Comments on: Anti-gay briefs ‘mischaracterized’ study

By: A change in tone in the campaign for marriage since the Convention | William Quill

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:02:51 +0000

[...] Republicans cited it in their brief against repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and Child Trends intervened there. Tired of this constant quotation out of context, they added a statement to the online version of [...]

By: Nichole

Nichole — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:17:06 +0000

As the S.C. reads this brief it must be wondering just how gullible Kerry Kircher and Paul Clement believe they truly are. By now the Child Trends research has been read by the S.C. and the context of these decisive findings seen for what they are: lies. Kircher and Clement are grasping for straws using the Child Trends study and if that’s the best they can do they’re going to lose the case.

By: Robben Wainer

Robben Wainer — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:45:01 +0000

Our children receive most of their education and upbringing from homosexual couples. I feel discrimination that causes such homophobia is not giving our children a fair chance. When I look back on those whose influence had the most impact on my reaching adulthood, homosexuality and homosexual couples were the inspiration that helped motivate my behavior.

By: Rex Equality Toltschin

Rex Equality Toltschin — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:03:37 +0000

Typical Republicans – Being Truthful, Not One Of Their Values. Lying to further their hateful agenda always more their style.

By: Anthony Noccolino

Anthony Noccolino — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 02:34:15 +0000

From everything I have read, the court could rule one of three way on this issue:
1) Rule in favor of prop 8 and keep the law as is.
2) Rule against prop 8 with a narrow ruling that say it is illegal in CA to keep marriage licenses away from gay people.
3) Rule that all anti-gay marriage amendments across the nation are invalid and that Gays and Lesbians do a constitutional right to marry and it is legal to do so nationwide.

By: Etaoin Shrdlu

Etaoin Shrdlu — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 02:04:16 +0000

The argument of the anti-gay marriage brief is utterly wrong. Aside from the fact that it is based on a lie (the misuse of a study which says NOTHING about gay parenting), it is both overly broad and underinclusive – two big constitutional no-no’s.

Overly broad because it allows “straight” couples to marry even if they are infertile, and therefore no different from gay couples. (Neither can “naturally produce offspring”.)

Underinclusive because while it allows one set of couples (heterosexuals) to have children by artificial means (even if the children will only be the biological “offspring” of one of the “parents”, or possibly even none), it would deny marriage to gay couples IN THE EXACT SAME SITUATION.

And, of course, it doesn’t deal with the issue of adoption, let alone those who don’t procreate, and don’t wish to.

In short, the argument has “merit” (if at all) ONLY if we made “natural procreation” a REQUIREMENT for marriage, declared all marriages void between persons incapable of it, and annulled all marriages where no procreation took place. That will never happen, of course, for obvious political reasons.

By: Michael Equality Barber

Michael Equality Barber — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:59:50 +0000

Did the researchers file an amicus brief explaining the lies of the Republicans?

By: Marco Luxe

Marco Luxe — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:08:31 +0000

Can Child Trends file an amicus brief disavowing the use of their study? Is it just up to the parties to note this in a reply brief?

By: Bj Lincoln

Bj Lincoln — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:58:39 +0000

Lets just hope that this is pointed out AGAIN in front of the SC and they have a chance to see for themselves what a bunch of liars looks like. Why do they think they can get something like this past the SC?
This is going to be the Prop 8 trial all over again. I just hope we get to watch this time and not have to wait for the play!

By: Scott Rose

Scott Rose — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:29:08 +0000

Family researchers include adoptive parents in the term "biological parents" when the child was adopted in the first two years of its life. In Perry v. Schwazzeneger (the Prop 8 case), the anti-gay side intended to use Loren Marks as an expert witness. But, Marks misused the term "biological parent" and under withering cross-examination admitted that family researchers do apply the term "biological parent" to adoptive parents. The anti-gay side then withdrew Marks as an expert witness.