But, more importantly, the gay activists had overestimated their importance in past votes and their importance in a close vote in this Senate race. The Coakley campaign sought to use this as a wedge issue -- and to marshall the efforts of the influential gay identity groups. That proved impotent.

That's part of the bigger picture and means something in the state that the SSMers have lauded as "the birthplace of SSM" -- in their own endorsements of Coakley.

Yet if you read this account from his testimony, apparently it IS a choice for at least 32% of lesbians and 12% of gay men, at least in Dr. Herek's obviously unscientific poll.

And nevermind that one of the lesbian plaintiffs was married to a man for 12 years, and was not attracted to women at the time.

So much for "Born that way, can't change." Dr. Herek is a joke.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

Here is a good link for a review of Friday.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14246816?source=most_viewed

But it's very very funny for us progressives to watch.

I'd give it 20 years, till you see same-sex marriage across the board. Till then enjoy your homophobic ramblings.

ElusiveCake

The study is based upon four foundational principles: 1. Gender differences exist; 2. Acknowledging gender differences is the only intellectually honest response to this reality; 3. Gender differences are complementary; 4. Gender disorientation exists in a small minority of individuals. It is not normative and should not drive social policies.

The 21 reasons are summarized below:

1. Gender uniqueness and complementarity means that each gender has a unique contribution that can't be filled by the other.
2. Acknowledging gender differences helps children learn more effectively.
3. Men and women are happier when they recognize these gender differences.
4. The masculine gender is an essential ingredient for fatherhood.
5. The feminine gender is an essential ingredient for motherhood.
6. Marriage is the best way for men and women to enjoy complementarity.
7. Gender complementarity in a life-long marriage is essential for the continuation of humanity.
8. Gender complementarity in marriage is needed for a healthy, stable society.
9. Gender complementarity in marriage between a man and woman is good for the economy.
10. Marriage between a man and woman is the foundation of a successful family and best way to protect children.
11. Gender complementarity in marriage is the best way to teach children about the value of gender.
12. Gender is important in understanding the significance of manhood.
13. Gender is important in understanding the significance of womanhood.
14. In healthy societies, gender complementarity is celebrated; societies rejecting this face harmful consequences.
15. Healthy gender development prevents individuals from developing compulsive obsessive disorders leading to sexual addiction and other pathologies.
16. Gender disorientation pathology is a symptom of family dysfunction, personality disorder, father absence, health malfunction or sexual abuse.
17. Gender disorientation pathology will lead to increased levels of drug abuse and partner violence.
18. Gender disorientation pathology will increase the risk of communicable disease and bad health.
19. Gender disorientation pathology will decrease life expectancy.
20. Gender disorientation pathology is preventable and treatable.
21. Gender disorientation pathology encourages the sexual and psychological exploitation of children.

The study concludes with a list of 20 public policy responses to gender disorientation pathology.

The authors note: "Given the importance of the two genders, it is imperative to promote heterosexual marriage and the biological two-parent family. The evidence makes it clear that these two institutions provide the best environment for individuals, for societies, and for children."

21 Reasons Why Gender Matters can be ordered from the Fatherhood Foundation, P.O. Box 542, Unanderra, NSW 2520; http://www.fatherhood.org.au. For ordering information, contact the Fatherhood Foundation: info@fatherhood.org.au.

"Three researchers critiqued the effort; their comments appear in the same issue of the journal. Lisa Strohschein of the University of Alberta in Canada takes issue with the review's attempts to "tease out the effects of the parent's gender" from an array of variables.

She notes that many of the studies cited place differences in family type "in context with other factors that influence child outcomes," including number and gender of parents in the household, sexual identity, marital status and biogenetic relationship to children. The review, she says, "provided no such context."

Kyle Pruett, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Yale University Child Study Center and co-author of the 2009 book Partnership Parenting,has not seen the research review. But he says "you can't take gender out of the world."

He says that as adults, "we are struggling to be politically correct about gender" when we should be thinking more about the children. "It's not about the supremacy of one gender over another or about the necessity of one gender over another," he says."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm?csp=usat.me

Not that raising children has anything to do with same-sex marriage rights, legally...but how many more studies do you need??

"Coakley and Brown: Clarifying Disagreement on Marriage Issue in Close Senate Race."

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/coakley-and-brown-clarifying.html