American Psychological Association Files Brief with the U.S. Supreme Court

Claims No Scientific Basis for Banning Same-Sex Marriage

The American Psychological Association in Washington, D.C, is the world’s largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States.  It is the world’s largest association of psychologists. Donald N. Bersoff, PhD, JD, said that the association has a long history of supporting equal access to legal marriage based on years of scientific research. “There is no scientific basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples particularly when research indicates that marriage provides many important benefits.  The research shows that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally, healthy, well-adjusted children.”

What the Briefs State

“Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples, form deep emotional attachments and commitments.  Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Empirical research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners largely resembles those of heterosexual partnerships.”

The briefs cite empirical scientific evidence that demonstrate that “homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality, is not chosen and is highly resistant to change. There is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted.”

How Conclusions Were Drawn

The briefs do not focus on one single study, but on general patterns.  They rely on the best empirical research available.  The studies in the brief were critically evaluated to assess their methodology, including the reliability and validity of the measures and tests employed, and the quality of data-collection procedures and statistical analyses.

Amicus Briefs Argue

“Friend of the Court” briefs filed in the cases of “Hollingsworth v. Perry”which challenges California’s Proposition 8, and U.S. v. Windsor, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act, state that denying recognition to legally married same-sex couples stigmatizes them.

Other Leading Mental Health Orgnaizations that Filed Briefs

The other mental health organization who filed the Windsor and Perry briefs were:  The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, California Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers, the New York City and New York State Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the California Chapter of NASW, and the California Psychological Association. 

Secure and Confident

When we were children most of us had a relative sense of security and confidence due to the stable environment in which we were growing up.  Our parents seemed to take care and watch out for us, provide food and clothing and whatever else we may have needed.  Overall, change and the disruption change causes, was minimal, leaving us free to simply worry about those things that children generally concern themselves with.

As we began to grow up and move ahead with our lives, change and it’s disruptive nature began to have more influence over us.  Going to school and dealing with all the peer pressure and issues related to trying to fit in and meet new people creates havoc in a young person.  It can foster feelings of self-doubt and insecurity.  Children can be cruel because they do not understand how what they say and the actions they take can adversely impact another of their peers.  For many, the self-doubt and feelings of insecurity are often times carried through to adulthood.

Clearly I am speaking from my own personal experience, and it may not necessarily be someone else’s truth.  However, I believe there are moments in our lives that we can clearly pinpoint that have had impacts upon us in our later years; both good and bad.

It is sad to think that something someone said or did to us as a child can have such influence over us in our later years.  It is unfortunate since the resultant insecurity instilled in us as a child seems to magnify and become much more onerous as we begin to deal with the more serious issues facing us as adults.  We then begin to hearken back to simpler times prior to the moment where we were “damaged.”  Doing so creates a sense of comfort within and a longing for a more stable time in our lives.

What is more debilitating than the insecurity itself, is the reaction to situations we face that cause us to live in the past and not deal with issues in a clear-headed fashion.  There is a tendency to apply former secure and stable states to our current situations, which may not be the most effective way to deal with a particular issue.

We have to understand that change is a constant. It will cause us to veer off track sometimes and make us feel inadequate and fearful of change itself.  However, we need to refocus our thought patterns to not rely on past truths that may not apply to our lives any longer, and embrace change and deal with situations in current terms.  While we can take solace and comfort in secure and stable states of the past, it is important that we categorize them as nice memories instead of the basis for which we interact in our contemporary condition.

I encourage you to create new paradigms of thought that reject past secure and stable conditions as the premise by which we try to derive solutions to current issues.  Instead, keep in mind that there are new secure and stable environments that will emerge based on the creation of new thought patterns that do not relate to former insecurities and their influence over us.

Yes, doing this can be difficult, as I have fell victim to clinging to the past.  I find myself becoming melancholy and longing for times from my past that were much simpler and easier to deal with.

Alas, the conclusion is always the same.  I eventually lift myself out of that state of mind, refocus on the situation at hand and simply deal with things in current terms in the most confident fashion I can muster.  You can do the same!

Recent Poll Released Show Voters Disagree with DOMA

Majority Find DOMA Discriminates

The Center for American Progress and Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD) released a poll on February 19, 2013 that found that an increasing number of voters think the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory.

Details of the Poll

The poll shows that 59% of voters are opposed to DOMA, the federal law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. As with other polls, this one proved that a majority of voters (52 percent) said they support marriage equality for same-sex couples.

The opposition to DOMA was highest among Hispanics (61%) and African-Americans (65%). Sixty-two percent agreed with the statement that DOMA is discriminatory. even though some were against gay marriage.

The poll results are based on live interviewer telephone survey conducted January 23-27 among 802 U.S. registered voters. The respondents were informed about DOMA, is the law prohibits the federal government from offering benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married.

According to Winnie Stachelberg of the commissioners of the poll, the Center for American Progress and Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, “ the findings of this poll should provide significant headwinds to LGBT advocates and allies and demonstrate to the Court that the thinking behind DOMA is outdated and indefensible.”

The Future of DOMA

Section 3 of DOMA has previously been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.  One of those cases, United States v. Windsor, will have oral arguments, beginning in March 2013.  The justices have agreed to hear the New York case filed by Edith Windsor who sued because she was required to pay a $350,000 federal estate tax bill.  The government, because of DOMA, does not recognize her marriage to her late wife Thea Spyer.

This spring, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Section 3 of Acts, which unfairly denied legally married same-sex couples the benefits and protections currently available to heterosexual married couples. Federal appeals courts in New York and Boston ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional – rulings appealed by the Republicans to the Supreme Court.

 

 

Mexican Supreme Court Declares Bans on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

Ruling Applies to Oaxaca

The Mexican Supreme Court on February 18, 2013, formally ruled that bans on same-sex marriage are “discriminatory and unconstitutional.” The court’s decision was actually made last December.

Decision Relies on Two Famous Decisions of U.S. Supreme Court

The court was unanimous in its decision that bans on same-sex marriage are “discriminatory” and “unconstitutional.” Mexico Minister Arturo Zaldivar Lelo de Larrea  invoked the two U.S. classic cases, Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education, to argue for marriage equality.  Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will follow suit next month with its Supreme Court considerations of same-sex cases?

The Oaxaca ruling:

The historical disadvantages that homosexuals have suffered have been well recognized  and documented: public harassment, verbal abuse, discrimination in their employment and in access to certain services, in addition to their exclusion to some aspects of public life.  In this sense…when they are denied access to marriage it creates an analogy with the discrimination that interracial couples suffered in another era.  In the celebrated case Loving V. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court argued that “restricting marriage rights as belonging to one race or another is incompatible with the equal protection clause” under the US Constitution.  In connection with this analogy, it can be said that the normative power of marriage is worth little if it does grant the possibility to marry the person one chooses.

It can be said that the other models for recognition of same-sex couples, even if the only difference with marriage be the name given to both types of institutions, are inherently discriminatory because they constitute a regime of “separate but equal.” Like racial segregation, founded on the unacceptable idea of white supremacy, the exclusion of homosexual couples from marriage also is based on prejudice that historically has existed against homosexuals.  Their exclusion from the institution of marriage perpetuates the notion that same-sex couples are less worthy of recognition than heterosexuals, offending their dignity as people.

Law Different from the United States

The Mexico Supreme Court can only strike down a law after ruling the same way in five separate cases.  This particular ruling only applies to three couples who filed suit in Oaxaca.  Two more same-sex couples from the state of Oaxaca will have to file a similar suit and then the process may have to repeat in other states.  So, it may take two more for any same-sex couple in Oaxaca to be able to wed easily.  This is a procedural issue, not a legal one.

Where Same-sex marriages are Legal

Mexico City already offers same-sex marriages that are legally recognized in other states. Same-sex couples can marry in Argentina. Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, and French Guiana are considering gay marriage.

Indiana Gay-Bashing Teacher Not Disciplined

Diana Medley Supports Alternative Traditional Prom

A special education teacher, , may be exercising her First Amendment Rights ( free speech), but her interview on February 10, 2013, has gone viral and ticked off a lot of people.  Medley’s comments came when parents, students and others met to talk about creating an alternative prom to protest school officials’ decision to allow a same-sex couple to attend the high school prom scheduled for April 27 at Sullivan High School in Sullivan, Indiana.

The meeting, at Medley’s local church congregation, was covered by a Terre Haute, Indiana television station which broadcast an interview in which Medley made comments disparaging gays. In the television interview, Medley, was asked whether she believed members of the LGBT community had a “purpose in life.”  She responded by saying that “No, I honestly don’t.  Sorry, but I don’t. I don’t understand it.  A gay person isn’t going to come up and make some change unless it’s to realize that it was a choice and they’re choosing God.”

Principal of Sullivan High School Distances Himself from Medley

Medley is employed in the Northeast School Corp, a school district also in Sullivan County (about twenty-five miles south of Terre Haute), but not technically in the Southwest School Corporation,district which includes Sullivan High School.

Says Principal David Springer of Sullivan High School, “ she’s been associated with us but that is unfortunate.  She doesn’t speak for us or represent us, or even work with us.” Springer believes the controversy started when two girls asked to go as a couple to the prom’s Grand March, an event where each couple is introduced beneath a spotlight to the crowd.

“We do allow two girls to walk out together, whether it be two friends or a couple,” commented Springer.  “It’s never been done before here because nobody ever asked.”

Since the story broke, the principal has received over 200 e-mails and responded to all. Some of the e-mail writers thought that school officials sought to exclude gays from the prom, but Springer set the record straight.

The Northeast School Corporation did not respond to calls or e-mails, nor did Medley.

Northeast School Corporation, Employer of Medley, Issues Statement

Mark A. Baker, Superintendant, released a statement on February 12, 2013: “I  would like to clearly state the Northeast School Corporation has never denied any student the right to attend prom or any other Northeast School Corporation-sponsored event due to their race, gender or sexual orientation.  This includes sports, plays, musicals and any other extra-curricular activities.  The Northeast School Corporation employee that was interviewed was expressing her First Amendment rights.  The views expressed are not the views of the Northeast Corporation and/or the Board of Education.

In regards to the story that WTWO aired on February 10, 2013, the Northeast School Corporation employee that was interviewed was expressing her First Amendment rights.

These comments were expressed during a Sunday community meeting at a local church and at no time was she representing the Northeast School Corporation.  The teacher was participating in a meeting with her local church congregation. “

Call for Discipline

Change. org has issued a petition with 15,000 signatures to demand disciplinary action.  LGBT rights activist Dan Savage called for her to be fired and accused the news station of editing their report to cast Medley in a better light. to which the news director replied that the story was only amended to correct inaccuracies in the original report stating that the school was banning gays from attending prom.  Other Indiana teachers want her to resign.