I fight on, says Christian JP who quit over gay adoption

Andrew McClintock, who resigned as a JP in the family courts after refusing to place youngsters with same-sex couples, spoke out at an appeal to an employment tribunal.

The 63-year-old is seeking to overthrow an earlier ruling which said he could not opt out of cases involving homosexual applicants.

This, he claims, forced him to resign to 'save his conscience' because taking part in such cases would require him to set aside his deeply held belief that children should only be brought up by heterosexual parents.

Speaking outside the tribunal, Mr McClintock, a father of four, said: "I believe that the welfare of vulnerable children is at stake.

"Placing these children with gay couples is an experiment in social science because we do not know what kind of impact it may have on them.

"Bullying at school because they have two dads or two mothers is just one likely outcome. They are being used as guinea pigs."

The appeal in London heard that Mr McClintock, who had served on the family panel in Sheffield for 15 years, resigned last year after being told he could not 'cherry-pick' cases.

His lawyer Paul Diamond said refusing to accommodate his wishes was discrimination by the Department-of Constitutional Affairs.

Mr Diamond, who previously represented Nadia Eweida, the British Airways worker suspended for wearing a cross, said: "Expert opinion is divided on whether it is in a child's best interests to be brought up by a same-sex couple.

"Mr McClintock believes if he placed a child with a gay couple he would not be fulfilling his statutory obligation to do what is best for the child."

He added: "He was put in the position where he was forced to step down. That cannot be acceptable. There cannot be a religious barrier to office."

The case is being viewed as a test of the Government's new gay rights laws, which make it illegal to discriminate against homosexual couples in civil partnerships applying to adopt a child.

Mr McClintock took his employers to a tribunal in Sheffield in January but it ruled against him in March.

Its decision was regarded by many as setting a precedent in which gay rights are regarded as more important than religious belief.

Adrian Lynch, for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, told yesterday's appeal that the department had given 'full consideration' to Mr McClintock's position, but had decided that judges and magistrates should not be allowed to decide which parts of the law they wished to apply.

A ruling by yesterday's appeal panel will be given at a later date.