"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
Read Kennedy's majority opinionOdd. A search of the two rulings on that terms comes back negative...
Didn't say gay. Said person.DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution
Didn't specify gays. Specifically a "politically unpopular group" like Polygamists and other multiple marriage group advocates.The Constitution's guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare con- gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group
DOMA singles out class of persons deemed by State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty'...Like PolygamistsBy seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
No it wasn't. It was changed for political reasons. When it was removed from the DSM criteria it was not done so because of a scientific breakthroughYour knowledge of history is flawed, unsurprisingly. It was changed due to the results of research. Repeating the same failed definition is not going to make it right. I have not claimed a gay gene nor that being gay was a race, those are just random straw men.
Not Sick: The 1973 Removal of Homosexuality from the DSM | Mind of Modernity
The above link gives you a first-hand, contemporaneous folding of events. I suggest listening to the audio parts I, II.
A snippet or two..
… this version of events was discarded anyway. Discarded after the family went on vacation to the Bahamas to celebrate my grandfather’s 70th birthday. I remember it well. I also remember my grandfather stepping out from his beach front bungalow on that first day followed by a small well-built man, a man that later during dinner my grandfather introduced to a shocked family as his lover, David. David was the first of a long line of very young men that my grandfather took up with after my grandmother’s death. It turned out that my grandfather had had gay lovers throughout his life, had even told his wife-to-be that he was homosexual, two weeks before their wedding. And so in 1981 the story that my family told about the definition in the DSM changed dramatically.
According to Alix Spiegel, from the 40’s through the early 60’s, the APA was a very conservative organization, largely uninterested in “weighing in on the issues of the day.” In her interviews with psychiatrists who were members of the APA in 1970, when the forces behind the definition change began to take shape, she was told that the overwhelming majority of the APA believed that homosexuality was indeed a mental illness – “even the ones of us who were gay,” added Dr. John Fryer.
Well, written, and factual. Make of it what you will.While developments in medicine and advances in genetic study and different brain imaging technologies have no doubt increased the importance of being aligned with “science” when it comes to psychiatric debate, this is not a new phenomenon, nor was it new in the ‘70’s. At the same time, stories like this one makes it plain that the progress of certain disciplines may be driven just as much by personal and political factors as it is by actual scientific progress. I wonder if the removal of the homosexuality diagnosis in 1973 wasn’t the beginning of the end for psychoanalysis, as well as the first move towards the more standardized, symptom-based diagnoses of the 1980 DSM-III. This seems reasonable, considering that Robert Spitzer was chairman of the task force responsible for creating the new edition and directed the development of the revised edition published in 1987 (DSM-III-R).
As the APA prepares for the publication of the DSM-V in 2013, I believe it’s worthwhile to keep this story in mind. Some of the proposed changes seem to have more to do with a desire to remove a stigmatizing label than real “scientific” evidence. And like homosexuality, the pathology of which was for a many years assumed but never proven, the scientific understanding of some of the older DSM diagnoses is not particularly strong. Studying the history of psychiatry can’t necessarily prove or disprove the validity of a diagnosis, but it may help us to remain cautious as we go forward.
The truth in summation is that the science used to justify removing homosexuality from the DSM II consisted of ink blot tests, and a sample of 30 individuals that had no internalized homophobia. THAT, is a fact that no one can dispute!
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
So not using the term means the term is in there. Well done!
Read Kennedy's majority opinion
Didn't say gay. Said person.
Didn't specify gays. Specifically a "politically unpopular group" like Polygamists and other multiple marriage group advocates.
Prove it. Bet you can't.No it wasn't. It was changed for political reasons. When it was removed from the DSM criteria it was not done so because of a scientific breakthrough
There is no known gay gene. There is possibly a gene or more likely a set of genes that impact orientation, but that is conjecture at this point. Saying there is no gay gene however is unsupportable with current science.There is no gay gene