Shop Boys (which as we all know is the home environment of every gay couple) damages children.

Do you remember the last homosexual-inspired moment of sustained stupidity in public life? We were told that letting gays serve in the military would destroy the morale of the armed forces, that the communal showers in the barracks would see the reenactment of scenes last seen in the bath houses of early Eighties San Francisco, and make it impossible for units to march in a straight line. We recently learnt what the result was. A few officers resigned. And then nothing.

Robbie Millen

Comments

[Patrick Darcy]

True the bloke may be a religious fanatic. May Christians and Muslims are.
However at least he came out and said what he thinks.

I dont know if he is right or wrong, (I am not an expert on child health)but he has a right to say it.

Unless of course you want us to continue into this Police State socilaist Utopia where everyone is equal and has a right to be heard, apart from those who dont agree with the state.

[Marion Morrison]

Although I happen to think that Andrew McClintock is wrong on this, I distrust Robbie Millen's motives in this article as I do those of anyone who seems more concerned with homosexual rights to adopt than with chidren's needs. He claims that a judge ought not to be able to pick and choose but if the death penalty were to be re-introduced or if some equally morally reprehensible measure such as extraordinary rendition were legalised would he still be against the judge who in conscience refused to implement such measures? No I didn't think so. So his argument has nothing to do with the job description of a judge and everything to do with his own conviction that homosexuality is normal and that even though homosexual couples can't produce their own children they ought to be allowed to bring up someone else's. The thing is, a large number of people disagree with him and for them the subject will remain a matter of conscience. Perhaps one day there will be a large body of evidence that proves that children raised by homosexual couples are not disadvantaged. Until then it seems unreasonable to chance it because we dont yet have a major, long-term study that proves that they are.

[andrew]

"In the best of all possible words, there would be lovely married couples, who floss their teeth and say their prayers, queuing up to adopt kids."..."long-term study"

[Chris Clark]

Agreed, and I would suggest that this chap's arguement of "forced" resignation places him firmly in the predjudiced camp. A victim of conscience, in this case, would be one who made their own decision to step down.

[Simon Ferguson]

Unfortunately we will have to wait thirty years before the sad stories start to hit the headlines - and the tax payer picks up another bill in 'compensation' for another failure of nerve and a cow towing to the spirit of the age. Should I mention 'terminations' of the unborn(so convenient & with so little fuss!); & the putting the aged & infirm 'out of their misery' by grasping relatives. Yeah, Yeah , tell me it won't happen. Like I said - thirty years, newspaper headlines...then it's a bit late though isn't it; but 'as long as I have the licence to do what I want' (that's the two fingers to everyone else then). 21st Century Britain so pleasant to live in.

[David Webb]

What a nasty article! This agenda is becoming more and more extreme. From wanting to do what you want in the privacy of your own home - a reasonable position - this has broadened out into trying to force everyone into agreeing with a certain point of view on homosexuality even in the public sphere. I don't see any justification for the placement of vulnerable children with anyone other than a happily married man and woman.

[Mike Hart]

Gay people don't necessarily 'make terrible parents', no more than heterosexual parents do.

The problem is that the father and mother of a child contribute differently to a childs development, and both contributions are important. Its no use two gay guys looking at each other when their adopted daughter is 14, saying that she 'could do with a womans touch'. Too late! - but the obvious things dont have to be too late, they just need a little commonsense at the start.

[Robotnik]

"Conscience over Law". Is that a universal principle? A law allowing homosexual couples to adopt (thereby giving a child two de jure parents of the same sex) is just as ideologically driven as the previous situation, if not more. And some ideologies have given rise to some very nasty laws indeed.

Now if I get into power, and make a law insisting that everyone must consume two rotten eggs a day ...

[K Matheson]

Robbie Millen - your comments easily show the difference between conscience and prejudice! In case you're still confused - Andrew McClintock is not the one with the prejudice!

[Michael]

I agree about leaving consciences (or prejudices) outside the courtroom, but......

If GPs (who are public servants) are not obliged to refer a woman for an abortion for religious/moral reasons, then why should a magistrate be forced to do something that he finds equally abominable? As with all prejudices, shift your position a bit; rather than writing off McLintock as a "homophobe" or a "bigot" (which you don't but many would far too readily) perhaps we should see his actions as a plea to be relieved of his responsibility to make a judgement in this particular circumstance because of what he himself sees as a conflict between his conscience and the impartial administration of justice.

It is more than a little disturbing that in a country which has for so long been a beacon of freedom of speech, religion and consicence, anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing dogma surrounding homosexuality should be castigated the way McLintock has been. I would be the first to speak up for a homosexual who had been denied employment or access to services because of his or her sexual proclivity; I would, equally, stand up for those who choose - for reasons that to them are perfectly reasonable and in many cases morally imperative - not to have "acceptance" of homosexuality rammed down their throat. It is despicable, for example, that a government minister should publicly state that any hotel or guest house owner who doesn't want homosexuals under their roof should take up another occupation (as was said in the summer but I cannot remember which minister). Tolerance means no more than tolerating; it doesn't mean being forced to accept or "celebrate" someone else's morality. Tolerance goes both ways; if the homosexual lobby wants tolerance of homosexuals, then homosexuals really ought to tolerate the incontorvertible fact that many people find their nature somewhere between incomprehensible and immoral. Live and let live....

[Andy]

So wait, the point of the legal system is to uphold the law, regardless of the judges/jurys moral convictions? If so, then why not get a computer, enter in all the facts and then it can spew out the verdict.
Maybe if you thought for a second you'd realise the legal system is designed by people, according to their moral conscience or 'prejudices'. If you want to argue homosexuality isn't a sin, by all means do so, but degrading someone just for their belief in something which you provide no argument against is 'stupid', imo.

[Ian James]

Though I doubt Mr McClintock's true motives, I must say that I have a problem with this element of eqality. My concern is not the suitability of gay coples as parents, most gay individuals of my aquaintance are as respectable as the next person. My deep concern is for the psychological effect on the child. As you point out we don't live in the "best of all possible worlds", and the abuse and ridicule these children will no doubt take a toll on many. If this were long term fostering, I'd be considerably less opposed, as a new placement could be found for those children unable to cope with the situation. Adoption is hopeflly for ever, and that is I feel the problem here.

[James]

For somebody who thinks that way about homosexuality, the man certainly has an interesting and flamboyant choice of wardrobe!

Perhaps you could find us a full length picture?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

So, you have a prejudice, then, Mr Millen?

[anonymous]

I guess when you say "darken" the church door, you mean that literally.

[colin nicholas]

Religion. I'm up to here with religion.
People can believe whatever nonsense they wish to believe.But please don't bring it to work.It's worse than boring for those of us who don't believe in a supernatural world with a god in it.
If one's religion collides with one's faith,get another job;or get another faith.

[J. Davis]

'And maybe, just maybe, Mr McClintock might be able to point me to the evidence that shows gay couples make terrible parents'

There's no evidence either way - it's a massive experiment. I don't doubt gay parents can be loving and responsible. But have you considered this issue from the perspective of an eight-year-old whose two dads meet him at the school gate? Might he suffer bullying, confusion, a lack of clear role models? I am generally in favour of gay rights - but these do not necessarily extend to parenthood. This is about children's rights, not gay rights.

[Peteran]

I should like to congratulate Mr McClintock on his brave decision to resign as a magistrate. He was both principled and correct.

However, his appeal is entirely wrong-headed. In the ideal world that his conscience inhabits, children up for adoption would only be placed with good Christian families. Unfortunately for him, the rest of society has enacted legislation that compels its magistrates and judges to apply different criteria. If he's incapable of doing so then he is incapable of being a magistrate.

We're outraged when we hear of Muslim doctors in the NHS who refuse to carry out certain procedures or Muslim check-out staff who refuse to handle alcohol. The parallel here is unmistakable.

[Charles Dowie]

The fact that a few officers resigned over this issue does not justify your claim that "therefore all is well" - just stupid.

Why let the cold case of law decide a young future - a future based on a 'sense of justice' . We need family courts to decide on family matters.

Hiding behind the law is not a good way to impose your 'choices'

[bill shepherd]

The presumptions offered are wrong. Courts would not become like Saudi courts. On the contrary excusing magistrates from sitting on cases with conflicting consciences would allow such cases to be heard by judges with no conflict. A wholly different situation from that in Saudi.

One should be able to expect less flabby logic from commentators at the Times. This is a crude and faulty polemic and is itself unjust

[Ror]

I refuse to get worked up about this matter, so I'll say nothing.

[Giles Bradley]

I imagine the vast majority of your readers, Mr Millen, were grateful to have had one of each, rather than two dads or two mums. Now doesn't that say it all? Perhaps the stupidity lies with you.

[Simon]

"people you agree with have consciences; those you disagree with have prejudices. See, it's easy, isn't it?"

Is it just me that finds this comment irredeemably stupid? I am sure it suits your argument to homengenise the 2 words but unfortunatly they really do designate 2 separate things (which has a lot to do with why they sound different). Prejudice is, wait for it, pre-judging an issue without thinking about it properly. Conscience is where someone thinks carefully about an issue before making up their mind. They are diametrically opposed.

and yes, rational people like myself and Mr Clintock really have thought about the issue carefully and, goodness gracious, we actually dare to disagree with you. In fact I wonder if you have any rational basis for morality.

[PJW Holland]

Well said. You might also add to this magistrate's stupidity his apparent lack of knowledge of the faith he claims to support: "Judge not lest ye be judged"

Those who condemn others' lifestyles, especially lifestyles not chosen, are anything but Christian.

[Serf]

Surely even if Gays make terrible parents it would still not change the issue.

The law is an ass, always has been, always will be. It forces us to do things that we do not agree with, and at times can be objectively shown to be wrong. But the rule of law means that we have to obey it, a fact that is ten times more relevant for a judge. (We are always free to campaign to change the law or to take part in civil disobedience)

The reason that adoption & custody issues are subject to the courts is so that each one is dealt with on an individual basis, within the framework of the law. Whether any group does or doesn't make good parents is irrelevant. Only the specific people in the case are up for assessment.

[Ailean Riepsaame]

Just like there is confusion over conscience and prejudice, there is also confusion about taking away rights vs. taking away privileges.

The right to discriminate on the basis of religious dogma isn't a right - it is a privilege. Taking away this privilege, does not affect the rights of the religious. They can still practice their faith unencumbered - albeit in a slightly less hateful manner.

[BigT]

Another 'media liberal', just as fundamentalist as his target, lays down the ethical law. If, as egMatthew Parris says, homosexuality is at least in part culturally constructed, then of course putting a child with self declared homosexuals might well affect the child's attitudes.
And how about major legal exemptions on religious grounds, such as halal meat being allowed, against all animal welfare laws?
Sorry Mr F, not a coherent article.

[Andy]

Ah, Ailean, you're opening a whole can of worms there - when is a right a privilege? What is the difference? Isn't everything that we call a "universal human right" just one of the privileges that we (society, government, whoever) choose to give?
Unless, of course, you acknowledge something that's a higher authority - call it god, say. Which brings us back to Mr McClintock...

[Keith Frobisher]

Ever heard of "He's a chip off the old block" or "Like father like son"? My concern as a retired Teacher is the influence such an upbringing will have on the children and successive generations. Children's personalities and characters are moulded by parents more than anyone else and same sex sex couples are not the best role models. I hope Andrew McClintock's stand will cause many to question the wisdom of some of our legislation in these areas.

[cuffleyburgers]

I personally disagree with gay adoption, and although I have no time for the Catholic church in general, I found it sad that their by all accounts excellent adoption agencies were forced by the government to close down and that a more sensible approach could have been found with a bit of traditional British give and take. Certainly no children's interests have been served by that decision.

However, it is not the role of a Magistrate to try to make the law, and I do not approve of what Mr McClintock was trying to do just as I found the business of the Muslim check out girls quite insane. Would they handle pork sausages? What about humanely killed (as opposed to tortured-to-death) Lamb?

All this religious garbage is taking us further away from basic humanistic morality and tolerant decency which is what Britain was supposed to be all about.

[James]

There are two distinct points here, as Serf correctly points out. Whether gay couples are appropriate as parents or not is beside the real point here (I happen to think that many gay couples I know are a far better alternative to being shunted from one foster home or institution or another for 15 years, becoming institutionalised and generally screwed up. But you black'n'white people just see the rosy alternative of nice middle class mum'n'dads...)

The real point is that it is The Law Of The Land. If you want to change it, lobby your MP. As a JP (the article seems confused whether he is a JP or a Judge), you do not have the choice to apply laws depending on whether you agree with them or not. I am a JP, and there are laws I agree with and some I don't. But if we apply them selectively the whole legal system falls apart. You should be objective as a magistrate, and Mr McClintock obviously feels his personal belief is more important in this case than upholding the law, which as a magistrate he is duty bound to do. So, he has taken the option to resign from the family panel. Letting him only sit on ma'n'pa parent cases is not an alternative - it sets a dangerous precedent.

To all those free speech advocates - you are missing the point. As a JP in court, you do not have the privlege of unqualified free speech and freedom of decisions. If the death penalty were to be reintroduced for say, shoplifting, I would not apply it in court. I would also not refuse in court to apply it - that is not what I signed up for. I would instead resign from the bench - which is what has happened, quite appropriately, in this case, as I could not reconcile my personal beliefs with my role as a JP.

[ibbo]

So those chaps who refused to serve in the 1st world war were actually in your words 'prejudiced' and not upholders of their 'conscience' that killing is wrong.

Is this what you have managed to boil this down to?

Should kids be remeoved from their parents and put into gay families. Who has the right to say this is either right or wrong and who has the right to try this out with other peoples kids?

I support this mans (the judge) concience and suggest you take your own prejudice and keep it where it belongs Andrew.

And do you honestly beleive homosexuals in the forces actually flout their sexuality Andrew.

Its still a taboo

[john bennett]

the law is an ass.....and those that administer it are called magistrates!

[Gavin]

A significant number (majority even?) of posts would appear to indicate that there really should be no alternative to heterosexual parents living as a family unit. So where does that leave single parent families – when one parent leaves or dies, what then? Are children removed to a heterosexual family where they can get there proper portions of parenthood? Oh wait, the argument that a wider family with uncles, aunts, grandparents can step in to provide role models - although I suspect that gay couples probably have those as well. Or perhaps single parents should be encouraged to remarry, although forced marriages are also illegal (pesky legal system) and a loveless marriage doesn’t do much for a child’s welfare either. Let’s be clear, the welfare of the child is paramount – but saying all gay couples can’t act as parents is as false as saying single parents can’t be successful – each case needs to be judged on its merits and you can’t do that if you have already decided some things are wrong without evidence or reason.

[Martin]

More than just coincidence that Paul Diamond the barrister who is representing McClintock, is the only lawyer ever to have brought a case against the now-discredited Section 28. He is also the lawyer who represented fundamentalist religious groups seeking exemptions from the 1998 Human Rights Act. He pops up with boring and predictable frequency!

[Peter]

I was adopted as a baby, in the sixties, by a married couple. I was aware that I was exclusively attracted to other males from the age of five years onwards (the Kays mailorder catalogue, female models on Page 3 of The Sun and the muscular builders in the builders' yard next to my primary school's playing field being my prime guiding sources on the issue).

My Christian adoptive parents were hostile to the very idea of homosexuality, and often said so, hence I lived in their household, constantly terrified of the imagined consequences of being 'found out' to be one. Not a happy childhood and adolescence.

I believe it is practically impossible to make generalizations about what is best for children. Personally I would have much preferred to have been adopted by a straight couple who were kind and understanding, from whom I didn't feel obliged to conceal great chunks of my inner life. I can't imagine I would have liked being adopted by a lesbian or gay-male couple despite being a homosexual myself, but I can't speak for others, who may feel differently about the idea being put in that position.

Regardless of the sexual orientation of a child's legal parents/guardians, I do believe it is strongly desirable that children of both sexes should have a close relationship with one or more adults of both sexes, not just with one sex. In the case of children coming up for adoption, I would argue the children's interests come *before* concerns about discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Conferring rights to adopt to gay couples is actually a misapplication of the overarching principle of non-discrimination, laudable as the latter is. The courts should always give priority to a heterosexual child-rearing environment because it is the best way to attempt to ensure that adopted children do relate personally with at least one adult male and adult female.

Andrew McClintock reacted to his predicament by taking a course of action that to me looks histrionic, self-pitying and attention-seeking, but I have sympathy with the underlying predicament, and agree with other commentators that in such situations a magistrate should be able to be relieved from making a specific judicial decision, on grounds of there being a conflict between the requirements of the law and personal conviction.

[Richard]

I think only 'cuffleyburgers' has actually got what is the central issue here: If it offends his conscience (or his prejudices) to be 'forced' to make certain judgements within the law, then he should resign. He should NOT, however, be compensated for his resignation as it is his choice to favour his conscience over the law.

[Frank Upton]

OK to resign. Not OK to try to claim compensation. Any magistrate or judge will at some point have to enforce a law that he or she disagrees with.

[Johanna Louw]

That's right - let's not allow gays to screw up children, let's allow straight couples to do it instead. Do critics of gay adoption stop to think the vast majority of gay people come out of 'normal' heterosexual homes. Oh, and what exactly is 'normal' nowadays amongst heterosexuals: infidelity, absurdly high divorce rate and a violent and intolerate society. Not so clever these heterosexuals after all.

[DJ]

Michael: "It is despicable, for example, that a government minister should publicly state that any hotel or guest house owner who doesn't want homosexuals under their roof should take up another occupation (as was said in the summer but I cannot remember which minister). Tolerance means no more than tolerating; it doesn't mean being forced to accept or "celebrate" someone else's morality."

Would that apply to a hotelier who didn't want black or asian people in his hotel too?

[Michael]

DJ

A tiresome and predictable response that, by conflating homosexuals with black or asian people, would doubtless be "offensive" to many blacks and asians who happen to hold culturally or spiritualy informed views about homosexuality. Your response would probably also be "offensive" to any homosexuals who also happen to be white racists, although none of us have absolutely no truck with racism.

The only thing your two categories of person have in common is that they coincide with the pigeonholes used by the liberal establishment in its quest to create the Modern British Volksgemeinschaft (aka that weirdly unrecognisable construct oftgen lazily referred to as "society").

In short, I can't be bothered to respond to your post, even though I have.

[Dan]

Robbie Millen is probably unfamiliar with the scripture: "We must obey God as ruler, rather than men."

Mr. Millen promotes permissiveness, not tolerance.

[andrew holden]

Colin said: "Religion. I'm up to here with religion.
People can believe whatever nonsense they wish to believe.But please don't bring it to work."

The trouble with this line is that it is prejudicial against people of faith. Religion is a 'way of life' and can no more be left at home than a person's race or sexuality. You are really saying that Christians and Muslims can't be judges, magistrates, doctors, teachers - well where will that sort of prejudice end?

What we need is to recognise that although justice may be blind (ie impartial) people are not. Hurrah to the man who said that in this instance he can't make an impartial decision because he has a particular moral view - we need more people with such integrity! In this instance the magistrate is not refusing gays access to the law, just recognising that he can't be directly involved in it. That's perfectly fair - even if I actually disagree with his views, which I do!

[Bina]

To all the people here who claim not to be homophobes, but who still believe that children "need" two parents of opposite sex:

My best friend is a gay man. He and his lawfully wedded husband (we're all Canadians, hence that "lawfully wedded"--it's legal here!) have recently, LEGALLY adopted two boys, 10 and 12, from Minnesota. These children would probably have gone on and "aged out" of the foster-care system without an adoptive family if the local authorities had insisted on waiting for an "ideal" straight couple to come along.

I also have a gay friend in Michigan who has a daughter by a heterosexual marriage that broke up when he could no longer hide from reality. He has joint custody of her, even though he lives with a same-sex partner now. Apparently the judge didn't think she needed to be torn away from her dad just because he wouldn't "set the right example", or whatever the excuse might be.

And all these children of gay parents are--SURPRISE!--growing up fine and well-adjusted. They don't need a "right example" or a "woman's touch" or any other silly traditionalist hogjaw, they need stability and love--and they are getting it.

For those who think hetter is better, sorry--it's not. It's just your own unacknowledged homophobia, hiding behind the kids again. Shame on it for its cowardice.

[Ben Gruagach]

I have to laugh at all the assumptions being made about homosexual parents raising kids -- the biggest laugh is that this is somehow a new thing.

Homosexual parents have been raising kids for as long as parents have been raising kids! Just because the media has noticed that homosexual parents exist does not mean that they weren't around previously.

My spouse has a lesbian aunt who has been with her partner for close to fifty years now. They raised the kids that one of them brought with her from a previous marriage. Those kids are grown now and are parents themselves -- and the lesbian couple are happy grandparents.

They were raising kids back in the 1950s and 1960s, people! They were not the only ones out there either. If you want to find out how the kids of lesbians and gays turned out, the researchers don't need to wait twenty or thirty years to start gathering data -- they just need to start asking today's adults who were raised by lesbian or gay parents back in the 1960s and 1970s.

[Martin Clarke]

Christians are not allowed to discriminate against gays, for the same reason Islamic fundamentalists aren't allowed to commit honour killings.

Society has rules, and religion is no excuse for breaking them. If McLintock cannot partition his private beliefs from his public responsibilities, he has no place in the legal service.

[james]

I salute this gentleman for having the courage of his genuinely held convictions.As gay couples cannot obviously produce children by their union should they not live with that reality and leave parenting to heterosexual couples.In America Arnold is asking the people to pray for rain,again he can`t have it both ways,preventing the name of Jesus being used in schools and yet asking for divine intervention.

[Alfred]

The fact of the matter is that homosexual adoption results in an inordinate number of sexually abused children. Why isn't that enough?

[steve moxon]

Perhaps it is writing for the Times that causes stupidity?

[Anthony Stirling]

Judging by some of these comments, it seems that ignorance and prejudice are alive and well in modern Britain. It is a miracle that our politicians manage, sometimes, to offend so many respectable, law-abiding, voters and bring in laws that seek to uphold fairness, reason and tolerance. Whether or not you are comfortable with the idea of gay couples bringing up children, we should not, as a society, allow such important legal decisions to be influenced by the personal religious beliefs of individual magistrates and judges, whether you call them prejudice or conscience. People who believe in a liberal/gay conspiracy might like to cast their minds back to Germany in the 1930s and 40s. What began as innate fears about people who were "not like us" quickly turned into a justification for genocide and 'genetic purification' through mass murder. Anyone who believes that being gay is not wrong should stand up for equality for gay people in the eyes of the law. The real threat here is not to adopted children but to children growing up gay in a world in which they are often victims of misunderstanding, fear, hate and, sometimes, violence. The chances are that every Times reader has a gay friend, relative or neighbour, whether they are aware of it or not. We are not talking about some alien species, but ordinary men and women who happen to be attracted to their own sex. I cannot see why this should prevent them from being good parents if they choose to adopt. Does anyone seriously believe that by virtue of their heterosexuality, a biological mother and father will do a perfect job?

[Hermann Burchard]

Civilization going downhill, maybe some of you chaps should get rid of you anti-prejudice prejudice. History has provided us with certain notions of what is good for us. Let's teach these notions again, and survive. Of course I understand, your addictions are no worse than others, so let's preach against ALL of the vices. Here, I seem to be suggesting that vice is addictive..

[Nick B]

If, as a significant proportion of the population would like, sharia law was enacted in Britain, would the conscience of the magistrate in refusing to sentence women to being stoned to death be so unwelcome? We might disagree with this magistrate's conscience - but let us not destroy the vital bulwark against unjust laws that individuals can represent.

[Tom]

What an alarming lot of bigoted comments. Robbie Millen's piece is about a point of law and he argues it beautifully. What follows is a lot of weasels crawling out from under the cabinet.

[Peter Bricknell]

The word 'prejudice' and 'intolerant' are trump cards to eliminate opposition.
Just because something is law it doesn't mean it is 'right'. Laws in Soviet Russia, China, have show that.

However is this guy acting to 'tolerate' of the law about one lifestyle by allowing others to uphold it even if he disagrees with them. Yet are we 'intolerant' of his convictions by saying you must promote one lifestyle or lose you job.

Police officers daily decide what laws to uphold, and which officers to involve in upholding it - so why must he lose is job if he's asking others to uphold a lifestyle law that he disagrees with.

[Hippobabe]

Let's face it, all children grow up with some damage from childhood, even children of genuinely loving parents. The children of strongly religious parents sometimes experience their lives as having been greatly enriched by their upbringing, and others find themselves to be very damaged by it. The same thing presumably applies to the adoptees of gay parents. Eventually it is the right and the responsibility of the individual to move beyond the tangled mess of damage and nurture that is childhood to make adult choices about his/her life style. The childhood environment influences but does not predestin the adult's decisions. As long as a child is entrusted to the most (apparently) nurturing home available at the time, that's the most that any human agency can hope to achieve. The rest is in the hands of the individual. For a magistrate of any religious persuasion to view Christian/Muslim/Jewish homes as automatically more nurturing than others is presumptuous. It amounts to an attempt to proselyte.

[seth taylor]

this has turned in to an interesting debate. Can someone explain why 'gays' need to have 'special rights'? What makes them so special that we need to treat them 'specailly'?

Why cant we all just learn to treat everyone equally regardless? To that end, this man has a right not to preside over cases that he believes contradict his own porsonal moral and values - the rest of us should either genuinely try to understand his postion or tolerate his position.

Mr Millen, you come across in this article as very prejudiced against people who themselves are prejudiced against homosexuality.

[John Lamb]

Children who are different in some way stand out and are more susceptible to bullying and ridicule by other children.

Children who are adopted or fostered are usually psychologically damaged and vulnerable. Those of us who live in the real world know, don’t we, that children with gay parents will be ridiculed and bullied in the playground on a grand scale. Children can be so cruel and their victims can suffer long lasting psychological damage.

Why should the rights of gays to adopt and foster takes priority over the interests of damaged and vulnerable children and why should those who stand up for childrens interests be penalised?

[David Jones]

Michael: "A tiresome and predictable response that, by conflating homosexuals with black or asian people ..."

No doubt it is tiresome to people like you but that doesn't make it incorrect in this instance. Some hoteliers used to put "No blacks" sign outside their hotels in the 50s and 60s presumably because they held "culturally informed views" too.

The JP has a freedom of conscience and he has exercised it, thank goodness. The job has requirements, the main one being to apply the law. If he won't do that then he's unfit for the job.

[David Jones]

Seth Taylor: "this has turned in to an interesting debate. Can someone explain why 'gays' need to have 'special rights'? What makes them so special that we need to treat them 'specailly'?"

Not special, just equal rights in the areas where there are no sound reasons to discriminate.

Holding a particular set of religious beliefs out of the many available is hardly a sound reason to discriminate against someone when in a public role.

[Mark Mead]

Speaking as someone whose girlfriend was brought up by a lesbian mother and her mother's partner, I do think that the hysteria about homosexuals adopting children is utterly ridiculous as well as bigoted. My girlfriend is an intelligent, well-adjusted, hard working mother who has 2 degrees (one in psychology and the other in law) and is a professional who runs a charity. Obviously it not do her any harm.

Conscientous objectors used to be people who bravely risked going to prison if they refused to fight after being drafted as soldiers. Nowadays it seems to mean anyone who refuses to do the job they have been specifically employed to do. We have GPs who refuse to give advise on abortion services; Pharmacists who are unwilling to give contraceptives or the morning after pill; NHS officials who want to deny treatment to the obese or smokers regardless of whether they have paid tax or not; Police officers who refuse to guard embassies because of their personal political convictions; Supermarkets who employee people who refuse to handle shop goods and now magistrates who refuse to enforce the laws passed by an elected parliament.

I think that ther should be a systematic, widespread recognition that if there is anyone who is unable to perform the duties or provide services expected by their employer or society then are of no good to anybody and should be promptly sacked or, better still, not be employed in that profession in the first place.

It is a very simple idea really - either do the job your paid to do or get out and make room for someone who can do it.

[Al]

Bottom line: If you had a child and then you became ill and knew you were going to die (the other parent is already dead), would you be happy knowing your child was going to be placed with a gay couple? And would you state your opposition or support while you were able. A truthful answer to those questions might reveal what you really think about this problem.

[Alex Mcgregor]

I feel that a child should ideally have both male and female role models living with them at home. I guess this means I think that adopted children are usually better off when placed with a heterosexual couple, rather than with single people or homosexual couples.

But I also feel that it is important that magistrates, police, teachers, doctors etc uphold the law of the land regardless of their personal prejudices.

In this case, Mr McClintock was right to resign from his job but wrong to expect compensation.

If elements of your job cause painful internal conflict then it is sensible to find employment elsewhere - but don't expect others to compensate you for your internal conflict!

[Jim Leeper]

At the core of this lies not the fact of Predjudice vs Conscience but the fact that we still allow our public offices to be filled by people who still feel it acceptable to take the teachings dubiously based around Bronze Age Myth and try to enforce them on the world at large. Would this debate even happen if I claimed a similar position based on the fact that persons of particular races, ethnic backgrounds etc make better or worse parents than others?

The only bar to parenthood of any form should be people's ability to do what is the hardest job in the world but, in every other sense but adoption, is the easiest job to get.

Children have a right to be brought up in a safe loving environment with equal rights to shelter, sustenance and education however this is provided. Mr Mclintock simply puts an illogical bar in the way of this and is unsuitable to make a unbiased judgement.

I don't like the sneering tone of this artice but I find equally abhorrant the fact that Mr Mclintock, without reference to rigorous logically grounded investigation that would prove or disprove the relative suitability of Homosexual couples to raise children (Lesbians have the natural choice to bear children - explain that Mr Mclintock), is standing in the way of much needed adoptions.

Lets leave our fear of offending peoples feelings based on irrational delusions out of the clearly rational need to nurture and care for the children of this country.

[PF]

Clearly while we have no proof gay couples make bad parents, we also have no proof they make good ones - especially with regard to the needs of the children themselves!
Since having a male and female role model provide the best upbringing we know of for a child (given the world consists of half men and half women), are you really saying that the rights of gays to foster children (which they would never be able to conceive naturally in the first place) should supercede the rights of the children themselves?
How have we arrived at such a twisted view of the world?
To say that;"In the best of all possible worlds, there would be lovely married couples....queuing up to adopt kids. But in the best of all possible worlds, kids don't need to be adopted." is at best flippant and at worst blindly ignores the importance of trying to place needy children in new homes with an appropriate parental mix. Or perhaps the writer thinks that maybe we just shouldn't bother and leave them all out in the cold?
Heterosexual parents neither need to be 'perfect' to bring a better balance to their children's lives (than gay parents could), nor does the fact that some kids clearly DO need adoption in the first place in any way validate the writer's argument for the treatment of gay adoptees.

[lloyd]

Robbie Millen - you are spot on. I agree 100% with what you say.
If Mr. McLintock is able to pick and choose his cases based on his religion then wont every other person who has a faith do likewise? And where will this then lead us to? No, the laws of the land are the same for everyone, whether we agree with them or not - religion does not place someone above them.

[Ian Wilson]

What does this magistrate expect - laws that suit all magistrates, regardless of belief? Or laws that magistrates can ignore in favour of their own opinions?

I can't play the piano. Thus, I would be unlikely to remain employed as a concert pianist for any length of time, and I wouldn't expect compensation when I had to give up the job. Similarly, this magistrate has not got the skills to do his job if he can't implement the law as written.

[Charis]

I can't believe some of these comments against gay adoptions. There are two main points that spring out to me:

1) All prospective parents should be judged to see if they are fit, straight or gay. To the person who commented that gay adoptions lead to excessive child abuse I must say I am shocked. For a start there's no evidence as this is new, and secondly there are plenty of example of abuse in 'normal' adoptions. Both points of view merely emphasise the fact that parents must be in a stable, loving relationship and be judged sane enough to look after children placed with them. The sex of their partner matters far less than other parenting skills.

2) As commented on by several people, but not given any weight by the nay sayers is that the option is NOT between the adoptee having a propserous, heterosexual couple to look after them and a homosexual couple. It's between staying in institutions with no parents and no care and frequently no prospects and a homosexual. If the couple pass the test above then that is an improvement...

[Iain Borthwick]

how about your own newspaper?

A GAY foster couple were jailed yesterday for sexually abusing boys in their care.
Ian Wathey, 41, was sentenced to five years and Craig Faunch, 32, to six years at Leeds Crown Court. They have been in a civil partnership for five weeks. The couple, from West Yorkshire, had denied the allegations at an earlier trial.

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council approved Wathey and Faunch as foster carers three years ago but within months they were assaulting boys from troubled homes, the court was told. The two were found guilty of abusing four boys aged between 8 and 14.

Judge Sally Cahill, QC, said that neither man had shown any “empathy, remorse or any responsibility for their actions”.

About Faunch’s abuse of a 14-year-old boy, she said: “You chose to victimise and abuse that boy, showing the very depths, in my view, of what you are prepared to do.

“You saw him as the ideal victim. You are presented as a couple but this is not about homosexuality, it is about abuse of trust.”

Faunch was found guilty of two charges of making indecent photographs of a child.

The court was told that he used a camcorder to film two naked eight-year-old boys in the shower. He was also found guilty of five counts of sexual activity with a 14-year-old boy.

Wathey was found guilty of four charges of sexual activity with another 14-year-old boy, as well as encouraging a child to watch a gay porn video.

The jury cleared him of two charges of sexual activity with a child.

Neither had been in trouble with the police before. They lived in a three-bedroom, semi-detached house on a quiet cul-de-sac near Pontefract, West Yorkshire. The house is now up for sale at £120,000.

Neighbours were surprised when the men started to take in a string of young boys, but in the friendly locality the new arrivals were soon accepted, despite obvious problems in some cases.

Sue Corley, a divorcée with three children, said: “They never had any hassle here about being gay. But I must say I was a bit suspicious. There was just something about them. I was amazed when the council gave them boys to foster.”

Faunch had a job at a Wakefield tile warehouse until about four years ago. He lived modestly with Wathey and their one extravagance was a caravan at Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire, where they would go for weekend breaks.

Defence barristers claimed that allegations against the two men were “bizarre”, “incredible” and unfounded.

[John Gregory Flinn]

At least this blog has attracted a few more posts than the normal desultory interest 'Comment Central' gets!

[Doug]

Now do tell me. What sort of world do we live in when "the author" can censor what he accepts as comments? If it's not against the law or obscene then ALL comments should be published or non at all.

[Mike Bibby]

Funny how some peoples "rights" are deemed to be so much more important than those of others.

Doctors and Nurses may follow their consciences and opt-out of abortions, so why should Mr. McClintock not be permitted the same right? Surely it cannot be that the "rights" of homosexuals are somehow more highly valued than those of a woman seeking an abortion?

"A GAY foster couple were jailed yesterday for sexually abusing boys in their care."

Could please show me.. oh ... at very least a HUNDERED more articles of the same situation. No?

Could you send me THOUSANDS of articles where straight parents were involved in such a case? Yes?

BTW: The media latch on to any scandalous story involving gays, far, far more so than straight people, and even at that their are very few stories like that crop up.

[John]

It really is a simple point that a lot of you do not seem to grasp. The law on adoption was passed by Parliament. Magistrates are required to uphold the law. If due to their beliefs, they find themselves unable to apply the law in the manner legislated for by Parliament then they can not remain on the bench. A judge can not chose which law to apply on the basis of his/her own preference or belief. Nothing is above the law, however much one may dislike the law. If you do not like the law, canvass for its repeal. But, I am afraid, if you are a magistrate/judge, keep your beliefs and conscience to yourself and apply the law as Parliament requires.And for the person who compared this situation with the right of doctors not to perform abortions if their conscience would not allow it, doctors are not agents of the law. Simple as that.

[Steve]

Iain,

I hardly think that a newspaper article about a gay couple abusing a child proves anything. There are also a large number of straight couples and individuals who abuse children.

Most child abusers, of both genders are straight, married men. Child abuse is more often about power. Follow the url on my name for one source of info on this.

Steve

[Catherine]

Surely it cannot be that the "rights" of homosexuals are somehow more highly valued than those of a woman seeking an abortion
***********************************
Of course this is true.
Women and children are still second class to the elite.

I have many homosexual friends but it is their choice to be so and this means that they cannot have children of their own.

But that does not mean they take someone elses.

All children chose their own parents long before birth in order to experience a certain life here - so who gave man the right to change this.??

It is the duty of society to make sure all mothers have all that is needed to raise their own children.

I have to say I salute this judge for having the courage to say what he thinks- whether I agree with him or not.

Conscience comes before man's Law.

[Rob]

This magistrate wasn't sacked because of what he thought about homosexuality, or even what he said about homosexuality. He was sacked because he said that when given a choice between whether to apply the law faithfully or follow his own conscience, he would follow his own conscience. Very admirable. Maybe he will be rewarded in the future. Maybe he will get a warm glow of satisfaction. But that doesn't mean he should get to keep his job.

I have no problem with people who would sacrifice their career rather than break the tenets of their religion. But those who expect a right to keep their job as well seem to be in the position of wanting to have their cake AND eat it.

The fact is, a magistrate who doesn't accept the rule of law is an incapable magistrate. It's not comparable with the medic who refers you to another medic, it's comprarable to a medic who doesn't accept the validity of science.

By the way, this also holds true - not just in my view, but also in law - for the person who wants to work in a supermarket but says their religion prohibits them selling alcohol. And I bet the magistrate's supporters on here wouldn't be manning the barricades for those people's religious 'rights', would you?

[Sarah N.]

If adoption is taken so seriously by the social services that they try to match ethnic backgrounds exactly, including refusing adoption of "black" children by white couples, how can they possible justify any gay adoptions? I would like to hear how this is in the best interests of any child, particularly a vulnerable one. I am not especially opposed to gay people being able to adopt children, but the idea of two men bringing up a girl or two women rearing a boy seems a bit strange. The other thing which is not discussed is the sometimes deep antipathy that many gay people feel towards the opposite sex. Not all gays are happy television stereotypes.

[r.c.paget]

I was under the impression that, apart from anecdotal evidence of the detrimental affect of gay male adoption on children and their emotional and social development, a study has already been done in the USA; though its findings have, on principal if not on account of the facts, been hugely contested by the gay lobby. Perhaps someone who knows of this report or who could offer any anecdotal evidence might be prepared to add to the discussion? I don't believe that children themselves mind whether the evidence is anecdotal or not, as long as it is factual: such niceties only matter to social scientists, politicians, and those who are afraid of the truth.

[Marc]

"people you agree with have consciences; those you disagree with have prejudices" I disagree with you Daniel. Therefore and according to your words, you are prejudiced.

Or maybe, this is not what you meant to say.

[David Russell]

Religion is hell.

[Michael Petek]

This case isn't just about the right of a magistrate to excuse himself. It is about whether the State has the right to brush aside claims of conscience and assert a totalitarian claim to the whole person and the whole of life.

Christian morality deserves special consideration because it imposes on the conscience a religious obligation of good citizenship on the basis that constituted civil authorities are the ministers of God and must for His sake be obeyed. Other religions which do the same deserve similar consideration. As such, they serve the public interest in stable and peaceful government.

In most traditions, Christianity at least takes a positive view of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in others requires that they be religiously respected. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by a team of six persons which included a Jew, a Confucian and two Christians, one of whom was Roman Catholic, the other Eastern Orthodox.

In return, Christians have the right to expect that their consciences ought to be respected when they can clearly be demonstrated to have been well formed in accordance with the established moral orthodoxy of their respective denominations. Given that obedience to law is at stake here, this test should be conducted with due rigour, but the matter ought not to be dismissed out of hand. And if a litigant is unhappy with a judicial ruling given in accordance with the Christian conscience, then let him appeal to a higher tribunal for it to be corrected.

Mr McLintock's dismissal also raises the issue that the power of the executive to dismiss him at will may have been rendered unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998, as it compromises Article 6 of the Convention which requires that judicial officers be independent and seen to be so.

Finally, Mr McLintock took an oath to well and truly serve Her Majesty in the office of Magistrate. That includes refraining from anything which would put the nation in violation of her Coronation Oath: "will you to the utmost of your power uphold the law of God and the true profession of the Gospel?"

[David Jones]

Catherine: "I have many homosexual friends but it is their choice to be so ..."

That suggests to me that you have no gay friends, or that you don't talk to them about it. Did you choose to be straight?

[Bill]

Two paedophiles chatting on the web: 'Hey Harry, look at this new legislation. All we have to do to get kids given to us by the state is set up home together and pretend to be gay for a couple months. Fancy it?' 'Not half, I'm in. Your place or mine?'
Unlikely - actually no it's already happened in Wakefield where children's services happily placed numerous young boys into the hands of two male supposedly gay foster parents over a period of months. Every one of the boys was sexually molested.
As a result of this legislation more children will be raped and sexually molested - that is a cast iron fact, it's already happening. I have nothing at all against gay men who want to be parents. They are and always have been free to have a physical relationship with a woman in order to do so. I just don't think the framers or supporters of this legislation have appreciated how devious paedophiles are or how easy it is for them to pretend to be gay in order to gain 'ownership' of kids. Funny isn’t it that we deplore the death penalty because there’s slim chance that an innocent person might be put to death. But we gladly hand over venerable children to male couples knowing for a fact that in some cases that is going to result in them suffering a lifetime of unimaginable horror and sexual abuse?

[Calvin Pearson]

James states "The fact of the matter is that homosexual adoption results in an inordinate number of sexually abused children. Why isn't that enough?"
I would be very interested to hear of any studies to support this conclusion. On the other hand, there have been sufficient cases brought to court in the last few years to show being in heterosexual foster care or in a Christian orphanage are not necessarily a protection against psychical or sexual abuse.
Mr McLintock has a right to his 'conscience', but he has no right to attempt to inflict it on others.
As I understand it he was not dismissed but resigned because he couldn't match his 'conscience' with the oath he took when sworn in as a magistrate to uphold the law.
If he was not prepared to recuse himself from any case he felt unable to judge fairly because of his 'conscience' then the honorable thing to do was resign.
Unfortunately, it would seem that being honorable also offended his 'conscience', hence the tribunal.

[Mark G]

"The fact of the matter is that homosexual adoption results in an inordinate number of sexually abused children. Why isn't that enough?"

hmm in fact I think not Alfred.. the vast majority of child abuse happens within the wonderful hetero family many here think is the "ideal". As a gay man myself I have absolutely no interest in adopting children however I applaud anyone who does straight or gay. I presume from the tone of many replies here that the UK adoption agencies in all their forms will be inundated with calls from all the good hetero couples here wishing to save the poor children from a happy home with two queers.. or unfortunately probably not..
If you are not prepared to sand up and be counted yourself as a prospective adopter I really don't see how anyone here can criticise those who do. Really most of you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves..