Just a fortnight ago, the UK Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority in the United Kingdom, refused an application by the Health Minister, Edwin Poots, to overturn a decision by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal which ruled that legislation preventing civil partners from adopting in Northern Ireland was unlawful.

This move was a matter of last resort and will finally lay to rest a saga that seems to have spiralled out of control. The pitting of a substantial minority, the LGBT community and its supporters, against a Minister who wears his religion on his sleeve is a story that almost writes itself. The controversy was concentrated even further when issues of public spending came to light. The question on everyone’s lips was whether Poots was using public money to further his personal objectives which were themselves driven by a deep-set dislike of LGBTs. To phrase this differently: is Edwin Poots really homophobic?

There are various interpretations that can be employed in order to discern the motivations and objectives of the Health Minister throughout this controversial saga. Allegations of personal prejudices and abuses of democratically-obtained power have punctuated discussions of this game of courtroom tennis. One interpretation is that Poots has allowed his personal beliefs to dictate matters of public policy. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in convincing allegations of discrimination and homophobia. A corollary of such behaviour is that, for better or worse, Poots may have irreparably prejudiced himself as Health Minister and diminished whatever credibility he once possessed. To continue in a position of responsibility after having put personal values essentially on record as public policy, and to no end, would be reckless to say the least. All this even before considering the portfolio held by Poots – one which requires the appointed individual to tackle important moral questions including abortion laws, blood donation bans and care for the elderly.

It makes little difference that all these issues have arisen during Poots’ tenure and that controversy has surrounded each debate, often for the same reasons as it surrounds the current debate on same-sex adoption. To argue this point to its conclusion, the selection of a public representative for ministerial office who is unable to employ empirical research in the decision-making process and to open up to the possibility of compromise, is reckless. Those within the DUP, presumably the top brass, should consider the damage being done to the perception of government, of the party and of politics in general, when removing Mr Poots from his post.

An alternative interpretation, however, does require deposition. Throughout the debate on same-sex adoption rights, Mr Poots has warned of the damaging consequences of allowing children to enter into non-traditional family structures, which bring with them a greater risk of breakdown. Moreover, the Minister has tried to explain the social pressures that will be placed on such children throughout their early life. The common image which has been posited is that of a child being bullied for having two dads or two mums. This argument should not be roundly dismissed as mere conjecture. It is, let us not forget, the child that is being adopted who is at the centre of the debate on same-sex adoption rights. It is, therefore, important for all proponents of this ‘right to adopt’ (whether it has a legal footing is another matter) to consider the impact of adoption on the child and that if adoption by a same-sex couple is not in the best interest of the child, this should not result in a wave of anti-homophobic rhetoric which places Christianity and traditional values in the bull’s eye. This applies equally to married couples or straight co-habiting couples wishing to adopt.

There is, however, a growing concern (or at least there was before the Supreme Court’s ruling) that Poots was using his personal prejudices to allow his opinions, advice and statistical research to form a picture of same-sex couples as potentially selfish individuals who exhibit bad parenting and who are willing to destroy the family unit at the drop of a hat. Even if this were true (and I await the evidence to back this up), Mr Poots would be spared national condemnation out of a deep-set commitment to the rights and interests of the child. I think we can spare ourselves the uncertainty by noting one simple fact which was conveniently omitted from ministerial communiques and public discussions. The fact that a gay or straight man or woman is permitted to apply for adoption as in individual in Northern Ireland (subject to the criteria applied to all applicants) leaves the Minister’s actions open to only one conclusion. The argument that Poots is a crusader for childrens’ rights in Northern Ireland is rendered invalid unless he also makes a stand against ALL individuals who are seeking to adopt. The rationale, surely, is that if a couple cannot provide a stable home life for children, then what hope does an individual, regardless of their sexuality, have of doing the same. I am sure we can all guess the Minister’s response to this question and I would, perhaps, be forced to retreat with my tail between my legs and say that because of Mr Poots’ consistent approach to adoption rights, whether for individual or same-sex couples, whether for married or co-habiting partners, he is indeed a crusader by modern standards. The fact remains, however, that such an argument was never posited by the Minister and to do so now would be regarded as little more than backtracking and attempt to save face.

The extent to which Mr Poots will ignore rational debate and fail to engage in it is widely acknowledged. It would therefore be of no consequence that the Minister will protest his views till kingdom come. In my opinion, the Minister’s publicly-acknowledged views on homosexuality as well as further evidence of the implementation of such views in other matters of public policy – such as the lifetime ban on blood donations by gay men – paint an increasingly clear picture of Poots’ priorities as Health Minister. It is one thing to allow life experiences and professional expertise to influence executive decisions but it is quite another to let personal beliefs (whether religious, cultural or ideological) to act as the driving force behind public decision-making and with such little hope of compromise at that. Whatever we, as a politically apathetic nation have to say about political participation and good governance, we have to admit that even this level of willful blindness beggars belief. I know that I am not alone in my wish to see Mr Poots resign or be forced from office. However, I am also realistic enough in my expectations to appreciate the improbability of such a move despite condemnation from all other executive parties. My question, then, for my readers is this: what next? My advice – don’t hold your breath.