Jim Burroway of the Box Turtle Bulletin has created an excellent point by point analysis of the Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief from the Family Research Council to the Maryland Court of Appeals opposing same-sex marriage in that state. While one would expect such a document submitted to a court in order to influence a legal ruling might contain more substantial science, the FRC has sadly fallen back on the tried and true deception of propaganda instead.
The FRC cites five studies to describe gay male relationships, none of them remotely representative. Four studies are more than twenty years old (one more than thirty), conducted well before the AIDS crisis shook the gay community. Only one study is recent, but that “Dutch Study” is an AIDS study, not a “study on male same-sex relationships” as the FRC says it is. None of the “evidence” that the FRC brings before the Maryland Court of Appeals is valid. In fact, this portion of the FRC’s brief, at the very least, borders on perjury.
Thanks to Jim for his scholarly work, exposing yet another deceptive perversion of science by those who, sadly, seek to deny basic rights to others. It’s an easy read, informative and well worth your time.
Equality Maryland has a complete(?) archive of legal documents relating to Conaway v. Deane and Polyak, Equality Maryland and the ACLU’s historic marriage equality lawsuit on their website. That is if anyone out there would like some light reading.
The best I can see the briefs break down like this:
_______________________________________________________
Amicus Briefs for the State position:
_______________________________________________________
The National Legal Foundation
Knights of Columbus
James Q. Wilson, et al., Legal and Family Scholars
Association of Maryland Families and Liberty Counsel
American Center for Law & Justice, Northeast, Inc.
Senators Janet Greenip, Alex X. Mooney, and Delegates Don Dwyer, Jr., Patrick L. McDonough, Richard K. Impallaria, Tony A. Thornton Shewell, Joseph C. Boteler, III, Tony McConkey, Christopher B. Shank and Emmett C. Burns., Jr.
Professors of Psychology and Psychiatry
Toni Marie Davis
Alliance for Marriage
Citizens for Traditional Families, Family Leader Foundation, and United Families International
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Family Research Council
The Maryland Catholic Conference
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Maryland Chapter
Family Research Council
_______________________________________________________
Amicus Briefs for the Plaintiffs’ position:
_______________________________________________________
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, The Maryland Disability Law Center, Maryland Adapt, The National Council on Independent Living, The National Mental Health Association, The National Senior Citizens Law Center, and People for the American Way
Maryland Law Professors
Equality Maryland, Inc.; Families With Pride; Gay Fathers Coalition; Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center of Baltimore and Central Maryland; Maryland Lesbian & Gay Law Association; PFLAG Baltimore; PFLAG Columbia/Howard County; Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders; Human Rights Campaign; Human Rights Campaign Foundation; National Black Justice Coalition; and National Center for Lesbian Rights
Organization of American Historians; Bar Association of Baltimore City; Maryland Latino Coalition for Justice; Maryland NOW; National Lawyer’s Guild-Maryland; Public Justice Center; James & Colette Roberts; City of Takoma Park, The Women’s Law Center of Maryland, Inc.; Asian American Justice Center; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Freedom to Marry; Legal Momentum; National Organization of Women Foundation; Southern Poverty Law Center; and 34 Individual Historians & Scholars
The National Association of Social Workers, The Maryland Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Ellen C. Perrin, M.D., Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz
American Psychological Association, Maryland Psychological Association, Baltimore Psychological Association, and American Psychiatric Association
Dutch study? Are we being abused again for their purposes?
Mega kudos to Jim Burroway and Box Turtle Bulletin. I almost was reluctant to read his analysis fearing too much highbrow legalese but it was precisely what we need to read.
Rather, we, and the Maryland Court of Appeals need to read.
Eheh. Good luck with that.
Eheh. Good luck with that.
With any luck, the weaknesses of the research is known to the Equality Maryland lawyers, and they may have been able to work it into arguments. I would particularly think the argument that one does not make decisions about individuals using group averages or norms would be especially powerful.
Only one study is recent, but that “Dutch Study” is an AIDS study, not a “study on male same-sex relationships” as the FRC says it is.
This study really ticks me off when the “pro-family” movement uses it. I have about as much in common with 20-something party boys in Amsterdam as I do with a typical evangelical.
Well, there ya go people…
Those on the side of the plaintiffs represent a FAR more diversified compilation that actually involves all kinds of people.
Including TIME HONORED advocate groups known for their civil rights activism.
Any of you have any doubts that the opposition is likely heavily religious and mostly Christian?
And mostly straight males?
Let’s just say, it’s down to single characteristic discrimination.
The data, and empirical evidence is out there that gays and lesbians function as well as straight people DESPITE the history of threat and discrimination.
For them to use data from a period when it was illegal and criminally actionable to be gay, that would be a good case study.
If it’s something that only represents single gay men, or those who are already infected, that’s not a representative group of ALL gay men, let alone gays and lesbians who represent gay couples and parents.
That’s like me talking as a study interviewer to young blacks who have been convicted of violent crimes and then saying that all young black men are POTENTIAL criminals.
And there are higher percentages of blacks in jail than any other group.
They those facts can be placed before the court as proof or evidence about young blacks and the detriment they pose for societ.
Leaving out, of course, the part about prejudice and social isolation that cause law enforcers to be more paranoid about this group.
I mean DUH!
The learned ones who wear the robes on the bench in courts and are supposed to be a line of defense against this bullshit should be able to see this crap for what it is.
I can.
Since they’ve run out of anything that is proof positive that gay people are worse and will do worse than any straight person ever will…they will make something up.
Don’t they have this backwards?
Shouldn’t the gay folks be the plaintiffs?
It’s the other side that’s accusing gay people of being unfit for any protection and right that all other citizens have.
So why don’t THEY have the burden of proof?
somewhere there, I lost my train of thought on who is what as far as plaintiffs go.
My bad.