Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

Judged:

2

2

2

Pattysboi wrote:

fr anne:
>Marriage is not a right....<
It most certainly IS. Now, have mommy read it to you, and then grow UP. GLBT's only want AND DESERVE full and equal rights, which we do NOT "already have", so don't even go down that road.

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
While true that political pressure was needed to persuade the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their official list of mental disorders in 1973, the decision was based on years of scientific study and clinical experience traceable all the way back to Freud, who understood the stress homosexual people experienced was a result of the social condemnation and punishment they experience, not a result of sexual orientation itself. The reason it was listed as a disorder in 1952 was a result of unsupportable psychoanalytic theory, religious belief, and the anti-gay political pressure of the '50's, not science. Ironically, it was often the attempt to demonstrate illness that resulted in findings showing that being gay is a normal expression of being human for a minority of the population.
If science had not supported removal, there would have been no justification for every other mainstream medical and mental health organization to agree. And the growing body of evidence over the last 60 years only supports the finding that being gay is a normal expression of human love and bonding for a minority of the population.
Leave the irrational, scientifically unsupportable prejudice of 1952 to 1973 in the past where it belongs, and join us in 2012.

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Fortunately, the law recognizes that irrational prejudice is not a legitimate governmental interest.
"This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.
In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Judged:

3

3

3

Honest AbeL wrote:

It had absolutely nothing to do with 50 year old studies. It was simply a bleeding heart agenda and they should be embarrassed. Their theory was that homosexuals suffer to do societal pressure. This is pitiful logic because where does it end. The junkies also suffer from the same societal pressure as well as anyone who doesn't conform to societal norms. These same pressures can be felt by the slob down the street who is too lazy to mow his yard. Maybe we should all go a little easier on them too. It is a reduction in standards and expectations for the public in general.
<quoted text>

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is a summary of the relevant data:
"In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents, concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people, are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being."
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientati...
And two more that found they are just as good if not better:
"Overall, studies indicate that children raised with lesbian co-parents do just as well as children raised by heterosexual married couples. The children of lesbian co-parents may even have fewer behavioral problems and higher self-esteem." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35124737/ns/healt...
"Parenting by same-sex families is just as good -- if not slightly advantageous -- for children when compared to heterosexual families, a Justice Department study has concluded." http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story....

Judged:

2

1

1

shang guan rui en wrote:

<quoted text>
I see you queers are still pursuing your sick fetishes; fiendishly.
Let's see... you made a mockery of my credentials, the Catholic church, and how many states? The world is laughing and you're not the least bit embarrassed. I feel sorry for all American's not corrupted by sick fetishes. You gay pedophiles give them a bad name.

Judged:

1

1

1

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
Bulldinky

Judged:

1

1

1

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
More bulldinky

Judged:

2

2

1

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
Children need a mother and father.

Judged:

1

1

1

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
Spot on!

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Fails to refute the evidence presented.

The evidence shows the successful adjustment of the child depends upon the relationship between the parents and the child, not the gender of the parents. Yet denial of equal legal rights does not change the fact that many gay couples have children. Denial of equal legal rights only harms those families without providing any benefit to straight families.
Marriage equality does not alter straight family structure.
"As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Fails to refute the evidence presented.
In 2012, every mainstream medical and mental health organization agrees. Over 60 years of research has clearly demonstrated being gay is a normal expression of human love and bonding for a minority of the population. Your prejudice is scientifically unsupportable.

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Fails to refute the evidence presented.
In 2012, every mainstream medical and mental health organization agrees. Over 60 years of research has clearly demonstrated being gay is a normal expression of human love and bonding for a minority of the population. Your prejudice is scientifically unsupportable.

Judged:

3

3

3

Honest AbeL wrote:

That is simply amazing. The stress of being gay makes many jump off bridges, drink, do drugs, drop out of school, yet the children of gay couples are happy go lucky with none of these pressures.
<quoted text>

Judged:

1

1

1

Watchmann wrote:

<quoted text>
The 'Cinderella Effect' is a law of evolution, found relevant in all animal species. It is irrefutably proved in extensive studies, one that included families on three continents.
It makes the possibility of lesbian couples being equal to, let alone better than natural parents impossible.
Of course, common sense would tell most people that.

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
You are attempting to compare families that have experienced divorce and re blending to families where the relationship of the parents has remained intact for the life of the child.
Intact marriages are not the same as families of divorce and remarriage.
The preponderance of the evidence shows the relationship between the parents and child is the determining factor for success, not the gender of the parents.
Yet equal legal recognition for same sex families will not affect the rights or relationships of opposite sex parent families.
"What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
The stress of being bullied leades some gay people to self destructive behavior. If they are not bulliled, they don't experience problems, while others are able to cope with irrational prejudice and bullying with the help of supportive parents and friends. Many places in the country today have overcome the prejudice you continue to promote.
You are also confusing gay children of straight parents with the straight children of gay parents. Gay parents teach their children how to deal with irrational prejudice and bullying.

Judged:

1

1

1

Watchmann wrote:

<quoted text>
No such attempt at all. The evolutionary principle is a non-biological parent is over 100 times more likely to harm the child. The source of that non-biological parent in the animal or human kingdom is irrelevant.
Any luck with those 'studies'???

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you are comparing families of divorce and remarriage to families where the marriage remains intact.
This is not a valid comparison.
Yet we don't deny equal rights based on where the children come from.
"This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA.
But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.
Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.
What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."
Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...