1. "Traditional Marriage should have preferred status because children do better when raised by a traditional couple."
2. "Homosexuals should be discouraged from living that way because it produces shorter lifespans, unstable life relationships, poor mental health, and a tendency toward molestation of minors."
3. "Homosexuals Choose to be Homosexual and Can Change"
   1. Biology of Sexual Orientation
   2. Ex-gay Ministries, "Cure" and "Choice"
4. "Gays are not affected by or entitled to the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection and religious freedom on the topic of marriage."
5. "If Gays and Lesbians are Allowed Equal Access to Civil Marriage, Pastors and Churches Will Be Forced to Conduct Marriages Against Their Own Religious Consciences"
6. "Gays and Lesbians Are Asking for Special Rights: Evangelical Christians and Heterosexual Working Families Face Political and Social Oppression, not Homosexuals"
7. "We Must Keep Marriage As It Has Been For Centuries, Even Thousands Of Years. Homosexual Marriage Is a Threat to Civilization"

Appendices

1. Position Statements by Professional Licensing Agencies on Children Raised in Same-Sex Households
2. Bibliographic References To Studies That Show The Well-Being Of Children Raised In Same-Sex Parent Homes.
3. Studies Affirming that Gays and Lesbians are No More Likely to Molest Children than Heterosexuals
4. Studies Affirming the Mental Health of Gays and Lesbians
5. Various Statistics on Gay Relationships
6. Studies Indicating Biological Causation for Homosexuality
   1. Neuroscience
   2. Endocrinology
   3. Genetics
7. Position Statements and Peer-Reviewed Studies on Change in Sexual Orientation
8. Studies on Attempted Suicide Rates Among Heterosexual and Homosexual Adolescents, and Victimization Rates of Gay and Lesbian Adolescents
9. Economic Differences Between Heterosexuals and Homosexuals: Hiring and Firing Data, Wage Differences and Health Insurance Issues

Endnotes

1) "Traditional Marriage should have preferred status because children do better when raised by a traditional couple."

There is no scientific evidence that being raised in same-sex families harms children. The claims made by pro-amendment testimony that studies show that children do best when they are raised by a man and a woman are not based on studies published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, nor is such testimony deemed credible by any professional licensing agency for social workers, mental health workers or health professionals. Each of these agencies, in fact, support the adoption of children by same-sex parents.¹

Studies published in peer-reviewed literature, thus those studies that have passed through the strictest standards imposed by scientists, show that children do not suffer on any measurable scale due to being raised by gay or lesbian parents. Pro-amendment testimony refers vaguely to studies that support their position. However, no such study exists in the peer-reviewed literature. The closest types of studies that support their position are those that compare single-parent homes to two-parent homes, and a single study that compared homes with a step-parent, with homes containing both biological parents. On the contrary, over 40 studies have been published from 1980-2005 in peer-reviewed literature that all affirm that children do equally as well in same-sex homes as in heterosexual homes.² This clearly meets the scientific "gold-standard" of study scientific reproducibility.

It is important to point out that even if there were evidence to support the allegation that children do somewhat worse in same-sex families, it would not be a sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. There is evidence that children in poor families and poor quality neighborhoods do not fare as well as those with middle and upper-class parents.³ Some studies suggest that adoptive families experience more difficulties than biological ones. These studies would not justify banning marriages or prohibiting adoption where the partners are poor. Further criticism has been raised on the issue or transracial adoption.⁴ However court precedent is that race cannot be a factor in federally funded institutions in the adoption process. The issue for the court is the best interest of the child--is the child (and the state) better off in a government facility, or with a family who can provide individualized attention and care, even if the social and economic position of the family is not "optimal?"⁵

2) "Homosexuals should be discouraged from living that way because it produces shorter lifespans, unstable life relationships, poor mental health, and a tendency toward molestation of minors."

As with the studies on children raised by same-sex parents, there are no peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate a difference in the levels of promiscuity, relationship stability, mental health, or lifespan of the homosexual. Specifically, there was testimony at the March 14th House hearing by a representative of the Indiana Family Institute (Ryan McCann) that homosexuals have a dramatically lower lifespan than heterosexuals. Such statistics are typically quoted from a study published by Paul Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute. However, Dr. Cameron has been ejected from the American Psychological Association and the Nebraska Association for falsification of data. Similarly, he has been censured by the American Sociological Association for misrepresenting himself as a sociologist, and misrepresenting the work done by sociologists. Further, in Baker v Wade, a Federal Court judge is quoted a saying, "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court. . . . There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron." ⁶

In this particular case, however, Mr. McCann (in personal correspondence to Indiana Equality) made it clear that he was not quoting this statistic from Paul Cameron. Rather, his assertion that gay men have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals comes from a study published by the International Journal of Epidemiology.⁷ In this study, the authors look at how the overrepresentation of HIV in gay men and bisexuals in Vancouver has shortened the lifespan of that specific population compared to heterosexuals in that city. This fact is not in contention. While it is true that men afflicted with AIDS had (as of the publication date of the study in 1997) a reduced lifespan compared to those not afflicted with AIDS the conclusion that Mr. McCann asserts is not valid that "all homosexuals" have a reduced lifespan. The only claim the authors of this study make is that the overrepresentation of AIDS in the gay and bisexual male population (making no reference to lesbians) has caused a decreased lifespan among that very specific population in Vancouver. They even specify that the results are due only to differential rates of AIDS and suicide, not from any other source. In addition to a clear misuse of the author's intent for this study, what Mr. McCann fails to describe is the worldwide epidemiology of AIDS, in which the vast majority of people who suffer from this tragic disease is heterosexual (possibly 80%), when one factors in non-Western nations (UNAIDS statistics, 2001). This differential rate is continuing to rapidly shift to larger percentages of heterosexuals, both in the non-Western and Western nations.

Moreover, what Mr. McCann fails to incorporate into his analysis is the literature that describes the increased rates of poor mental and physical health (especially rates of STD's) in minority populations in general, not just homosexuals (CDC STD statistics). The medical community attributes these differential rates of poor health to reduced access to quality, confidential healthcare due to socioeconomic factors, not inherently pathological properties of the minorities themselves (CDC Web site). Further, fear of social or economic reprisals (from family, insurance companies, their physician) if the homosexual were to "come out," prevent many gay men, bisexuals and lesbians from seeking counseling or appropriate preventative medical assistance, thus increasing their vulnerability. What is important to recognize is that the medical, social work and psychological communities attribute the problem to heterosexism and oppression of homosexuals, not inherently pathological states of the homosexual (see the various position statements by these organizations).

In addition to false claims of shortened lifespan of "all homosexuals," the claim is frequently made that homosexuals are sexual predators or are inherently mentally disordered. However, none of the licensing and professional organizations, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, give any credence to studies showing that homosexuals have a greater incidence of child molestation.⁸ Similarly, none of the mental health or social work agencies find any mental health differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and all of the relevant studies in the peer-reviewed literature support the mental health of the homosexual.⁹ As stated by the American Psychoanalytic Association, "Same-gender sexual orientation cannot be assumed to represent a deficit in personality development or the expression of psychopathology." Despite testimony to the contrary, the removal of homosexuality from the DSM as a psychopathology was not simply due to political pressure from radical gay-rights groups. The decision was based on peer-reviewed studies and decades of clinical experience with homosexuals.

As each of the organizations mentioned above affirm, gay and lesbian relationships suffer few if any differences than heterosexual relationships, despite severe impediments to their relationships from social and political structures that do not support their relationships, and culturally and religiously inspired rhetoric that teaches that their relationships and feelings are "perverse, unnatural and mentally ill." Despite these challenges, social science research shows the following:

1. 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship ¹⁰
2. Studies of older gays and lesbians show relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon ¹¹
3. In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following "break up" statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%, married heterosexuals=4% ¹²
4. Homosexual and heterosexual couples matched on age, etc, tend not to differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores on other standardized scales ¹³
5. No peer-reviewed study shows any credible evidence that homosexuals have statistically significant rates of promiscuity greater than heterosexual. ¹⁴

What these statistics indicate is that gays and lesbians are equally as interested in initiating and maintaining long-term, stable relationships as heterosexuals. This desire is made more difficult by the social stigmatization of gays and lesbians, and the rhetoric that gay and lesbian relationships are inherently disordered and unstable. Further, since social structures and institutions do not facilitate gay and lesbian relationships, it much more difficult for gays and lesbians to maintain stable families. For example, the rate of gay and lesbian relationship break-ups are about the same as those for co-habiting heterosexuals (statistic "C" above), each of which are dramatically higher than married heterosexuals. It is presumed by the professional mental health organizations that by granting homosexuals marriage rights, and/or social institutions that facilitate and affirm their relational capacity, the gay and lesbian break-up statistics would come to mirror the levels of married heterosexuals (APA Council of Representatives, 2004).

3) "Homosexuals Choose to be Homosexual and Can Change"

1. Biology of Sexual Orientation

   Theories of causation for homosexuality have shifted dramatically in the past 100 years. Early psychologists believed that early childhood trauma caused homosexual feelings to develop. Specifically, Freud proposed that a weak father and an overbearing mother caused a person to "stall" in the phallic stage of childhood development. Subsequent studies have shown there is no association between any parenting style or early childhood experiences that leads to homosexuality. According to the American Psychiatric Association

   No specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual. ¹⁵

   Rather, all of the peer-reviewed literature is converging on the opinion that sexual orientation has a strongly genetic causation. This is not meant to imply that sexual orientation is completely determined by genes. It seems there is a complex interaction between biology and the environment to produce sexual orientation. In insects, same-gender sexual mating is induced from altering genes alone, thus indicating a 100% biological causatoin for sexual orientation in simple species¹⁶. For lower mammals, like rats, same-sex mating behaviors will occur simply by putting a female "smell" on a male rat. "Lesbian" and "gay" rats, guinea pigs, sheep, zebra finches (just after hatching) and monkeys can be produced simply by altering prenatal androgen levels (natural hormones that bathe the fetus in utero) in the mother, in a process called behavioral defeminization and behavioral demasculinization. It is currently believed that

   In vertebrate model systems, a single [prenatal] factor-the steroid hormone testosterone-accounts for most, and perhaps all, of the known sex differences in neural structure and behavior. . . . Events triggered by testosterone masculinize the developing and adult nervous system, [to] promote male behaviors and suppress female behaviors. ¹⁷

   In the animal kingdom, same-sex mating, including life-time pairing, is not uncommon, presumably caused by mechanisms such as these. Hundreds of zoological studies have found evidence of such pairings in the wild¹⁸, including, for example, the widely publicized "gay" penguins in both the New York and Berlin zoos.

   In humans, socialization makes the development of sexual orientation much more complex. However, the prenatal biological process is identical. While, in most instances, sexual development of the body and the brain occurs without discrepancy, in some instances prenatal androgen levels change in the middle of this process, causing a dichotomy in the affected individual. For example, in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, the early process of physical sexualization takes place as expected in the female. However, later in development, the adrenal glands begin producing excess testosterone, causing the brain to become masculinized. Almost half of this population become homosexual or bisexual.¹⁹

   It is believed that similar processes are the cause of homosexuality in the general population. While the pro-amendment testimony is correct, that "there are no replicated studies proving that homosexuality is caused by biological factors," there is also no disagreement at this point in the medical, psychological and biological communities that biology is a crucial dimension to the process of human homosexuality, just as it is the sole cause of homosexuality in all lower species. There are no peer-reviewed studies that any longer explore purely, or even mostly, psychological causes for homosexuality in humans. The convergence of many decades of research, as well as theory, all point to, by far, biology as a primary factor in human sexual orientation. While we know that biological factors do not act as the sole cause of homosexuality, it is accepted as the primary cause. While many studies support this idea, there are no current studies that contradict this belief. ²⁰

2. Ex-gay Ministries, "Cure" and "Choice"

   A corollary argument by the pro-amendment group, to the inaccurate belief that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice," is the belief that homosexuals can be "cured" or that they can become heterosexuals. Highly publicized newspaper ads were taken out by various "Pro-Family" organizations the summer prior to the 1998 election, claiming that "reparative therapy" is successfully in helping homosexuals become heterosexuals. Because of this campaign, ex-gay ministry groups, like Exodus International, that had previously been low-key and focused on individual ministry, become politicized and psychologized. These support groups, however, much like similar support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, were never intended to be a political tool or a psychological weapon. The dynamics of these groups were radically changed for the worse after these events, if nothing else, because their message was warped into claims that they never intended to make.

   The ex-gay ministries have a history going back to the late 1960's, paralleling the rise of the homosexual rights movement.²¹ As parents of homosexuals, and homosexuals themselves, developed the social realization of the new phenomenon encouraging homosexuals to embrace and affirm their sexuality, these parents and individuals wanted counter-cultural groups to help them maintain their ideals of heterosexuality, despite experiencing "temptations" of homosexual feelings. They developed ex-gay ministry support groups in several parts of the country to help them cope with these feelings and act as accountability groups, since acting on their homosexual feelings were becoming more acceptable to the larger society, but not so for their personal moral systems.

   These ministry support groups were designed, like Alcoholics Anonymous, to help each other maintain celibacy, not to act as "cures" for homosexuality. Debates on whether or not homosexuals could become heterosexual threatened to split the early Exodus International movement. With the preponderance of evidence showing that no therapy attempted from the previous century, including electroshock therapy to genitals, aversion therapy where powerful emetic drugs produced projectile vomiting, behavioral therapy where the client was taught how to have sex with the opposite gender, and deprivation of food and water, Exodus took the official position that sexual orientation was not mutable: homosexuals cannot become heterosexuals.

   Twenty years following the American Psychiatric Association's removal of homosexuality from its list of psychopathologies, a splinter group formed who believed that "reparative therapy" would be able to cure homosexuals. Over the last 15 years this group, NARTH, has produced no evidence that any kind of therapy can consistently impact sexual orientation. Even one of the ex-gay ministry directors, a leader in scientific research on sexual orientation change, points to the scientific literature to show that sexual orientation cannot be consistently affected (though behavioral change is certainly possible, where a person is aided in his or her journey toward celibacy).²² Both the peer-reviewed literature, as well as position statements by each of the professional licensing agencies for mental health, take strong stands against reparative-type therapies, given the lack of evidence for efficacy, and the evidence of damage to patients who have undergone such therapies. ²³

   While the evidence currently points to a dynamic interaction between nature and nurture as the cause of homosexuality, there is vanishingly little evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through therapy. None of the evidence that does exist meets the standard of scientific reproducibility that the pro-amendment groups demands for the evidence of biological causation. In both cases, while evidence is not yet "fact" for either issue (change and biological causation), the evidence is convergent in both cases against the pro-amendment group, as well as is the official policy statements by all of the professional licensing organizations. Similarly, as is clarified by the position statements referenced above, no professional organization believes that homosexuality is a "choice", but is an orientation that becomes fixed very early in life.

4) "Gays are not affected by or entitled to the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection and religious freedom on the topic of marriage."

In the end, whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a biologically induced tendency is irrelevant. We know that certain forms of alcoholism are rooted in genetics, and that alcoholics have a dramatically increased chance of destroying families, as well as harming the welfare of their children. Yet it is unlikely we will ever see legislation barring alcoholics from marrying. Further, religion itself is quintessentially a choice. It is a choice that, throughout history, has been the root cause of the destruction of many communities: the Protestant Religious Wars of 1560-1715, the Crusades, the "witch" and Jewish persecutions throughout medieval Europe and colonial America, the Inquisition, the Roman persecution of the Christians (the Christian "atheists" refused to believe in the Roman pantheon of gods), Islamic terrorists, Bosnia, Kurdistan, the Tamil Tigers, Northern Ireland, Kashmir. . .

Whenever exclusionist religious factions have been allowed to take root in government power structures and supersede democratic principles of equality under the law, the entire nation suffers. This is precisely what John Stuart Mills was hoping to avert in On Liberty, when he warned against the "tyranny of the majority." De Tocqueville took up this refrain in Democracy in America.

Of all political institutions, the legislature is the one that is most easily swayed by the will of the majority. The Americans determined that the members of the legislature should be elected by the people directly, and for a very brief term, in order to subject them, not only to the general convictions, but even to the daily passions, of their constituents. . . . The majority in that country, therefore, exercise a prodigious actual authority, and a power of opinion which is nearly as great; no obstacles exist which can impede or even retard its progress, so as to make it heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. This state of things is harmful in itself and dangerous for the future. . . . In my opinion, the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their irresistible strength. I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the inadequate securities which one finds there against tyranny. ²⁴

De Toqueville and Mill's warnings directly relate to SJR07 on two counts. First, the Constututional amendment process is being used by the majority to limit the freedom of a minority group. The limitation is on equal protection and equality under the law. When the founders of our national heritage began the rumblings of revolution against Britain, one of the primary issues was taxation without representation. Though paying equal taxes, gays and lesbians are being denied the equal protections and rights of marriage.

While the Constitution itself does not explicitly define any "rights of marriage," the Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It would seem that banning same-sex marriage contradicts the intent of the Declaration's "pursuit of happiness" clause. Contrary to the testimony on March 14 to the House by the representative lawyer from the Alliance Defense Fund the decision to reverse the ban on interracial marriage was not based on the desire to protect the state's interest in procreation, but in the Fourteenth Amendment.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ²⁵

De Toqueville and Mill's warnings are currently in danger of being ignored by SJR07 on two counts. First, the Constututional amendment process is being used by the majority to limit the freedom of a minority group. The limitation is on equal protection and equality under the law. When the founders of our national heritage began the rumblings of revolution against Britain, one of the primary issues was taxation without representation. Gays and lesbians are being denied the fundamental right of marriage.

While the Constitution itself does not explicitly define any "rights of marriage," but the Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Given the reasoning by Justice Earl Warren for the decision to reverse state bans on interracial marriage, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,"²⁶ it would seem that banning same-sex marriage contradicts the intent of the Declaration's "pursuit of happiness" clause. Contrary to the testimony on March 14 to the House by the representative lawyer from the Alliance Defense Fund that the decision was based on the desire to protect the state's interest in procreation, Justice Warren roots the decision in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The question of banning same-sex marriage by the process of a Constitutional amendment would seem to mirror Colorado's attempt to ban anti-discrimination laws for gay and lesbian citizens in 1992. The United States Supreme Court invalidated that state's amendment with the following rationale:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. ²⁷

SJR07 seeks to limit the freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The authors of this amendment seek to impose upon the Constitution a religious view that is neither universal today nor likely to be that of the majority tomorrow. Polls indicate radical differences in the opinions of those under 30 years old on the issue of same-sex marriage.²⁸ An 2005 ABC/Washington Post poll indicates that 55% of the population opposes same-sex marriage, while only 38% believe a Constitutional amendment is appropriate. However, 55% of those under 30 believe that same-sex marriage should be made legal. A 2004 Harris Poll report indicates that, while a minority of Americans approve of same-sex marriage (26%), the number has almost tripled in only eight 8 years (10%).²⁹ In a 2003 Gallup poll, 61% of those under 30 believed that same-sex marriage should be legalized, compared to 33% of those 30 and older.³⁰ Finally, according to an Indystar/WTHR poll in 2004, while only 19% of all Hoosiers support gay marriage, "nearly two out of three under the age of 35 support some type of legal recognition."³¹

What this amendment does is subverts the separation of powers, enacting the precise fear that de Tocqueville describes. The tyranny of the majority is guiding Hoosier law, by directing legislators to follow the "daily passions of their constituents." While today gay marriage is not supported by the majority of Hoosiers, in the next generation it may. Or the Indiana Supreme Court may rule, as did the United States Supreme Court on similar issues, that preventing gays and lesbians from marrying violates the Fourteenth Amendment. SJR07 seeks to prevent the Supreme Court from protecting the minority of gays and lesbians from the "daily passions" of majority of citizens, using as a weapon the very document designed to protect the rights of all Hoosiers.

In addition to the issue of separation of Church and State, another issue looms even more forebodingly. The protection of civil liberties is the foundation of the Constitution. It is in the interest of all citizens to promote the equal protection of all other citizens and not to empower the state to discriminate constitutionally for or against any class of people. The irony of the position taken by the Christian-based conservative "pro-family" coalition, is that the very principle of denying the civil liberties of one group over another works to endanger the rights of future Christians. The process that is being enacted into policy with SJR07 is one that affirms the State's ability to discriminate against classes of people based on their religious and philosophical views. It would seem that it is in the best interest of all citizens, including conservative Christians, to affirm the traditional limitation of the intrusion of the State in matters of morality and religion. The most logical course of action for conservative Christians to take on this bill is the opposite of that which many have chosen: rather than fight for the affirmation of the equal protection for all people, they are choosing to fight to constitutionalize their religious beliefs, thus undermining the national shared value of civil liberties and institutional processes that protect them and gays from the "tyranny of the majority". ³²

5) "If Gays and Lesbians are Allowed Equal Access to Civil Marriage, Pastors and Churches Will Be Forced to Conduct Marriages Against Their Own Religious Consciences"

The testimony of many "pro-family" groups who oppose the granting of any "special rights" to gays and lesbians evidences a narrow view of the existing data, as well as misunderstandings of world events. For example, as I interviewed multiple participants of Eric Miller's "Advance America" group at the statehouse rally on March 8^th, on why they are so passionate about this issue, I heard from multiple people about how Canadian pastors have already been arrested for preaching against homosexuality, and that they are being forced to hire and marry gay couples. The fear is that these events will begin to occur here in the United States if homosexuals are granted rights of protected legal status.

However, such stories are patently false. There have been no reports of Canadian pastors arrested for preaching against homosexuality. In fact, the Canadian Hate Crimes legislation that was recently enacted to give gays and lesbians protection under existing hate crimes law, specifically exempts religious speech, or any speech that in good faith is believed to be true.³³ So far there has been one Canadian case, in which Hugh Owens took out a full-page ad with a picture of two men holding hands, with a large circle with a slash through it over their picture, followed by several bible verses that condemned such behavior. There was no clarifying text in the ads to explain Mr. Owens' intent. Mr. Owens was fined for the ads. A second case, in Sweden, occurred when Ake Green, a conservative pastor, preached a series of sermons against homosexuality. He was arrested and sentenced to one month in prison by a lower court. However, the Supreme Court overturned that conviction, stating that the priority is always given to freedom of speech.

The legal tradition in the United States is similar to that of the high decision in Sweden--freedom of speech, as long as it does not pose an immediate court's decision in Sweden--freedom of speech, as long as it does not pose an immediate danger to public safety, is always given priority. Churches have always been allowed to refuse to marry anyone they wanted, for whatever reason. The inclusion of homosexuals into marriage law or hate crimes legislation has never nor will ever undermine that right. Small businesses and religious organizations are always given exceptions in hiring practices when it comes to civil rights laws, affirmative action laws or other moral issues. There is little to no precedent in U.S. jurisprudence for overriding these freedoms by the inclusion of minority groups into protected categories. The fears shared by my interviewees, and the public rhetoric may be based in real fears, however, they are unjustified fears.

6) "Gays and Lesbians Are Asking for Special Rights: Evangelical Christians and Heterosexual Working Families Face Political and Social Oppression, not Homosexuals"

Two other specific examples of unjustified concerns are the claims that gays and lesbians are an affluent group who do not need economic protection, and that gays and lesbians do not need protections against community violence.³⁴ These claims are frequently followed by anecdotes of economic or physical attacks on Christians, evidencing a fear of massive cultural shifts in the treatment of Christians. These claims are not supported by either peer-reviewed literature or government statistics. The 2003 FBI crime reports list 1,239 attacks on gays and lesbians, almost double that from a decade ago. However, the same report lists only 49 attacks on Protestants, down more than 10% from the previous year. Considering that, at most, "out" gays and lesbians represent 4% of the population and that "out" Evangelicals are over a third of the population, it hardly seems credible that Evangelicals represent a threatened minority and the corollary claim that hate crimes against gays and lesbians represent spurious anomalies.

Rates of attempted suicide among gay and lesbian adolescents are as much as three times the rates for heterosexual adolescents. The rates of heterosexual adolescent suicide attempts range from about 4-15%, depending on gender.³⁵ The rates for matched homosexual samples are 20-35%, again depending on gender. All extant peer-reviewed literature confirm this rate.³⁶ Similarly, violence against gay and lesbian teenagers is dramatically increased over that committed against heterosexual teenagers. Several studies indicate that victimization rates for gay and lesbian youth are over seven times more likely to have been threatened or injured with a weapon, over five times more likely to have had property stolen or damaged at school, almost four times more likely to require medical treatment from peer physical abuse, and almost eight times as likely to have missed four or more days of school because of feeling unsafe.³⁷ Mental health professionals agree that the increased rates of suicide attempts among gay and lesbian adolescents is not a sign of increased mental disease, but a symptom if intense social pressure and discrimination.³⁸

Economic indicators also evidence discrimination against gays and lesbians. All of the studies in the peer-reviewed literature show that gay men earn less than heterosexual men, matched for other racial, age and education. The differences range from a 16-32% wage penalty for gay and bisexual men. While studies are mixed about the earning potential of lesbians compared to heterosexual women, several studies similarly indicate an economic deficit for lesbians.³⁹

Similarly, being honest about one's sexual orientation has a negative impact on one's ability to be hired. Studies show a 10-15% decrease in hiring invitation rates for lesbians, and a survey of medical facilities indicated that over 25% of employers would refuse to hire or promote a known gay and lesbian person, and almost 20% would fire them. As of 2004, gays and lesbians in 36 out of 50 states can be fired simply for being homosexual,⁴⁰ and 54% of New Yorkers report discrimination in housing, employment or public accommodation, and 27% report being called discriminatory names at work, such as "faggot" and "dyke."⁴¹

Since homosexual relationships are not legally recognized, most do not qualify for health benefits from their partners. Studies show that "data from married and unmarried couples in the Current Population Survey confirm that people with unmarried partners are two to three times more likely to lack health insurance than are people in married couple." This puts individuals in gay and lesbian relationships at permanent and immutable medical disadvantage, since they do not have the choice to "marry", as do unmarried heterosexual couples. ⁴²

7) "We Must Keep Marriage As It Has Been For Centuries, Even Thousands Of Years. Homosexual Marriage Is a Threat to Civilization"

Several proponents of the pro-amendment contingent referred to the idea that we must "keep marriage the way it has been throughout all civilization," presumably meaning that we should keep marriage the way it is currently practiced in the United States. However, if this is their intent, then they are grossly unaware of the history of marriage throughout civilization. Monogamy as the free choice between both the man and the woman, sanctioned and blessed by both church and state, is a fairly recent development, unique to the Western world. Defining the family as this marital relationship, and the household of the parents and children alone, is an even newer development.

Lynn Wardle, the law professor cited by the Morrison v Sadler case as a rationale for the necessity of protecting the procreation aspects of marriage⁴³ refers to this tradition as the "conjugal marriage:"

One of those cornerstone principles has, for more than 200 years, been respect for and special legal protection of the unique institution of conjugal marriage (the contractual, lifelong union of a man and woman). Some historians call it "republican marriage" because, in the Founding Era, it was understood to be the basic social unit necessary to inculcate civic virtue and nurture the individual and social values essential for the survival of a republican (representative democracy) form of government.⁴⁴

The contention by the pro-family groups is that marriage as we know it today in the United States is the way marriage has always been and it is the way marriage should remain forever more. Bypassing the question of how marriage should look forever more, the question of whether marriage has always been this way is a question of historical fact, one that can be verified or factually refuted. In this case, it can easily be factually refuted.

Some studies estimate that polygyny (multiple wives) has been the primary form of marriage in up to 83% of the cultures in history, with only 16% being monogamy.⁴⁵ Most marriages in history are characterized not in terms of romance and free-choice as we think of it in the United States, but as economic transactions: the selling of the daughter to the husband for a dowry or bridewealth.⁴⁶ Similarly, arranged marriage characterizes most "marriages" in history. None of these types of marriage, which are the true representations of "how marriage has always been," are the types of marriages that the pro-amendment groups are attempting to re-establish. Rather, what they are calling "marriage as it always has been," is really an attempt to reinforce the concept of marriage that they have grown up with and that became idolized and stereotyped in the media during post World-War II culture in the 1950's. While it is normal for people to want culture to adhere to the patterns of living with which one has become comfortable, it is ill-informed to assume, and subsequently claim, that this particular way of life characterizes all cultures in history.

It is more curious that the pro-family groups are using "the church" and claiming the long tradition of "church weddings" in defense of their positions, when in fact, the church has had an ambivalent relationship with the institution of marriage throughout its history. Wardle refers to marriage as we currently know it, as having been around for a mere 200 years.⁴⁷ Prior to that, the biggest step in the direction of the "conjugal marriage" as we know it today occurred when Pope Alexander III (1159-89 CE) issued a series of decretals on marriage, in which the church started to officially endorse the concept of marriage as we understand it, the free choice of the husband and wife.⁴⁸ It wasn't until 1215, during the 4th Lateran Council, that the church declared marriage a sacrament.⁴⁹ This arrangement, at least in practice, preceded the church's decretals, and that marriage in this form "owed as much to the traditions of the German tribes as to the practices of the Roman Empire, and it was from the middle of the eight century AD that it emerged in a recognizable form." ⁵⁰

Beyond these historical shifts, the church's theology of marriage has not always been what it is today. The pro-family groups claim that the church has always believed the family (meaning, marriage as we know it today in the United States) has been the core of society and of the Gospel, calling on scriptural metaphors for God as Father and the submission required of the Church "as a wife submits to her husband." However, the early and medieval church evidenced a strong ambivalence. While affirming the stabilizing influence of the institution of marriage, and agreeing that marriage is important to prevent sexual immorality (1 Co 7.9), they believed that celibacy was the ideal state for the Christian.

The Council of Trent (1563) provides an archetype for this position: "If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy,[15] let him be anathema."⁵¹ Traditionally, the church has "viewed the spiritualized household and the nuclear family with suspicion."⁵² The rationale behind this position is clear: both Jesus and Paul, while affirming the legitimacy of marriage for the Christian, both unequivocally affirm that celibacy and dedication of one's life to God is the ideal state for the Christian. Marriage is the concession for those who cannot keep themselves from having sex:

1 Corinthians 7.8-9 (NIV): Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Matthew 19.10-12 (NIV): The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

The early and medieval church accepted these texts at face value and encouraged celibacy for all Christians. Thus the position taken by the pro-amendment contingent is not so much an attempt to maintain marriage as it has always been in history, or even an attempt to maintain "Biblical" marriage (since, for most of church history, marriage has been viewed very differently than it is today, especially as concerns the ideal of celibacy, and the permissibility of divorce), but an attempt to maintain a modernistic and particularistic form of marriage.

A secondary claim of the pro-family groups is that, even though there may have been many forms of marriage throughout history, such as polygamy, marriage has always been between males and females, never between same-sex persons. This belief is also inaccurate. Native Americans have always accepted Berdache marriages, relationships between same-sex couples. There are examples of the early Roman Empire formalizing gay marriage, as seen in the highly publicized (at the time) marriage between Nero and another man.⁵³ Many references confirm the widespread nature of male-male unions, as seen, for example, in passages from Juvenal, Suetonius and Cicero.⁵⁴

A follow-up claim by the pro-family groups, to counter evidence from early Roman marriage, is that the acceptance of gay marriage accelerated the moral decline of the Roman empire that led to its fall and eventual destruction. However, it was actually "Christian" Rome that eventually fell, not "decadent" Rome. It isn't until the late 4th century that we start to see the cracks in Rome's foundations. Constantine converted to Christianity in 312, and shortly thereafter made Rome a Christian empire. When Rome officially fell in 476, Rome was thoroughly Christian. Histories of the late roman empire, like Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" compare the final 150 years of Rome to "George III's England, that is, to an age neither notably licentious nor notably prudish".

Part of this Christianization of Rome occurred with its own ban on gay. Constantine's sons issued the following edict in 342 "when a man marries [nubit] a man as he would a woman ... Those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to the most exquisite punishment." The term for marriage used here, "nubit" is the term used specifically for gay marriages (or at minimum it refers specifically to gay sex). In 390, Theodosius issued an even stronger edict that required the burning of homosexuals.⁵⁵ As for the fall of Rome,

Gibbon thought that its Christian rulers alienated Rome's sizable pagan minority and that Christian otheworldliness turned men from their social and military duties. Certainly the severity of Theodosius' legislation must have threatened citizens whose sexual lifestyles were nonconforming. With Rome's new Christian laws threatening public burning [of Pagan sacrifices], it must have seemed that her barbarian enemies could hardly do worse.

Considering these facts, one might perhaps argue with more plausibility that homophobia constituted the fall of the empire [than homosexuality]. ⁵⁶

Finally, it is worthwhile to mention that even within the church, the unanimity of heterosexual marriage is questionable. While there are no direct references in the Judeo-Christian scriptures to same-sex marriage, the early and medieval church apparently believed such practices were amenable to the Christian faith. John Boswell, former historian at Yale, attempted to demonstrate this in his two primary works. In his first he showed that the church did not initiate persecution and teaching against homosexuality. Rather, cultural prejudice raged against homosexuals and the church absorbed this bias and incorporated it into church teaching in the late middle ages.⁵⁷ In his second major work he provides evidence of same-sex unions in premodern union, including several early liturgies developed by the church to bless same-sex unions.⁵⁸ Additionally, archeologists have discovered early church burial plots for married couples that contain tombstones naming same-sex couples from the first and second century. ⁵⁹

Appendices

Appendix A: Position Statements by Professional Licensing Agencies on Children Raised in Same-Sex Households

1. American Psychiatric Association, 2002: "Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent. . . . The American Psychiatric Association supports initiatives which allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children and supports all the associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities which arise from such initiatives."
   
2. American Psychoanalytic Association, 2004: "The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation. On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."
   
3. American Psychological Association, 2005: "Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's. . . . Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children."
   
4. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."
   
5. National Association of Social Workers, 2005: "In coalition with mental health and other human services professions, NASW is working to help enact antidiscrimination legislation at the national, state, and local levels as well. NASW actively campaigns against laws that allow discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, primarily in immigration, employment, housing, professional credentialing, licensing, public accommodation, child custody, and the right to marry. NASW encourages the adoption of laws that recognize inheritance, insurance, same-sex marriage, child custody, property, and other rights in lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships."
   
6. United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Adoption Clearing House, 2000: "The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. . . . The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. ... There is no legitimate scientific research connecting homosexuality and pedophilia."

Appendix B: Bibliographic References To Studies That Show The Well-Being Of Children Raised In Same-Sex Parent Homes.

Appendix C: Studies Affirming that Gays and Lesbians are No More Likely to Molest Children than Heterosexuals

Appendix D: Studies Affirming the Mental Health of Gays and Lesbians

Appendix E: Various Statistics on Gay Relationships

1. Number of gays or lesbians in relationships
   2002 Faulkner A. 2001 gay/lesbian consumer online census. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, OpusComm Group, and GSociety.
   2002 Morris J. Developmental Psychology 16: 144-156
   1994 Bradford J. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62: 228-242
   1983 Harry J. Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.;
   1981 Peplau L. Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
   1979 Spada J. The Spada Report, New American Library Publ
   1977 Jay K. in The Gay Report, Summit Books

2. Length of gay relationships in older couples
   1984 McWhirter D. The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
   1981 Silverstein C. Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.
   1980 Raphael S. Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, "

3. "Break-up" statistics
   1983 Blumstein and Schwartz. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex; Morrow Publ.

4. Measures of satisfaction of gay and lesbian relationships
   2004 Peplau L. The family lives of lesbians and gay men. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 233-248). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   2000 Peplau L. The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 111-123). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   1986 Duffy S. Journal of Homosexuality 12(2):1-24
   1986 Kurdek L. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:711-720
   1982 Peplau L. Journal of Homosexuality 8(2):23-35 (see L Peplau-1991, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed by J Gonsiorek).1981 Cardell M Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:488-94
   1979 Dailey D. Journal of Sex Research 15:143-57

Appendix F: Studies Indicating Biological Causation for Homosexuality

1. Neuroscience

   Four areas of the brain are different between homosexuals and heterosexuals: the preoptic area ("sexual dimorphic nucleus"), INAH 3 and suprachiasmatic nucleus in the hypothalamus, and the anterior commissure. These are areas of the brain that are different between men and women. These areas of the homosexual male brain are much closer in structure to that of the heterosexual female, just as those in the homosexual female are similar to the heterosexual male. Similarly, cognitive tasks performed by males and females, indicating differences in lateralization and visuo-spatial aptitude, are paralleled in the differences between gays and lesbians and how they are similar to their opposite sex, heterosexual control groups.

   1999 Naeve. Brain and Cognition 41(3): 245-262.
   1992 Allen L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89: 7199-7202.
   1991 LeVay S. Science 253: 1034-37.
   1990 Swaab D. Brain Research. 537(1-2):141-8.
   1978 Gorski R. Brain Resarch 148 333-346.

2. Endocrinology

   While the neuroanatomical studies have been criticized, pointing out that early childhood and adult behaviors can change brain structure, thus possibly accounting for the changes in the brains of homosexuals, endocrinological evidence is not susceptible to such criticisms, since these factors apply only to the prenatal environment. Several anatomical and physiological features show that changes in utero androgen levels alter, at a foundational level, the homosexual's biology. Such factors include fingerprint patterns, handedness (left. vs. right), finger length, the way the auditory system functions and the way the endocrine system responds to various hormonal changes. Other replicated factors, such as birth order and homosexuality (later childbirths have predictable patterns of androgen levels) also factor well into the androgenization theory of sexual orientation.

   2000 Lalumiere M. Psychological Bulletin 126: 575-592.
   2000 Williams T. Nature. 404(6777):455-6.
   1999 Naeve. Brain and Cognition 41(3): 245-262.
   1999 Bogaert A. Archives of Sexual Behavior.28(3):213-21.
   1998 McFadden. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (March 1998): 2709-13.
   1998 Manning J. Human Reproduction. 13(11):3000-4.
   1997 Blanchard R. Annual Review of Sex Research. 8:27-67.
   1994 Hall J. Behavioral Neuroscience. 108(6):1203-6.
   1983 Dorner G. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 12(6):577-82.

3. Genetics

   Several studies indicate that directly manipulating a single gene in lower species can cause same-gender mating behavior. Other studies have shown a positive (though not complete) correlation between certain genes and homosexuality in humans. Other studies show similar, though again not complete, correlations between twin studies and homosexuality. Such studies show 48-52% concordance rates between maternal (monozygotic) twins and 16-22% concordance rates between fraternal (dizygotic) twins in relation to sexual orientation, dramatically higher than the general population (2-7%). Rates similar to fraternal twins have been reported for general siblings.
   While the claim has been made that these trends indicate parenting style more than genetics, such claims do not have explanations for the similarities between the statistics between the sibling matches. For example, if parenting style were the primary factor, then fraternal twins and maternal twins would have similar rates of concordance, since both are raised at the same time, in fairly identical environmental settings. It has also been claimed that since maternal identical twins are "genetically identical" there should be a 100% concordance rate if sexual orientation were truly biological. However, such claims ignore that while the DNA of such twins are identical, the expression of those genes is not the same, and is influenced by subtle differences between the prenatal bath of amniotic fluid between the two twins. For example, despite the genetic identity between the two, all twins still have anatomical differences that allow parents, as well as strangers to distinguish between them.

   2004 Hershberger S. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 33(5):497-514.
   2002 Coolidge F. Behavior Genetics. 32(4):251-7.
   2000 Kendler K. American Journal of Psychiatry. 157(11):1843-6.
   1999 Bailey J. Behavior Genetics. 29(2):79-86.
   1995 Zhang S. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92(12):5525-29.
   1995 Turner W. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 24(2):109-34.
   1995 Hu S. Nature Genetics. 11(3):248-56.
   1993 Bailey J. Archives of General Psychiatry. 50(3):217-23.
   1993 Hamer D. Science 261(1993): 321-27.
   1993 Pattatucci A. Behavior Genetics 25:407-420.
   1991 Bailey J. Archives of General Psychiatry. 48(12):1089-96.
   1988 Pillard R. Human Biology. 70(2):347-65.

Appendix G: Position Statements and Peer-Reviewed Studies on Change in Sexual Orientation

1. American Psychiatric Association

   1. "Reparative therapy," also known as conversion therapy, is a term that is used to describe treatment attempts to change a person from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of "reparative therapy" as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989).
      
   2. There are a few reports in the literature of efforts to use psychotherapeutic and counseling techniques to treat persons troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual; however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been replicated. There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person's deep seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex.

2. American Psychoanalytic Association:

   1. Same-gender sexual orientation cannot be assumed to represent a deficit in personality development or the expression of psychopathology.
      
   2. As with any societal prejudice, anti-homosexual bias negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism in people of same-gender sexual orientation through the internalization of such prejudice.
      
   3. As in all psychoanalytic treatments, the goal of analysis with homosexual patients is understanding. Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful efforts to "convert" or "repair" an individual's sexual orientation. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes.

3. American Psychological Association:

   1. Societal ignorance and prejudice about same gender sexual orientation put some gay, lesbian, bisexual and questioning individuals at risk for presenting for 'conversion' treatment due to family or social coercion and/or lack of information. Children and youth experience significant pressure to conform with sexual norms, particularly from their peers, [and] often lack adequate legal protection from coercive treatment. Some mental health professionals advocate treatments of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people based on the premise that homosexuality is a mental disorder, [though] the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media.
   2. Therefore be it . . . resolved that the American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, and mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation. ⁶⁰

Appendix H: Studies on Attempted Suicide Rates Among Heterosexual and Homosexual Adolescents, and Victimization Rates of Gay and Lesbian Adolescents

2001 Russell S. American Journal of Public Health 91(8):1276-1281
1999 Safren S. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67 (6): 859-866
1999 Garofalo R. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 153: 487-493
1999 Fergusson D. Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (10): 876-880
1998 Stronski- Huwiler S. Advances in Pediatrics 45: 107-144
1998 Remafedi G French. American Journal of Public Health 88 (1): 57-60
1998 Garofalo R. Pediatrics 101 (5): 895-902
1998 Faulkner A. American Journal of Public Health 88 (2): 262-66
1998 DuRant R. Journal of Pediatrics 133(1): 113-118
1997 McBee S. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 19: 143-155
1997 Jordan K. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 7(4):17-33
1997 Hershberger S. Journal of Adolescent Research 12 (4): 477-97
1994 Rotheram-Borus M. Journal of Adolescent -Research; 9 (4): 498-508
1994 Proctor C. Social-Work 39 (5): 504-13
1993 Erwin. International Journal of Health Services 23 (3): 437-453
1993 D'Augelli A. Journal of Primary Prevention 13: 245-261
1988 Troiden R. Journal of Adolescent Health Care 9: 105-113

Appendix I: Economic Differences Between Heterosexuals and Homosexuals: Hiring and Firing Data, Wage Differences and Health Insurance Issues

2004 Ash M. University of Massachusetts Working Paper 2004-13. "Separate and Unequal: The Effect of Unequal Access to Employment-Based Health Insurance on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual People"
2004 Capenter C. Contemporary Economic Policy 22(1): 78-94.
2003 Black D. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56(3): 449-469.
2003 Blandford J. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56(3): 622-642.
2003 Weichselbaumer D. Labor Economics 10: 629-42.
2002 Berg N. Contemporary Economic Policy, 20(4): 394-414.
2001 Allegretto S. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54(3): 631-46.
2001 Badgett M. Money, Myths and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2001 Clain S. Applied Economics 33: 37-47.
2001 Weichselbaumer D. University of Linz, Working Paper No. 0021, Department of Economics. "Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Hiring"
1998 Klawitter M. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17(4): 658-86.
1995 Badgett M. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48(4):726-39
1981 Adam B. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 18(2): 216-21.

Endnotes

1. see Appendix A for policy statements by these relevant associations and the US Department of Health and Human Services
2. see Appendix B
3. 2004 Burns B. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 43(8): 960-970.
2004 Curtis L. Social Science & Medicine 58(10): 1917-1927.
2004 Gyamfi P. Children & Youth Services Review 26(12): 1129-1139.
2004 Wu S. Child Abuse & Neglect 28(12): 1253-1264.
4. 1996 Curtis C. Families in Society 77(3): 156-165
1996 Smith J. Hypatia 11(2): 1-33
5. Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994: “MEPA is intended to decrease the length of time children wait to be adopted and to facilitate the identification and recruitment of foster and adoptive parents to ensure that families are available for children in need of placement”
6. 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 (N.D. Texas, 1985), p. 536
7. 1997 Hogg R, et al. International Journal of Epidemiology 26(3): 657-661. “Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men”
8. Relevant quotations are included in Appendix A; in addition, see Appendix C
9. See Appendix D for a list of relevant studies
10. See Appendix E.1
11. See Appendix E.2
12. See Appendix E.3
13. See Appendix E.4
14. Two widely accepted books have shown dramatically different rates: Bell & Weinberg (1981), and Edward Laumann (1994). But “any fool can write a book.” Without the peer-review process to catch flaws in methodology or statistical analysis, both of which plague these books, studies published only in book form are considered spurious. I point out the flaws in these studies in Sexuality and Culture 2002, 6(4): 109-118. “The Rhetoric of Heterosexist Scientists.”
15. American Psychiatric Association. Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues FactSheet. Dec. 1992.
16. 1996 Ryner L. Cell 87 (6): 1079-85. “Control of Male Sexual Behavior and Sexual Orientation in Drosophila by the fruitless Gene.”
17. 2004 Morris J. Nature Neuroscience. 7(10): 1034-9. "Sexual differentiation of the vertebrate nervous system."
18. 1999 Bagemihl B. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Saint Martin’s Press: New York.
19. Carlson N 2005 Foundations of Physiological Psychology. Pearson: Boston.
20. See Appendix F for the studies supporting biological causation of sexual orientation
21. 1998 Worthen F. Conference notes, Exodus International.
22. Rob Goetze, Director for New Directions Ministries, Canada. Presentation at Exodus International conference, 1998, and Web site: http://www.newdirection.ca/research/index.html. A summary of his combing of the peer-reviewed literature on this topic, shows that in the entire history of scientific attempts to change sexual orientation, with the perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who have gone through such therapies and ministries, there have only been a documented 45 people who have had a complete change in homosexual orientation, 86 people with behavioral change (meaning they still have only homosexual feelings, no heterosexual feelings, but are able to perform heterosexual acts), and 287 people who have achieved partial change in sexual orientation (meaning, they have experienced some diminishment of homosexual feelings and some increase in heterosexual feelings).
23. See Appendix G for position statements on attempts to change sexual orientation
24. 1990 De Tocqueville A. Democracy in America I.XV, p. 254-260.
25. 1967 Loving v. Virginia. 388 US 1, 18 L ed 2d 1010, 87 S Ct 1817
26. Ibid
27. 1996 Romer v. Evans No. 94-1039, Supreme Court Of The United States, 517 U.S. 620
28. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html
29. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=454
30. http://www.bpnews.net/photodownload.asp?ID=14195 (the 33% calculation is a gross approximation based on the ranges of 22%-40% from the other age groups)
31. http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/149233-8088-009.html
32. http://www.musingson.com/ccCase.html
33. Defense clauses in the Canadian Hate Crimes legislation

1. if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
   
2. if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
   
3. if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
   
4. if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

34. 1994 American Family Association publication, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths.
35. See Appendix H for studies on rates of attempted suicide in heterosexual and homosexual adolescents.
36. Only one peer-reviewed study contradicts this finding. Schaffer found that only 2.5% of his post-mortem study of adolescents who actually committed suicide were gay, lesbian or bisexual. However, since the study was done on post-mortem adolescents, it was not possibly to directly ask them their sexual orientation. The researcher had to rely on the assumption that the adolescent had shared his or her feelings with a parent, sibling or friend. In many instances, this assumption is unwarranted, given the amount of harassment that gay and lesbian youth face at school and knowledge that many adolescents are kicked out of their homes after “coming out” to their parents.
(a) 1995 Shaffer, D. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 25, Supplement: 64-71.
37. 1988 Faulkner (see Appendix H)
38. 1999 Fergusson (see Appendix H)
39. See Appendix I for studies on the economic differences between gays and lesbians, including hiring/firing practices, wage differences and health insurance issues.
40. 1994 Schatz, B. American Association of Physicians for Human Rights, “Anti-gay discrimination in medicine: Results of a national survey of lesbian, gay, and bisexual physicians.”
41. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force: http://www.thetaskforce.org/theissues/issue.cfm?issueID=18
42. See Appendix I
43. 2005 Morrison v. Sadler, Court of Appeals of Indiana, p. 15.
44. 2004 Wardle L. National Review Online Feb 17. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wardle200402170918.asp
45. 1967 Murdock, G. Ethnographic Atlas. U. Pittsburgh Press.
46. 2004 Salamone F. Encyclopedia of Religious Rites, Rituals, and Festivals. “Marriage Rituals”
47. 2004 Wardle L.
48. 1994 O'Day R. The Family and Family Relationships. New York: St Martin’s Press, p. 35.
49. 1994 Boswell J. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Random House, p. 178.
50. 1994 O’Day, p. 33.
51. Council of Trent, Session XXIV, Canons of the Sacrament of Matrimony, Canon 10.
52. 1994 O’Day, p. 43.
53. 1994 Boswell J. p. 80.
54. Ibid
55. 2003 Crompton L. Homosexuality and Civilization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p. 133.
56. 2003 Crompton, p. 151.
57. 1980 Boswell J. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58. 1994 Boswell J.
59. 1997 Abrahamsen V. Journal of Higher Criticism fall 1997, 4.2: 33-56
1990 D’angelo M. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion Spring 6.1: 65-86.