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...

Double standards becoming a two-edged sword

Or something like that.

I have occasionally mused that a working definition of homophobia would be "pretending that every word you just said does not apply equally well to straight people." Double standards, of course, are not unique to homophobia. Racists were full of them: if whites didn't cry from pain, they were stoic, whereas if blacks didn't cry from pain, they didn't actually feel pain; if blacks committed suicide, they would be declared insane, but if whites commit suicide they're just curious; if whites slaughter people, they're bold and noble conquerors, but if blacks kill other people, they're barbaric savages; etc.

So it was with relish that I read part of the book Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954-1966 by historian I. A. Newby. Here Newby is discussing the book Race and Reason, A Yankee View by Carleton Putnam, which was widely and enthusiastically received by racists and segregationists (and is in fact still being sold by such organizations as American Renaissance). Newby's book was published originally in 1967, six years after Race and Reason.

One test of the cogency of Putnam's logic is to take his admonitions concerning Negroes and apply them to segregationists in Mississippi, among whom Race and Reason was well received. "The capacity for a free civilization involves many attributes," Putnam wrote, "self-control (which, among other things, includes resistance to emotionalism), self-reliance, self-responsibility, willingness to bear the burdens of others without casting upon others the burdens on should bear one's self, willingness both to accept the verdict of majorities and to concede the rights of minorities, willingness to obey the law even when it hurts, willingness to support rather than to raid a treasury, emphasis upon the importance of the individual." Judging by the recent history of race relations in Mississippi, most Mississippi segregationists are not notable for "self-control" or "resistance to emotionalism." Nor is "self-reliance, self-responsibility, [and] willingness to bear the burdens of others without casting upon others the burdens one should bear one's self" the best way to describe their exploitation of Negroes. The reference to a "willingness . . . to accept the verdict of majorities and to concede the rights of minorities" is even more to the point. Mississippi segregationists have shown little concern for the rights of the Negro minority in their midst, nor are they willing to accept "the verdict of majorities" in those areas of the state where Negroes outnumber whites. Like John C. Calhoun before him, Putnam forgot that there are several kinds of majorities and minorities, and to be valid a defense of majority rights must be applicable to all majorities and consistent with the rights of all minorities. The admonition to Negroes "to obey the law even when it hurts" is particularly ironic in view of Putnam's defense of Mississippi, a state which has systematically subverted or ignored not only the Brown decision but the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments and the civil rights acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965. Finally, it should be noted (according to the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service) that for every $218 paid by Mississippians in federal taxes, the federal government spent $327 in the state in 1959-61. And of every $1,000 in Mississippi income, $286 came from the federal government. It would seem that Mississippians do not always live up to Putnam's admonitions to support rather than raid the public treasury.

A great take-down.
Read more...

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Blaming the Victim Edition

Plessy v. Ferguson allowed "separate but equal" to remain the law of the land, and so for the decades that followed we had segregated facilities and institutions under the premise that they would provide equal comfort and utility to each race. This of course was a fantasy--facilities for blacks were regularly inferior to those for whites. Why did this happen? Let's ask Congressman Frank Clark of Florida:

While on this phase of the subject, Mr. Speaker, I desire to refer to the unsupported, bald declarations of gentlemen that negroes are not supplied with accommodations equal to those furnished to white people upon railroads in the South. Why gentlemen will persist in these statements I can not understand. Let me suggest something here that in all probability these gentlemen have never thought of. On our Florida railroads--and I presume it is the same in other Southern states--the cars furnished for negro passengers are just as good as those furnished for white passengers. I am free to admit, however, that they do not long remain as good, as comfortable, and as clean as do those set apart for white passengers. You will not have to search long for the reason of this change. The average negro is perfectly happy when he finds himself eating a watermelon or going on a railroad excursion. The railroad companies in the South cater to this weakness of the negro for riding on trains, and scarcely a week passes in the summer time that a negro excursion is not "pulled off" in every neighborhood. They flock to these excursion trains by thousands and of course the cars set apart for the negroes on the regular passenger trains are used for negro excursions.

Imagine a nice, new passenger coach, packed with dirty, greasy, filthy negroes, down South, in midsummer, and you can readily understand why that car does not long remain as good, as clean, and as desirable as a similar car occupied exclusively by white travelers. It is said of Sam Jones, the great Georgia revivalist, that on one occasion a certain Northern gentleman asked him if there was very much difference in the instincts of a "nigger" and a white man. Sam replied that he didn't know as to that, but of one thing he was absolutely sure, and that was that there was a vast difference in the "out stinks" of the two.

--Quoted in I. A. Newby, The Development of Segregationist Thought, p. 94

It was commonplace for whites to blame blacks for the discriminations whites inflicted on them, but it was rarely so blatant and so unabashedly declared.
Read more...

Any bets on whether the Supreme Court will now reverse their decision?

Recall last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that women must be protected from making decisions, based on... well, nothing at all?

"While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained," Justice Kennedy wrote, alluding to the brief. "Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."

Given those stakes, the justice argued, "The state has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed."

No reliable data, but we're gonna rely on this fantasy to write the laws anyways. Well done.

Well, once again, we find that there's no reliable data to support the existence of post-abortion depression.

No high-quality study done to date can document that having an abortion causes psychological distress, or a "post-abortion syndrome," and efforts to show it does occur appear to be politically motivated, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

A team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reviewed 21 studies involving more than 150,000 women and found the high-quality studies showed no significant differences in long-term mental health between women who choose to abort a pregnancy and others.

"The best research does not support the existence of a 'post-abortion syndrome' similar to post-traumatic stress disorder," Dr. Robert Blum, who led the study published in the journal Contraception, said in a statement.

"Based on the best available evidence, emotional harm should not be a factor in abortion policy. If the goal is to help women, program and policy decisions should not distort science to advance political agendas," added Vignetta Charles, a researcher and doctoral student at Johns Hopkins who worked on the study.

Of course, if the goal isn't to help women, then everything makes sense.

Via Feministing.
Read more...

A Christmas tradition I can get behind

Or maybe I shouldn't be behind it.

In Catalonia, as well as in the rest of Spain and in most of Italy and Southern France, traditional Christmas decorations consist of a large model of the city of Bethlehem, similar to the Nativity scenes of the English-speaking world but encompassing the entire city rather than just the typical manger scene. The caganer is a particular feature of modern Catalan nativity scenes, and is also found in other parts of Spain and southwestern Europe, including Salamanca, Murcia (cagones), Naples (cacone or pastore che caca) and Portugal (cagöes). Accompanying Mary, Joseph, Jesus, the Shepherds and company, the caganer is often tucked away in a corner of the model, typically nowhere near the manger scene. There is a good reason for his obscure position in the display, for "caganer" translates from Catalan to English as "pooper", and that is exactly what this little statue is doing — defecating.

Insert South Park reference here.

Via Pandagon, who takes glee in the fact that Bill Donohue is apoplectic over these little shitter boys.
Read more...

It was bound to happen

Representative Ros-Lehtinen received a phone call from President-Elect Barack Obama. And hung up on him.

When President-elect Barack Obama called Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen at her South Florida district office Wednesday, she hung up on him.

"I thought: 'Why would Obama want to call a little slug on the planet like me?' " Ros-Lehtinen said.

A short time later, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's designated chief of staff, called. Ros-Lehtinen hung up on him, too.

"I thought it was one of the radio stations in South Florida playing an incredible, elaborate, terrific prank on me," Ros-Lehtinen said. "They got Fidel Castro to go along. They've gotten Hugo Chavez and others to fall for their tricks. I said, 'Oh, no, I won't be punked'."

...

A man, who Ros-Lehtinen said sounded like Obama, got on the line and congratulated her on her reelection and said he was looking forward to working with her as the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs committee.

The conversation lasted just a minute when Ros-Lehtinen cut Obama off, telling him she wasn't falling for the hoax and that he was a better impersonator than the guy on Saturday Night Live.

Then Emanuel called, and she hung up on him. It finally took Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to persuade Ros-Lehtinen that the president-elect indeed wanted to talk to her.

"I asked Howard to tell me a private joke we share about colleagues in the House to make sure it really was him," Ros-Lehtinen said. "When he did, I realized it was the real deal."

Ros-Lehtinen said she then told Berman: "I know this sounds very presumptuous, but please tell President-elect Obama he can call me now and I will take his call."

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...