A LANDMARK legal ruling which gives a lesbian couple the same parental rights as heterosexuals has been greeted with outrage from church leaders and family campaigners.

The women, who cannot be identified, won the parental rights over each of their two children, in a case which was heard in private at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

The women began their relationship two years ago and one, ‘Pam’, has a four-year-old son, ‘David’. The second woman, a 30-year-old teacher called ‘Natalie’, has an eight-month-old son, ‘Cameron’, who was conceived with the help of an anonymous sperm donor.

Sheriff Noel McPartlin agreed to give both women parental rights over each other’s children, after they found Pam could not give permission for Cameron to receive medical treatment.

David’s father did not contest the application, which means the boy now has three legal parents.

However, the move has sparked outrage from campaigners who claim the ruling could harm the childrens’ development and leave them emotionally damaged.

Valerie Riches, the founder of the group Family and Youth Concern, criticised the decision. She said: "This is morally wrong. Nobody is thinking of the welfare of the children. It is simply about the adults and what they want.

"Children need to have a mother and a father to feel safe in a secure family unit. These women may be able to feed and clothe these children but they can’t give them a normal childhood and proper upbringing.

"My concern is for the future development of the children. I am concerned for their emotional and sexual development."

A spokesman for the Catholic Church said: "To suggest same sex couples should have the same rights as married couples is a step in the wrong direction.

"Children brought up by both biological parents, who are married, are most likely to prosper."

Speaking to Scotland on Sunday, Natalie said she and Pam can provide a loving family for their children, just as a heterosexual couple could.

She said: "To me, family is about cohesion, about bringing people together in a secure, loving, stable environment.

"When David falls over he runs to one of us. When Cameron sees me or Pam, his face lights up. That is family."

The historic decision has been hailed as a "step in the right direction" by gay rights campaigners, who are encouraging more couples to take similar action.

Tim Hopkins, of the Equality Network, said: "We are delighted by this judgment because it offers the children of same sex couples the same stability and legal protection that children of married couples or unmarried couples can enjoy."

Wendy Sheehan, the lawyer who represented the couple, said: "Family is a broad concept that has to take into account the reality of who is caring for the child, not the biology of its parents."

Natalie and Pam claimed they did not intend to strike a blow for gay rights in Scotland, but wanted to make a stand for the rights of their own children. Pam said: "When we talked to people they said ‘wow, you are doing a great thing’.

"But we are not that interested in other people’s children. We are interested in ours and we want them to have the best care possible."

The case will now form the basis of an appeal by a lesbian couple living in Glasgow who recently went to court to prevent a gay sperm donor who fathered their child from gaining parental rights. They are contesting a decision by Sheriff Laura Duncan who ruled that the women did not constitute a family unit.

A civil partnership bill, introduced in January in the House of Lords by veteran antidiscrimination campaigner, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which would afford same-sex couples many of the rights enjoyed by married couples has been withdrawn to allow a select committee to examine the issue in the summer.

Jane Griffiths, a Labour MP, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Commons, with the government saying it had "an open mind" on the issue. Under a European directive, the British government must introduce anti-discrimination legislation across a wide range of issues before December 2003.