Once again the Bush administration reveals it has something else in common with the Muslim extremists it supposedly hates

Remember that U.N. resolution that the Vatican refused to be a part of? The one that called on nations to decriminalize homosexuality?

Well, apparently the U.S. is of the same opinion as the Vatican:

Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

...

According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction.

The hell? How is our twisted notion of federalism an issue? Because several states don't have measures banning discrimination against sexual orientation (nor does the federal government, for that matter), that somehow means that we need to accept other countries throwing gays in jail or slaughtering them? I can't even fathom how this makes sense.

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the U.S. — despite its unwillingness to sign — condemned any human-rights violations related to sexual orientation.

Except that it apparently doesn't. It seems just fine with letting countries sentence people to death or imprison them based on their sexual orientation. Or is that just not a human-rights violation? It's not like gays have rights or are human or anything.
Read more...

Separate but equal isn't equal? Who would've thought it!

New Jersey's Civil Union Review Commission has released their final report, entitled "Consequences of New Jersey's Civil Union Law." The result?

In its final report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, the state's Civil Union Review Commission concluded that the state's two-year-old civil union law doesn't do enough to give gay couples the same protections as heterosexual married couples.

"This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children," the report says. The findings of the commission's 13 members were unanimous.

The commission found that the rights afforded to those in civil unions were not always well understood, and that allowing gay couples to marry would alleviate the problem. For example, there have been instances when people in civil unions have been prevented from visiting their partners in hospitals and making medical decisions on their behalf, the commission found.

It's not like we couldn't have seen that coming. Still, opponents of gay marriage were outraged.

Gay marriage opponents criticized the report, saying the commission was made up of members who favored gay marriage and calling its recommendations predetermined.

"If you look at the membership of that committee, they're all advocates. It's an advocacy group," Pat Brannigan, the executive director of the anti-gay-marriage New Jersey Catholic Conference, said Tuesday. "It doesn't mean that that is the conclusion that society and people in general will come to."

People advocating for gay marriage after finding that civil unions don't work? People advocating for equal treatment of all their citizens? What a nefarious, conspiratorial plot! I'm sure they concocted all the evidence that civil unions aren't equal to marriage, and since only 10 of the people testifying before or writing letters to the committee were opposed to gay marriage, clearly the committee must have stifled all the opposing views that Brannigan assures us are there! Is there no evil to which proponents of equality won't stoop?

Oh wait... no. The committee

specifically solicited the testimony of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, the New Jersey Catholic Conference, the League of American Families and PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays). Of these groups, only the New Jersey Catholic Conference provided testimony in response to the invitation.

The report is available here (click on the graphic at the top--I overlooked it at first).

Skipping to the happy ending, the unanimous recommendations are these:

(1) The Legislature and Governor amend the law to allow same-sex couples to marry;

(2) The law be enacted expeditiously because any delay in marriage equality will harm all the people of New Jersey; and

(3) The Domestic Partnership Act should not be repealed, because it provides important protections to committed partners age 62 and older.

The opening section gives an illustration of some of the troubles involved with civil unions: one woman had trouble getting medical information on her partner while she was in the emergency room, because the doctor "did not understand, and hadn't heard of civil unions before". But, one might argue, wouldn't that go away with time? Surely people will come to understand civil unions and that they are "equal" to marriage. Probably not. The report points out that Vermont, which has had a civil union for eight years now, still has the same problem as New Jersey with people not treating civil unions as equal to marriage. So, they conclude, it's unlikely that this will lessen with time. As they quote later, "Time cannot and does not mend the inequality inherent in the two separate institutions."

But even if it would become truly equal (at least legally) with time, that still wouldn't be good enough. Echoing what we've been saying all along and agreeing with my pithy title, they say:

Even if, given enough time, civil unions are understood to provide rights and responsibilities equivalent to those provided in marriage, they send a message to the public: same-sex couples are not equal to opposite-sex married couples in the eyes of the law, that they are "not good enough" to warrant true equality.

This is the same message that racial segregation laws wrongfully sent. Separate treatment was wrong then and it is just as wrong now.

Bravo! This isn't hypothetical, either. The commission cites "mental health experts" who have demonstrated "the significant psychological damage caused by not recognizing marriage for same-sex couples." Treating certain people as inferior and not good as the rest of the population has damaging consequences. That was true 54 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, and it's true today. As one portion of testimony put it,

The socially sanctioned right of gay marriage which is qualitatively different than civil unions, the right to choose one's spouse, has a positive impact on self-esteem, sense of being validated in the eyes of the community, and on the internalization of ideas of commitment and responsibility to others, something that is sorely needed in our society currently.

In addition to psychological damage caused by being treated separately, there are tangible inequalities involved here (which of course only exacerbates the psychological damage from being discriminated against). For instance, even though 20 months have passed since this, insurers haven't gotten any better about offering insurance to people in civil unions. In fact, it may have gotten worse:

Since its first report, the Commission has gathered evidence that employers' invocation of ERISA has not lessened with the passage of time. If anything, the worsening economy seems to be encouraging employers to cut corners wherever they can, with equality for LGBT employees and their same-sex partners being among the casualties.

ERISA, the federal Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act, says that self-insured "companies which create their own insurance plans but may hire outside agencies to administer them are governed by federal law rather than state law." That means many of these companies invoke DOMA to deny benefits and insurance to people in civil unions. So one could logically ask, would allowing gay marriage in New Jersey change this? The committee says yes:

The Commission concludes that a marriage law would provide that remedy, despite the existence of a federal prohibition on the recognition of same-sex relationships.

As the Commission reported in its interim report, the marriage law in Massachusetts has led many employers in that state to ignore the ERISA loophole and provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands. The Massachusetts experience dispels any notion that so long as federal law does not recognize same-sex relationships, it would make no difference whether a particular state uses the term "marriage" or "civil union" to describe a same-sex couple's relationship. In fact, the word "marriage" can and does make a difference to employers, even within the constraints of federal law.

The report cites one person's testimony:

Adding civil union partners is virtually impossible to do at this time in this climate at the bargaining table. However, we already have benefits for married couples in our agreements. The key here, as is often in contracts, as you all know, is the language. Simply calling the joining of two people 'marriage' rather than 'civil unions' means we don't have to negotiate or rewrite the contract language....

The fact is that just changing the language 'civil union' to 'marriage' changes the situation, because everyone agrees that married people and their spouses are entitled to health insurance and pensions. It's already in our agreements.

Wanting something called "marriage" rather than "civil union" is not just nitpicking on our part. People understand marriage--it has huge cultural and social significance. This is not the case with civil unions. The Supreme Court for Connecticut recognized this:

Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means 'equal.' As we have explained, the former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the
latter most surely is not.

And of course, since most people don't really understand the concept of civil unions, they aren't going to treat them the same even though the law says they should, as was demonstrated by the woman who couldn't get information on her partner while she was in the ER. Nor was this an isolated incident:

In another case, a witness from Plainfield testified that when he was admitted to a New Jersey hospital for emergency surgery in April 2007, his civil union partner was not allowed to see him, and was removed by hospital security.

The report concludes this section,

This testimony demonstrates that the civil union law has resulted in economic, medical and psychological harm for a number of same-sex couples and their children. This Commission believes that as long as New Jersey maintains two separate systems to recognize the unions of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples and their children will face a challenge in receiving equal treatment. Under a dual system, these and future families will suffer economic, medical and psychological harm.

The Commission finds that even if all employers in New Jersey were suddenly to provide benefits to employees in civil unions equal to the benefits provided to married employees - an unlikely proposition in itself - such compliance would not cure much of the inequality perpetuated by the civil union law.

Further, even if some employers were to continue to invoke the federal ERISA loophole under a prospective marriage statute - notwithstanding the evidence from Massachusetts that fewer employers would invoke that loophole - a marriage statute would cure much of the harm perpetuated by the existing civil union law as reflected in the collected testimony.

The report also includes a section on the financial impact allowing gay marriage might have in New Jersey. While I don't disagree, and it might sway some people who otherwise would be unmoved (especially with today's economy), it feels degrading to have an issue of civil rights, equal treatment, and justice for all boil down to "it's profitable." Still, the legislature set this as one of their tasks, so I can't hold it against the committee. Actually, they pointed out something that I hadn't considered. I've heard some people argue against gay marriage because giving benefits to gay couples will raise expenses for the state, so it'll cost more, and that would result in higher taxes. But the report points out that just letting gays marry would probably be cheaper than setting up civil unions:

[M]arriage may lead to reduced costs in some instances. Joseph A. Komosinski, the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, testified that money would be saved because there would be no need to print alternative forms, and there would be one standard procedure for the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Dr. Gabel-Brett noted:

In these financial times, ... why or how can we waste state money, taxpayers' money, making forms, making changes, making a separate structure that has to be administered, for no other purpose than to set people apart?....

Every time you change a state program, whatever it might be, some benefit, some program, some eligibility requirement, you are going to have to change it in two parallel structures. You are going to have to spend more time sending out notices, changing websites, changing computer forms. So it is not going to end."

Finally, the report gets to a section examining the opposition to gay marriage. In response to the old "marriage must be between a man and a woman", they raise this point:

The Commission believes that it is precisely because marriage has a meaning in society beyond the legal concept of marriage that it should be offered to same-sex couples. The Commission has heard time and again how permitting same-sex couples to marry would make a qualitative difference in their lives and the lives of their families and has heard no testimony that allowing these couples to marry would harm opposite-sex couples who are married.

Indeed.


Via Pam's House Blend.
Read more...

Iowa case

I had thought about live-blogging the oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court today, but that didn't pan out--I had some errands to do around that time. Fortunately, KatRose at Pam's House Blend did it herself. And for anyone interested, there's video of the proceedings here.

This article kinda suggests that some of the justices (they don't really indicate how many) were hostile to the idea of same-sex marriage, because, they queried, wouldn't it lead to polygamy?

An attorney for six same-sex Iowa couples insisted that allowing gay marriage would not open the door to polygamous marriages, despite challenges from several Iowa Supreme Court justices.

Dennis Johnson, a Des Moines lawyer, said marriage would remain an institution of two people even if the high court allowed gay couples to wed. The assertion came in response to questions from several justices that gay marriage would open the door to other types of marriage.

"How do you stop?" asked Justice Mark Cady. "How do you stop more than two people from getting married?"

Johnson said a marriage "has always been well defined within the concept of two people," and that polygamy would change its historic meaning. Same-sex couples, by contrast, should have the right to marry because they meet all other requirements to wed, he said.

"This right is a time-honored right and tradition in this society," Johnson said. "What you see is that people have always had a fundamental right to marry. The court has made it clear. With more than two people, you would change the meaning of marriage."

Oh, swell. Looks like he botched it; that'll just lend strength to the people saying the exact same thing about same-sex marriage. And no, marriage has not "always been well defined within the concept of two people", you twit! Polygamy was the norm in most cultures on earth!

In my view, there's a fairly simple distinction (at least legally) between same-sex marriage and polygamy. Banning same-sex marriage means that gays can't get married at all, forever. This is not the case with banning polygamy--it's absurd to say that you're barred from the fundamental right to marry someone when the bar is that you're already married. It's the difference between a store giving out coupons that stipulate one per person per visit, and that store barring blacks from buying there at all.

Not to say that I'm really opposed to polygamy, mind. Frankly, I think the whole slippery-slope argument is absurd. If there's a reason to ban polygamy, then that should stand whether or not gays can get married. If there's no such reason, then why should it matter if gay marriage leads to polygamy?

Anywho. The state seemed mostly to be arguing a couple things: (1) that this shouldn't be decided by the courts--that is, they should defer to the legislature. Why, I can't understand (well, the legal rationale for that, I can't understand). The legislature isn't allowed to pass laws that contravene the constitution, no matter whether or not marriage laws are generally their jurisdiction or whether people really, really, hate gay marriage. (2) They were claiming that marriage is about procreation (snicker) and if gays can get married, then soon people won't believe that marriage is about procreation, and then they won't get married at all!

"We're saying that, after a generation, maybe two, people will see or could come to believe that if it's not necessary to have its biological father, or its biological mother, then what's the need for getting married?" Kuhle said.

...

Kuhle said that state support of same-sex marriage would teach future generations that marriage is no longer about procreation, one of its historic tenets.

How that works, I don't know. Most people don't enter into a marriage thinking "this is all about procreation" anyways. We let infertile couples and opposite-sex couples who have no intention of having children marry. And yet people still get married. Letting gays get married will just lead to more people marrying.

And if you're worried that parents should be married, for the kids' sakes, then let gay people get married! Gay people have children--the couples involved in this case have children! How can you say that you want them to be raised in a household with a married couple when you're fighting against that very thing!?

And what about foster homes or adoptive parents? Eh? Are they going to prevent people from marrying because they're not the biological mother and/or father? This is all absurd!

And (3), they were arguing that the trial court erred by not allowing the state to field some expert witnesses. They may have a point here. Or, on the other hand, the judge may have been doing them a favor, not listening to some of their expert witnesses. In fact, according to KatRose's transcript, the witnesses were "3 religion experts, an economist and one historian". Why any of their specialties should be needed, I've no idea... well, maybe the historian.

Also, according to her transcript, the attorney for the state at one point said (paraphrasing): "How can a woman teach a boy to be a man? How can a man teach a girl to be a woman?"

So we should take away the sons of single mothers, and the daughters of single husbands? Bah.

I should hope the court could see through all this vapid nonsense, but so few courts have before. Here's hoping.
Read more...

Gay marriage case coming up

In Iowa:

The gay marriage debate moves to the Midwest this week as the Iowa Supreme Court hears arguments in a challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

If the high court rules in favor of the half dozen gay couples who filed the lawsuit, it would make Iowa the fourth state behind Massachusetts, California and Connecticut to uphold the right of same-sex couples to legally marry. In California, however, voters have negated the courts by amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Iowa case has been moving through the legal system for more than three years, and it could take a year or more for the state Supreme Court to issue a ruling after hearing oral arguments Tuesday morning.

You may recall that District Judge Robert Hanson found the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional last year, which seems reasonable enough to me. No idea what the Iowa Supreme Court will think.

Anyways, you can listen to a live stream of the oral arguments tomorrow, 10 a.m. Iowa time, if you are so inclined.
Read more...

That's some papal bull right there

France recently has decided to propose a U.N. resolution that would call on governments to de-criminalize homosexuality, which every member of the European Union has signed onto already.

The Vatican, however, objects. Because if you can't turn gays into criminals, that discriminates against people who don't want gay marriage.

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

"If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations," Migliore said. "For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure," Migliore said.

...

Human rights groups say homosexuality is still punishable by law in more than 85 countries and by death in a number of them, including Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen. Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi said "no-one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals" but defended Migliore's comments, adding that the Vatican was in the majority on the issue.

"It's not for nothing that fewer than 50 member states of the United Nations have adhered to the proposal in question while more than 150 have not adhered. The Holy See is not alone," Lombardi said.

Uh-huh. They "don't want the death penalty or jail or fines" for gay people, but will object strenuously if you suggest doing away with them, and say that their position is correct because more countries than not do criminalize homosexuality.

This isn't about gay marriage. This is about people that hate gay people and want to deny them their rights, their freedoms, and their very lives. The Vatican apparently approves, and any objection to this is somehow discriminating against them.

Via Think Progress.
Read more...

The gift that keeps on giving

Remember George Rekers? The guy who practically single-handedly destroyed any case Florida might have had for banning gay people from adopting, despite ostensibly being on their side? It turns out this wasn't even the first time he's done that.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in an excerpt of proposed findings to the court, criticized the state of Florida for using Rekers as an expert witness even after he had been discredited in a similar Arkansas case involving gay adoption.

In 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled that the state did not have justifiable grounds to keep gays from adopting children.

The Arkansas court specifically said that "Dr. Rekers' willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court" and "Dr. Rekers' personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues."

Maybe he really is a sleeper agent on our side?
Read more...

Probably hate puppies, too

I'm sure this will be shocking to no-one, but it seems that people who oppose gay marriage are not fond of the recent ruling that banning gay people from adopting is, in the court's professional opinion, "completely fucking nuts" (okay, so she just said "irrational", but hey).

The former Miami-Dade County coordinator for the state's gay marriage ban amendment will meet with area pastors Tuesday to voice opposition to a recent court ruling allowing adoption by a gay man.

...

Advocates for gay rights and foster children praised the ruling while opponents blasted it, calling the ruling an attempt at judicial lawmaking. The state has said it will appeal the ruling.

Do you know why this is? Because these people hate happiness, love, and families.
Read more...

What the hell was Florida thinking!?

Ed Brayton has posted some excerpts from the court decision, and commenter noncarborundum provided a link to a PDF of the decision. It's a good read, and I'll post lengthy excerpts myself. It really is flabbergasting--I have no idea what Florida was thinking when they got their expert witnesses. Were they just the best the state could get? Probably; there doesn't seem to be any rational basis for banning gay people from adopting, so they have to resort to irrational witnesses to justify it.

Ed already posted the section about the state of the two children when they arrived at the household of their would-be adoptive parents, which is heartbreaking and monstrous. If I had read some of that in a work of fiction I would think the author were laying it on a bit too thick, but this is real--the elder brother, at four years old, would not speak, and was the one responsible for taking care of his four-month old younger brother (evidently because no-one else in their household cared to). So when people insist that children develop best when brought up by their biological mother and father, they are saying that gay parents are automatically worse than that.

But are they? Let's see what horrific neglect and abuses the boys were subjected to in this den on iniquity. Oh, before that, I should note that "Petitioner" is the man petitioning to adopt the boys, "John Doe" (the now eight-year old boy) and "James Does" (his younger half-brother). "Tom Roe, Sr." is the partner of Petitioner, and "Tom Roe, Jr." is his biological son, who's been living with them.

On weekdays, the household wakes up at about 6:30 a.m. Petitioner usually prepares breakfast, permitting each child to assist with an assigned kitchen duty. Each morning, the family eats together without distraction from the television. As each child finishes his breakfast, he puts his dish in the sink and proceeds to the bathroom to brush his teeth and hair. Petitioner and Roe purchased a Ford minivan, which Petitioner jokes was not his dream car, however, to accommodate the family size, is the most feasible. Tom Roe, Jr. is dropped off at school first. Afterwards, Petitioner takes John and James to school, walking them into their classrooms and usually speaking to their respective teachers. In the afternoon, after Petitioner picks the boys up from school, they generally go to the park for tennis lessons. At the conclusion of their lessons, the family heads home for dinner. At mealtime, the family blesses the food together and takes turns sharing the highlights of their day. Phones are not answered and the television is off during dinner. After the children are excused from the table, the older children load the dishwasher.

After dinner, the children spend one hour doing their homework. Although James does
not have homework, he spends time at the table pretending to do homework. John requires more supervision and one-on-one interaction to complete his homework. If a child finishes his homework early, the remaining time is spent reading. After homework is completed, the children are allowed to watch television. At bedtime, the boys retreat to their separate beds. By morning, however, James seems to always find his way into John's bed.

The family attends a non-denominational Christian church and have as pets, a dog, rabbit and kitten. John and James refer to Petitioner and Roe as "papi" and "daddy" respectively. John and James have lived in the same neighborhood, attended the same school, day care and aftercare since their arrival in the Petitioner-Roe home. As a result, each child has created friendships from school and in the neighborhood. John and James are closely bonded to Tom Roe, Jr., and their extended family. The boys consider Petitioner and Roe's parents, brothers and sisters their grandparents, uncles and aunts. The extended family sends the boys gifts for their birthdays and the holidays. Roe's mother, who lives in Tampa, visits the family regularly.

Here we see the nefarious gay agenda revealed: raising their kids, pets, going to church, going to work, taking kids to day care and school, etc. How depraved.

The ruling, after comparing expert testimony on both sides, concluded that same-sex parents are no worse than opposite-sex ones, despite what all the opponents of gay marriage would have you believe.

According to Dr. Lamb, there are three important factors that are predictors of healthy adjustment for children. One well recognized predictor of healthy adjustment is a child's relationship with his parents: a child is more likely to be well adjusted if he has a warm, harmonious relationship with committed, involved, sensitive parents. The second predictor is the relationship between the adults in the child's life. Children are more likely to be adjusted when the relationship between the parents is harmonious and positive. The third widely recognized predictor of adjustment is the resources available to a child. Children tend to adjust and better when they have adequate resources available and children who grow up in less well resourced homes are more likely to have issues with maladjustment. Providing additional insight into the development of the field in this area, Dr. Lamb points out that researchers once believed that traditional families provided the best environment for children. As the research developed, however, the notion was proven to be flawed, because the quality of the parenting itself is more important.

The witness testified that based on his 30 years of research and experience in the field, he can say with certainty that children raised by homosexual parents do not suffer an increased risk of behavioral problems, psychological problems, academic development, gender identity, sexual identity, maladjustment, or interpersonal relationship development.

Dr. Lamb's work is consistent with other studies of same sex parents indicating their
children are not more likely to be maladjusted. As such, pursuant to the witness' testimony the assumption that children raised by gay parents are harmed is not a reliable finding. In fact, it is contrary to the consensus in the field.

This, of course, anyone who really follows the subject would know. I was a little surprised to hear this, but it does make sense:

With regard to social relationships and peer adjustments, Dr. Lamb reports that children raised by gay parents develop social relationships the same as those raised by heterosexual parents. The research shows that children of gay parents are not ostracized and do not experience discrimination any more than children of heterosexual parents. According to the witness, children have always and will continue to tease and bully their peers about their parent's appearance, employment, ethnic background, parenting style, or sexual orientation. A child that
is teased views one reason no less hurtful than another. Therefore, Dr. Lamb concludes that the exclusion of homosexuals from adoption does not shield a child from being teased by his/her peers.

It's true. Children are vicious bastards, and that they're susceptible to teasing or bullying is not something unique to children of same-sex couples.

When the decision gets to discussing the 'expert' witnesses for the state, things get interesting. For starters, Rekers doesn't just have a theology degree, he's an ordained Baptist minister. There were also a number of interesting admissions.

Regarding relationship stability, Dr. Rekers proffered that homosexually behaving individuals have a substantially and significantly larger number of lifetime partners and maintain fewer relationships over a long period of time, partly due to the lack of recognizable legal unions and social support.

So they at least tacitly admitted that their own prejudices against committed monogamous same-sex relationships result in fewer committed monogamous same-sex relationships. And of course they use the fact that there are fewer of these to argue against allowing more of them. How this makes sense to them I don't think I'll ever figure out.

During Dr. Rekers' testimony, attention was drawn to his authorship of a St. Thomas Law Review article entitled "An Empirically Supported Rational Basis for Prohibiting Adoption, Foster Parenting, and Contested Child Custody by Any Person in a Household that Includes a Homosexually-Behaving Member" wherein the doctor heavily cited to the conclusions of a colleague who is sharply criticized as distorting data and was censured and ousted by the American Psychological Association for misreporting evidence regarding homosexual households. Although the American Psychological Association, has concluded that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual parenting, Dr. Rekers believes the Association's stance is political and not based on science. Dr. Rekers' much contested and hardly empirical article also cited to journals from authors who were neither psychotherapists nor social scientists.

When a judge is able to point out the deficiencies of your poorly-written article, you might want to reconsider your major.

Dr. Rekers astounded the Court when he testified that he favors removal of any child from a homosexual household, even after placement in that household for ten years, in favor of a heterosexual household. To this Court's further astonishment, the witness hypothesized that such a child would recover from the removal from his family of 10 years after one year in a heterosexual household. The Court finds this testimony to be contrary to science and decades of research in child development.

I shall consider "Dr. Rekers astounded the Court" to be judge-speak for "WTF!?"

The opinion also quotes in footnotes some excerpts from old books that Rekers wrote in his role as a minister. All these, I feel I should note, were from the early '80s (1981 & 1982), so maybe his views evolved some in the last quarter-century? But anyway, they include such titles as The Christian in an Age of Sexual Eclipse:

Within which, Dr. Reker's states, "Non-Christian psychologists often encourage their clients to do form their own values regarding sexual expression. In doing so, they mistakenly assume that they are providing the most appropriate and sensitive counsel. In reality they are tacitly creating an impression that the universe was constructed with no moral law inherent to the system, but God has spoken. God has given us explicit instruction as to what his moral laws are. The psychologist who recommends that a person simply define his own sexual values ends up not being an advocate of human freedom, instead he becomes a revolutionary, attempting to overthrow the moral laws of God. Instead of being helped, the client is therefore led down a fanciful path of alleged morality called, quote, liberation." p. 14;

"An honest scholarly search for the truth about homosexuality should not stop with psychological or medical information alone. Wise professionals should also consider evidence for moral truth as well. The bible teaches that people are foolish if they deny God's reality and live their lives as though he were not there…. What happens when psychologists and psychiatrists search for truth about homosexuality, but close the door to any possibility of information from the creator of the human race? What happens if scholars deliberately discard all moral evidence as irrelevant to their professional judgments? Roman's describes the consequences in suppressing truth revealed by the creator.... Those verses indicate that the existence of God is evident within each person, so psychologists and psychiatrists who proceed as though he does not exist are deliberately suppressing truth. To search for truth about homosexuality in psychology and psychiatry, while ignoring God, will result in futile and foolish speculations." p. 54-56;

Stating, "In my clinical training, as well as my experience as a university psychologist, I've been impressed by the devastating radical changes in sexual roles, which have occurred in America over the past 30 years. In the push and shove of these social changes, many kinds of individual problems have cropped up for men, women and children. Some unresponsive and insensitive husbands have failed to provide their problem masculine leadership in the home. Some women have allowed themselves to be sucked into the resulting vacuum, overstepping a more natural and supportive role in the home. This domestic upheaval has been labeled by many psychologists as the dominant wife syndrome. In other cases I've seen emotional or merely materialistic motives woe many mothers of preschool children out of their home and into the job market. This functional desertion has often caused serious emotional conflicts for their children.... Those who counsel people in distress have to be impressed by the clear correlation between the acceleration deterioration of the family unit, and the major changes that are taking place in our society's conception of the male and female roles. Could it be that the wholesale American abandonment of the God ordained male and female roles has brought upon our families a destructive force that will ultimately disintegrate marriage and family, if not soon reversed. I believe that the family will self destruct in direct proportion to its retreat from the biblically defined male and female roles." p. 12

So he's homophobic, racist (remember this is the same guy who supported banning Native Americans from adopting), and sexist. Bigotry trifecta!

There was also Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality:

Including chapters entitled, "The Truth About Homosexuality" "The Trap of Homosexuality" "Liberation from Homosexuality" "The Search for Truth About Homosexuality."

Within which Dr. Reker's states, "wise professionals should seek God's answer as well. When scholars disregard divine law, they deliberately suppress truth and result in foolish and futile speculations." p. 54.

"As a psychologist who has counseled scores of homosexuals, I have observed the pain suffered by individual homosexuals who have been manipulated by leaders of the homosexual revolt. Alone the homosexual seizes the deviance of other types of homosexuals, and he can even feel the need to change himself. But the homosexual leaders use the manipulative techniques of classic revolutionary strategies to achieve their own diabolical objectives, to the detriment of the individual suffering the effects of sexual perversion." p. 38.

"Homosexual activists seek to lure our children into a deceptive and destruction fantasy world that ignores the obvious physical, social and moral boundaries of sexual expression. Everything that the gay activists are working for stands diametrically opposed to everything concerned the parents stand for in seeking future family fulfillment for their children. Parents who are more aware of the tactics of homosexual activists will be better prepared to protect their own children, from the ploys of these enemies of normal sexual development." p. 40

And Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity:

Within which, Dr. Reker's states, "The gay liberationists have taken the deliberate ploy of pressing first for legislation to legalize the sexual behavior between two consenting adults. After they had succeeded in winning the emotional war of soothing the public's queasy feelings about homosexuality activity among adults, the next planned step of the gay liberationists is to press for an elimination of laws of age discrimination, (in the terminology of the rhetoric of revolt). This means that the Gay activists are now beginning to press for the rights of the children to engage in homosexual behavior with adults. This will be their battle to legalize pedophilia!" p. 89.

In a subsequent section the court also quoted from a law review article Rekers wrote:

In homes with a homosexually behaving adult, children are more likely to experience the stress and associated harm of an ill-timed sex education that is not timed to match the psychosexual development needs of the child, but instead exposes the child to information about males engaging in oral sex, and inserting penis' into rectums, at formative ages, when those mental images can become strongly associated with sexual arousal patterns, predisposing the child to developing anxiety about sex, a confused sexual identity, or homosexual behavior. Knowledge of specific abnormal or deviant sexual practices is more safely introduced after the child has had the opportunity to develop a stable and secure gender identity and psychosexual identity.

Given all this, the court rendered its verdict: a judicial "EPIC FAIL".

Dr. Rekers' testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers' beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.

Having scornfully dismissed Rekers, the opinion turns its searing gaze to the other expert witness for the state, Dr. Schumm--who, I find, apparently co-authored a piece with Rekers:

In another paper that he co-authored with Dr. Rekers concerning the authors' disagreement with homosexual practices, he wrote:

Within the limitations imposed by context, errors in translation and errors of individual interpretation, we prefer to accept the authority of the Bible as the best guide for sexual decision making, as well as for many other areas of life. We consider Scripture to be important, not because of tradition or institutional affiliation, but because after reasoned study, we make the assumption that they contain the wisdom of the Creator regarding the human condition and effective ways of relating to others interpersonally. In particular, we turn to the life of Jesus as a guide for our own value system.

And... oh my god, this is... well, just read:

When reanalyzing studies on outcomes of children raised by gay parents, he found some differences in outcomes as a factor of parental sexual orientation where the original researchers reported no differences (the null hypothesis). He suggests that his reanalyses, mostly unpublished, should be accepted over the analyses of well respected researchers in peer reviewed journals. Dr. Schumm admitted that he applies statistical standards that depart from conventions in the field. In fact, Dr. Cochran and Dr. Lamb testified that Dr. Schumm's statistical re-analyses contained a number of fundamental errors.

So, we've got shoddy methodology in unpublished papers performed by someone who's not a psychologist and distorts statistics "to highlight the truth of the Scripture", that's supposed to override well-done research that has made it into peer-reviewed journals done by actual psychologists. Is it just me, or does the judge sound less than impressed in this passage?

Oh my. And this is rich:

[Schumm] concedes to the possibility that some gay parents may be beneficial to some children. He does so despite his objection to allowing homosexuals in the military due to the ease with which they can have oral sex and his belief that, since homosexuals violate one social norm, they are likely to also violate military rules.

Uh, how does that work? Because gays "violate one social norm"--i.e., people don't like them--they're also criminals? Does this only apply to the military, or to other rules, too? Should we ban them from getting jobs because they'd break rules? Should we just round them up and throw them into the penitentiary because they're likely to violate the law?

All the evidence finally led the judge to conclude, in the section "Summary of Findings of Fact", that gay people and couples are no more likely to be horrible parents than straight ones, that this was supported by hundreds of methodologically-sound, peer-reviewed studies, and that this conclusion is the position of numerous professional institutions, such as Child Welfare League of America. In fact, the judge said outright that it was simply crazy to maintain otherwise:

As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.

Some of my favorite portions are in the section Conclusions of Law, though:

The challenged statute, in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect. Both the state and federal governments recognize the critical nature of adoption to the well-being of children who cannot be raised by their biological parents. There is no question, the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida's goal of providing dependent children a permanent family through adoption. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to meet their needs.

Hear, hear!

And later, when examining whether Florida's reasons for supporting the ban pass the rational basis test, the court finds that they don't:

The Department argues Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) is rationally related to Florida's interest by protecting children from the undesirable realities of the homosexual lifestyle. However, as thoroughly summarized in the Findings of Fact section of this Final Judgment, the foregoing is, frankly, false.

Obviously, in order to be considered rationally related to a governmental interest, the distinctions between individuals may not be based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Based on the statistics, there are no set of facts for which such a stated interest can be reasonably conceived of to justify the legislation. Fortunate for the Department, the government has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of the statutory classification. Here, the two witnesses proffered by the Department failed to offer any reasonable, credible evidence to substantiate their beliefs or to justify the legislation. Viewing the statute from this point of view clearly renders it "illogical to the point of irrationality."

...[H]omosexuals are no more susceptible to mental health or psychological disorders, substance or alcohol abuse or relationship instability than their heterosexual counterparts. Accordingly, such governmental interest does not justify the legislation.

Ouch.

The Department next claims that best interests of children are served by placing them in an adoptive home which minimizes the social stigmatization they may experience. Again applying rational basis review, this Court rejects the Department's attempt to justify the statute by reference to a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children. ... In this regard, the professionals and the major associations now agree there is a well established and accepted consensus in the field that there is no optimal gender combination of parents. As such, the statute is no longer rationally related to serve this interest.

I like it.

It would've been nice if the judge had decided that gays were a suspect class (at one point she mentions that she found California's argument that they were "compelling", but was bound by her state's precedents). On the other hand, it's even nicer that the law was considered on a rational basis level and still overruled. They couldn't even muster that much.

Read more...

Dammit New York!

I shouldn't be surprised when a politician decides not to follow up on a campaign promise, but this really irks me:

After a pledge from New York Democratic leaders that their party would legalize same-sex marriage if they won control of the State Senate this year, money from gay rights supporters poured in from across the country, helping cinch a Democratic victory.

But now, party leaders have sent strong signals that they may not take up the issue during the 2009 legislative session. Some of them suggest it may be wise to wait until 2011 before considering it, in hopes that Democrats can pick up more Senate seats and Gov. David A. Paterson, a strong backer of gay rights, would then be safely into a second term.

..

Mr. Smith, speaking about same-sex marriage at a fund-raiser for the Empire State Pride Agenda last year, was emphatic, saying, "We're going to make sure that happens in '08, when we take over the majority." He now avoids questions on the topic and instead gives a standard reply about the need to focus on the economy when asked about it.

Asked about when Mr. Paterson would like to see the Senate vote, the governor's communications director, Risa B. Heller, said, "For now and the immediate future we are focused on the state's fiscal situation."

Some people think it might not be feasible to pass the law now, rather than just be politically unwise to try:

Some Democrats are not even confident they have the 32 votes necessary to pass a same-sex marriage bill in the Senate.

The Democratic-led Assembly passed the measure last year by a sizable margin, but the Republican-controlled Senate declined to bring it to the floor for a vote.

And with a messy fight under way over who should be Senate majority leader — a fight threatening to fracture the thin Democratic Senate majority — even typically outspoken supporters of gay rights have become more measured about the issue.

...

Despite the fact that Democrats will hold 32 of the 62 Senate seats in the next legislative session, three dissident Democrats have not pledged their support for the would-be majority leader, Malcolm A. Smith. One of those senators, Rub&eacut;n D&iacut;az Sr., has specifically said he would not support a majority leader who would allow a same-sex marriage bill to come to the floor.

Grumph.
Read more...

Although I loves me some schadenfreude, this actually makes for a better birthday present

Remember that case I blogged about a few days ago? Well, the ruling came down yesterday, and the judge declared it unconstitutional:

Lederman, who overseas Miami's juvenile and child welfare courts, is the second judge this year to declare the state's blanket ban on adoption by gay men and lesbians unconstitutional.

In August, Monroe Circuit Judge David John Audlin Jr. wrote that Florida's 1977 gay adoption ban arose out of "unveiled expressions of bigotry" when the state was experiencing a severe backlash to demands for civil rights by gay people in Miami.

"Disqualifying every gay Floridian from raising a family, enjoying grandchildren or carrying on the family name, based on nothing more than lawful sexual conduct, while assuring child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, rapists and murderers at least individualized consideration," Audlin wrote, was so "disproportionately severe" that it violates the state and U.S. Constitutions.

In her ruling, Lederman said children taken into state care have a "fundamental" right to be raised in a permanent adoptive home if they cannot be reunited with birth parents. Children whose foster parents are gay, she said, can be deprived of that right under the current law.

"The challenged statute, in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and, in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect," Lederman wrote.

The judge added: "There is no question the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida's goal of providing [foster] children a permanent family through adoption."

In a ruling that, at times, reads more like a social science research paper, Lederman dissected 30 years worth of psychological and sociological research, concluding that studies overwhelmingly have shown that gay people can parent every bit as effectively as straight people and do no harm to their children.

"Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad," Lederman wrote, "it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic.

"The most important factor in ensuring a well-adjusted child is the quality of parenting," Lederman wrote.

The state is appealing, so this isn't fully settled yet, but it's still nice.

Via Feministing.
Read more...

Next up: America

For federal gay rights legislation, that is. After all, Australia did it:

The Australian government has passed legislation recognizing same-sex couples under a large number of laws, but the measure falls short of granting either marriage or civil unions.

The omnibus bill mounted its final hurdle Monday, winning approval in the Senate. The legislation passed the House in September. It still requires the signature of the Governor General, a formality, before going into effect.

The Same-Sex Entitlements Bill removes discrimination against same-sex partners in areas such as immigration, taxation, veterans' pensions and aged care. It also abolishes discrimination against children of same-sex couples by granting equal rights to both parents.

In total, it amends 68 Commonwealth laws.

Read more...

The word marriage has always been about unity, not gender

Alan Colmes, announcing that he's leaving the show Hannity and Colmes:

In announcing his decision, Colmes said, "I approached Bill Shine (FNC's Senior Vice President of Programming) earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network. Although it's bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I'm proud that both Sean (Hannity) and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years."

See? 12 years they were gay married, and nothing happened!
Read more...

Political hesitation to do the right thing irks me

More retired admirals and generals are asking for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.

...

"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.

...

The list of 104 former officers who signed the statement appears to signal growing support for resolving the status of gays in the military. Last year, 28 former generals and admirals signed a similar statement.

Larson, who has a gay daughter he says has broadened his thinking on the subject, believes a generational shift in attitudes toward homosexuality has created a climate where a repeal is not only workable, but also an important step for keeping talented personnel in the military.

"I know a lot of young people now — even people in the area of having commands of ships and squadrons — and they are much more tolerant, and they believe, as I do, that we have enough regulations on the books to enforce proper standards of human behavior," Larson said.

The officers' statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military.

Really, who could possibly think that preventing gays from being in the military--or rather, preventing the gays who are already in the military from being open about it--is a good idea?

Oh, right.

Via Ed Brayton.
Read more...

Family values in action

I love it.
Read more...

Invasion of the Booty Snatchers?

Apparently, the AFA has a new DVD out, entitled They're Coming to Your Town. "They" being gays, who apparently are not born naturally and grow up in towns all across the country (and indeed, the world)--one can only imagine that they spring up out of the cracks of the earth fully grown, in leather, and sporting a bad mustache. Or perhaps they have to climb out of the Stygian depths on their own, and in so doing sprain their wrists so that they are forever limp. Or perhaps they're reptilian aliens descending from the stars, infiltrating our cities to force gay people on an unwilling and otherwise completely heterosexual nation, thereby weakening our defenses and leaving us open to an invasion.

Feministing has put up a transcript of their commercial (as has the Friendly Atheist, with a few minor tweaks). They also have the YouTube video, so visit them if you want to watch it.

Man: They've come out of the closet.

AFA presents a look at how a handful of homosexual activists infiltrated the Eureka Springs, Arkansas government and changed the very moral fiber of the city.

Man 2: They're taking over a place that has been known for its Christianity.

Man 1: They branded us as fundamentalists, as Christian hate bigots -

Man 2: Once homosexual activists get into power, they're not too tolerant toward other people.

Learn the strategies used by gay activists and don't let this happen to your city. This DVD is a must-teaching tool - watch, and learn how to fight a well-organized gay agenda to take over the cities of America, one city at a time.

Man 3: If it hasn't happened in your town, get ready, because it is going to happen.

Show it at home, in Sunday schools, Bible studies and community groups. Purchase your copy, or a 5 pack to share with others today, and spread the news - They're Coming To Your Town.

Yes, once those evil homosexual activists get into power, they strip you of all your rights. How dare they! Don't they know that that power is reserved for Christians to exercise on them? They're getting it all backwards!
Read more...

Gobama

When it first released, there was some disappointment that Obama's policy website had very little to say about LGBT issues--nothing much beyond trying to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Well, it's certainly there now. The proposed policies are:

• Expand Hate Crimes Statutes


• Fight Workplace Discrimination


• Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples


• Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage


• Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell


• Expand Adoption Rights


• Promote AIDS Prevention


• Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS

The third one there proposes to repeal DOMA and institute civil unions federally. It's not perfect, but it would be a damn sight better than what we have now.
Read more...

I won't be holding my breath 'til then

CalLaw reports that the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenges to Proposition 8.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to take up the cases challenging the validity of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state. The court announced it will not stay the proposition pending its decision.

The court will address the following three questions in the cases: Is Prop 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? Does Prop 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution? And if Prop 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Prop 8?

The court called for briefs to be completed in January, and reported that oral argument may be held as soon as March.

Read more...

Gay rights aren't civil rights because gays apparently don't have rights

Well, this is a poorly-reasoned, vile screed attacking people who believe in equal rights. Let's take a look:

Homosexual marriage is not a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.

Oooh, a bad start. She's confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.

In fact, traditional marriage isn't even a civil right.

At least she's trying to be consistent, but she's only succeeding in being consistently stupid. Just because marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution doesn't mean that it's not a civil right. The Supreme Court itself has many times said otherwise--marriage is a fundamental right. To say otherwise is to prove how grossly ignorant you are--or that you're just lying for the sake of discriminating against people. Either way, it doesn't make for a good argument.

In San Francisco, signs of protest read: "Marriage is for everyone." No, it is not. With that logic, we could marry off children (say 8 or 10 years old) or "kissing cousins."

Apparently this writer's ignorance of the issue is worse than I thought. For starters, cousins can marry in certain states. Also, gay marriage wouldn't allow children to marry, because--the sign's literal meaning aside--all we want is to allow two consenting adults to have the same rights that other consenting adults have. Children can't marry because they aren't capable of consenting to something like that; nor can animals. [Edit] I couldn't think of the word before--I was thinking of "informed consent." [/Edit]

Marriage, as clearly defined through the ages, is between one man and one woman. You don't need a constitutional amendment for that - it is inherently implied commonsense.

No, it's inherent nonsense. Marriage throughout the ages has mostly been polygamous, when there has been marriage at all. Calling it "one man and one woman" is itself redefining marriage.

Another protest sign read: "No on Hate." Disagreement does not equate to hate.

True, but discrimination against a group usually does imply hatred of that group.

Opposition to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with discrimination and activists need to stop mixing the two. Whether a person's rights are violated based on discrimination is a wholly separate issue and should be handled that way.

This doesn't even make sense. Taking away a person's rights has nothing to do with discrimination? Since when? Oh, right--since gay people wanted their rights. See above about hatred.

Black civil and religious leaders - rightfully - have expressed outrage at the gay community's co-opting "civil rights" to include gay sex.

Hoo boy, here we go.

Blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged for their constitutional right to "sit at the table." Whites - gay or not - already had a seat at that table. There is no comparison.

Um, what? It wasn't until recently that laws were passed in many states preventing people from being fired for being gay--in some states that's still okay. Gays aren't allowed to serve in the military; they're not allowed to get married; it wasn't until five years ago that they were allowed to have sex. This writer is basically just trying to justify discriminating against gays on the basis that they haven't been discriminated against.

And adding in that "blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged" to obtain their rights... well, what of it? It's not as though gays haven't been killed, either (perhaps I'm being too hasty--given Wall's ignorance of everything else, she might not know about those). But let's think about this: she (among others) is basically saying that if you're not getting killed, you don't deserve your rights. So obviously, taking away black people's rights would be just fine, as long as you don't hurt them in the process.

Activists argue that, like skin color, gays don't choose their lifestyle. Even if, for the sake of argument, that were so, homosexuals are still "choosing" to get married. To compare voters denying what is not a right to blacks dying for what is - is beyond the pale.

Just like blacks were "choosing" to get white jobs? Or go to white schools? Or live in white neighborhoods? The exercising of civil rights is always a choice, and the civil rights movements were fought precisely to give people that choice, you insipid twit.
Read more...

God loves gay marriage!

It's conclusive now. California rescinds the rights of gays to get married (so much for rights being "inalienable"), and it immediately catches fire. Proof that God loves gay marriage!

Some, of course, have other ideas... but he also blamed the last one on gays, too.

Although... wait. Let's look at what Hartline is actually saying this time:

Each time homosexual activists attempt to force their agenda on California, there have been raging, massive, incinerating fires sweeping across the California landscape.

So God hates freedom of speech? If gays open their mouths, he'll burn down the state? Yes! We have blackmail material! Give us what we want or Elton John will serenade a swath of fiery destruction across the land!
Read more...

I don't know if I'm starting this blog back up or not

But I found that I couldn't resist commenting on this story. It's about a court case going on in Florida now over whether a same-sex couple can adopt a child--that's currently against the law in Florida. But, uh, they're having quite the time trying to justify that. To do so, the state has got two expert witnesses to testify that same-sex parents don't make as good parents, or that the environment is bad for children, or some such similar crap. As the state puts it:

Florida law bans gays from adopting. Valerie J. Martin, a Florida assistant attorney general who defended the statute, said same-sex couples are at far greater risk of many social ills, and "putting children who are already at risk into such a household would increase the stressors that these children already experience as a result of their placement in foster care."

Yeah. Being adopted by a same-sex couple is clearly worse than being in foster care or an orphanage or something. Those naughty, naughty gays.

Of course, at first blush, it looks like the expert witnesses might actually be experts in this area. They have impressive, and almost relevant, credentials in this area, at least:

At trial, the state's defense of the adoption law rested on the shoulders of two scholars -- George A. Rekers, a retired professor from the University of South Carolina, who taught neuropsychiatry and behavioral science, and Walter R. Schumm, an assistant professor of family studies at Kansas State University.

Impressive, no? And they were all saying that a household headed by gays would just be awful:

Rekers and Schumm argued that lawmakers were justified in excluding gay people from adoption because research shows that they are at greater risk of developing a host of impairments that can harm children, such as mental illness, alcohol or drug abuse, and the virus that causes AIDS.

Schumm testified that, based on research involving 2,847 children, the children of gay men and lesbians are far more likely to also become gay -- about 19 percent of children raised by gay parents, compared with 4 percent of children with straight parents.

Schumm said he was also concerned by a study that said that 47 percent of gay teenagers had seriously considered suicide, and that 36 percent had attempted it. "If a child is gay, lesbian or bisexual, this is, in some sense, a life-threatening issue," he said.

(As an aside, I'm not sure how that helps his case any... unless he's arguing in favor of banning gay teenagers, which he may be)

Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.

Depressed people, Rekers said, "are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs." Gay people, he added, "would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children."

The lives of gay people can also be stressful to children, Rekers testified. The children may experience teasing and bullying from other children who don't approve of their parents' orientation. And children with gay parents are likely to suffer from repeated separations because gay people are more likely to have multiple failed relationships.

Well, that's all technically true (except the idea that being raised by gay parents makes you almost five times more likely to be gay--I've never seen anything like that before, although it's true that kids of gay couples are more likely to experiment), but it also applies to people other than gays (recall my old definition of homophobia?). Groups that face institutional and society-wide discrimination are going to have more stresses than those that don't, and it wouldn't surprise me if studies indicated they had a higher incidence of mental illness, either. Are you going to ban blacks or other racial minorities, for instance, from adopting?

He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. "They would tend to hang around each other," Rekers testified. "So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things."

Oooooh....

Well, that's... um... at least he's consistently horrible. Or consistent horribly.

You may also be wondering, since every reputable study shows that same-sex couples make just as good parents as opposite-sex ones, who these guys are that they came to conclusions that no-one else does. Your cynicism shall not go unrewarded!

Under cross-examination, Rekers, who also has a theology degree, acknowledged that he taught and practiced psychology from a Christian perspective, and had written books condemning social science that doesn't recognize "the moral laws of God."

"To search for truth about homosexuality in psychology and psychiatry, while ignoring God, will result in futile and foolish speculations," Rekers wrote in a 1982 book.

In 2003, Schumm also said in a scholarly article that social science could be used to spread the word of God. "With respect to integration of faith and research, I have been trying to use statistics to highlight the truth of the Scripture," he wrote.

One of Gill's experts, Susan D. Cochran, a professor of epidemiology and statistics at UCLA, accused Schumm of cooking some of the data he used to bolster his argument. "This is taught in first-year statistics," Cochran testified. "I was surprised he would do that."

And one of Gill's attorneys, James Esseks, criticized Rekers for relying on the scholarly work of Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute, who was dropped from the American Psychological Association in 1983 after he declined to cooperate with an investigation into whether he had distorted research on gay people.

Uh, yeah. If someone relies on Paul Cameron, that's a good indicator that they're completely insane.

I should think this would be a very, very simple case for the judge.
Read more...