I agree that it's totally political. I doubt if that will stop SSMers from touting this study like they do the flawed same-sex parenting studies.

So they compared the year before the passage of smm to the year after it passed.
And somehow we are supposed to believe this is anything other than the short lived euphoria that occurs when one side wins a contentious debate.

As ResistSSA says:
"This is all politics; biased studies designed to sway public opinion, nothing more."

Do population based mental health studies show anything similar?

Number of visits to a health clinic is not a very good proxy for health, because so many factors (ncluding changes in the health care delivery system) could explain..

Recall the study on lesbian couples' adopted children where the lesbian researcher hand-picked a study group of fairly affluent women and collected "data" about how they parents perceived their adopted children to be doing. This is all politics; biased studies designed to sway public opinion, nothing more.

I must add that I'm concerned about the work of these researchers. I don't think the creature known as "researcher without a worldview" exists. But let's just say that I'm skeptical of a study wherein which the researcher says that gay men are suffering health problems that result from being treated as "second class citizens." That’s a flagrant bias, and I wonder if it has played out in the research (the same-sex parenting studies come to mind).

I’m sure there are many things gays want, and it can be asserted that if society grants those things, it will result in improved health, a boon to the economy, or what have you. This is a way for gays, and other special interest groups, to try fabricate a state-interest in, well, their personal interests.

Whether the research is valid or not, it’s all a matter of what is the appropriate government intervention. If gays, or any other group, need mental and physical health interventions, the redefining of marriage is not the appropriate response.

Next you'll tell me that a homosexual judge with a partner held that homosexuals with partners have a constitutional right to get married.

Will wonders never cease?

That article is just more left wing media indoctrination and misinformation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16203621

Whatchathink?

As noted by Little man, he seems to believe that the government has absolutely no interest in marriage, an idea which is fundamentally false. He seems not to understand that, without marriage, the government has to get bigger and intervene in the lives of more people.

Paul pretty much has the same desire of many extreme ssm activists who favor abolishing the legal category of marriage. The only difference between Paul and that group is that Paul does not necessarily hate the institution of marriage.

That doesn't mean I support him, but that's basically what he believes.