One of the huge changes in the USA during my 62 years of life is that our country made great strides in recognizing the legal rights of all to be treated the same and fairly.
The decision of the US Supreme Court yesterday that the Defense of Marriage Act (defining marriage as a heterosexual couple) was unconstitutional is another giant step ahead for the USA.
I watched my own profession of psychology go from antiquated views of homosexuality (as a mental disorder-disease) to taking official stances that homosexuality was not associated with mental illness, LGBT marriages were as “healthy” as heterosexual ones, and that LGBT couples could raise children who were as healthy as those raised by heterosexual couples.
Why did psychologists take those official positions? The answer is very simple: well-designed and executed empirical research made it clear that LGBT couples (married or not) were stable, healthy pairings of mutually attracted adults.
I congratulate my LGBT friends and colleagues for persisting in the long, difficult, and expensive fight for equality in the USA. Their achievement moves America much further ahead.
I await the day when all remaining discrimination is eliminated in the USA.
I disagree with the idea that all the research was well designed and executed. There are a number of factors that could effect the results of those studies and unless you read the specifics on every study that was conducted on this, there is no way you could concretely say that they were well designed and executed, or significant. I also do not believe this represents democracy or does it unify us just because everyone now has so called “equal rights”. The elected vote didn’t support it so they go and march up the steps of the supreme court to supercede the vote of the majority. It is ironic really, they complain that by not having the right to marry the same sex is a violation of their constitutional right yet they override and blatantly disrespect and ignore our constitution of a democracy to get their own way.Is an illusion that anyone’s rights were taken away; they never had the right to begin with so… I think this divides us more than anything because it is a political step. It is just a way to give to those interest groups more of what they want to secure a voter base. Just my two cents.
The American Psychological Association made its decision after more than 1,000 psychologists reviewed the research literature, 65 Divisions of the Association voted, and then 130 Council of Representatives voted. Some of the more prominent psychologists in the USA decided that the research supported the contention that same-sex marriages (partnerships) are as healthy (or unhealthy) as the typical heterosexual pairings.
Elected officials of the USA can vote for anything they want and pass legislation not consistent with the over-riding legal guidance of the Constitution. The Supreme Court justices are appointed for life after bipartisan confirmation of the US Congress and charged with determining whether laws passed by Congress are legal within the framework of the Constitution and 200 years of legal interpretation. DOMA was determined to be unconstitutional because it violated the rights of individuals to be treated in the same way.
To consider the LGBT community to be a single electoral constituency is not accurate. There are LGBT Democrats and LGBT Republicans. The passage of the DOMA law was supported by both political parties and signed into law by a Democrat president. Both major parties were wrong in voting for DOMA rather than interpreting the US Constitution correctly and protecting the rights of a minority that has traditionally faced huge amounts of discrimination. The Supreme Court corrected the error of the elected representatives.
And you do not think that out of those 1000 psychologists they were biased in any way? You don’t think the 65 divisions and these 130 council of representatives were biased at all in their decisions? What about their political motivations or their personal and professional lives that may have influenced their decision? I don’t think it is proper that these people along with politicians should be making decisions that impact society as a whole. I would like those opinions of those who voted nay on this issue.
They can pass legislation only if it is in line with the Constitution. The function of the Supreme Court is to ensure that those laws that are passed are Constitutional but only if the are brought forth as an “issue” so your argument that they don’t need that guidance is flat out wrong. The problem is the majority voted that they didn’t uphold the gay marriage act and so they take this to the Supreme Court to determine if it is Constitutional. Lawyers have overstepped our voting process taking ALL issues to the Supreme Court that have no business being there. In addition there is no Bipartisanship in the Supreme Court because if there was they would have respected our democracy upholding the decision of the majority. This in itself is unconstitutional and disrespectful to those people got up and went out and voted on this issue thinking their vote mattered. Does is matter anymore? Lets just do away with voting on issues and lets just let the “unbiased” Supreme Court make all the major decisions in this country. Actually this is exactly what they want.
I want to say too: you said they don’t need the overriding guidance of the Constitution, so your saying that this decision was unconstitutional since they did not use the constitution to make their decision. Essentially then the Supreme Court acted against the oath they took to make this decision based on the Constitution allowing only one thing to make that decision, their own personal bias.
as happy as I am the law was passed, i still find it hard to believe we have to legislate equality.