Defending Marriage: Update on the Evidence Judge Walker Ignored

Defending Marriage: Update on the Evidence Judge Walker Ignored






By Billy Atwell
Catholic Online

Court record reveals testimony alleging that gay parenting is harmful to children
The fight for Proposition 8 is not over. The appellate court will now review the evidence of the case in totality; something Judge Walker did not do. His lack of judicial discretion puts the lives of adoption-ready children at risk and puts 30 states unnecessarily in violation of this new federal decision.

Nationally, Californians and Christians are still reeling over District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's overturning of Proposition 8-a California voter-approved initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Twenty nine other states have marriage amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

One major issue that will follow behind the appellate court's approval of Judge Walker's decision, if this were to happen, would be the adoption rights of same-sex couples as married people. Though homosexuals are already able to adopt in many cases, the ability for them to do so as a so-called "married" couple would be another slide away from God's plan for human society.

Despite this decision, the fight for Proposition 8 is not over. The appellate court will now review the evidence of the case in totality; something Judge Walker did not do. In his opinion, Judge Walker made statements contrary to the evidence and testimonies before him, like, "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment" and "The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes."

It is important that we examine the testimony of experts in the trial to better understand what science says about the nature, definition, and purpose of marriage in society.

Dr. Michael Lamb, a developmental psychologist from University of Cambridge, admitted in the course of the trial that the "research clearly demonstrates that children growing up with two continuously married parents are less likely than other children to experience a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and social problems not only during childhood but also in adulthood" and that this "distinction is even stronger if we focus on children growing up with two happily married biological parents."

Dr. Michael Lamb admitted, "The advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents."

Dr. Michael Lamb admitted that boys without fathers are "prone to poor school performance" and fare worse in terms of psychosocial adjustment. Adolescent boys with and without fathers differ in self control and delinquent behavior as well.

Dr. Letitia Peplau (Professor of Psychology, UCLA) testified that, ".for gay men there's no association between sexual exclusivity and the satisfaction of the relationship, because it's not one of the markers or the yardstick by which gay men are measuring their relationship."

The evidence shows that biological parents, which obviously must be heterosexual, are a healthier fit for children than homosexual "parents." Further more, gay men, specifically, do not generally value monogamy. Since monogamy provides stability within the home that is vital to the emotional and psychological health of children, so-called same-sex "marriage" between men-at the very least-would not be a morally acceptable institution for raising children.

Part of the reason why the plaintiff's case was so weak in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is that psychological and sociological studies have yet to account for the cause of homosexuality. Making a scientific case for whether or not the homosexual orientation is natural or a perversion is instrumental in determining if adoptive children should be entrusted to their care.

According to an article issued by Dr. Letitia Peplau and Dr. Linda Garnets-both are from UCLA-to the Journal of Social Issues, "There is little evidence that biological factors are a major determinant of women's sexual orientation."

Likewise, according to the American Psychiatric Association, "To date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

To make things worse, the very definition of homosexuality was never settled, even amongst the immense amount of testimony and evidence presented. The reason for that is because there isn't one. There is no identifiable means of objectively identifying someone as a homosexual.

C. Gonsiorek and James D. Weinrich, who authored, The Definition and Scope of Sexual Orientation, wrote, "The question of precisely who is and who is not homosexual is itself controversial."

Similarly, Ilan H. Meyer and Patrick A. Wilson, of Columbia University, wrote, "But here lies the first problem for researchers of LGB populations: The population's definition is elusive."

It appears that our definitions of homosexuality might be based on presumptions, which never provide good standing for public policy. There is no way to grant marital rights to a group that has no definition.

Aside from the unscientific, uninformed, and illogical conclusions Judge Walker used in his final decision, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a public policy nightmare. He agreed that every state should adopt a definition of marriage that includes a group whose definition is unresolved, whose cause is unknown, and would perhaps harm the development of children entrusted to their care.

His lack of judicial discretion puts the lives of adoption-ready children at risk and puts 30 states in violation of this new federal decision. Let's pray that the appellate court will review all of the ignored evidence and testimony that was before Judge Walker, and will make the best decision for America, California, and children in the adoption system.