New York has become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Not by court order, but by a vote of 33 to 29 of the state Senate. With leadership from the highest reaches of state government, gay and lesbian couples who longed for the rights and responsibilities, the dignity and respect, that come with marriage will soon be able to do so legally in the Empire State.
New York joins Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia in allowing gays to wed. A court challenge to a 2008 amendment to the California state constitution that banned gay marriage there is wending its way through the federal appeals court process. If marriage-equality proponents succeed in the Golden State, 23.3 percent of Americans will live in states where gay couples can legally wed.
New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who took office in January, made legalizing same-sex marriage a priority. He used the bully pulpit to garner support and harnessed the power and prestige of his office behind the scenes. A coalition of organizations conducted the largest grass-roots effort the state had ever seen.
Nothing was assured. Bills on rent control in New York City and property tax caps for the state needed to be hammered out first. There was opposition from the Conservative Party, whose chairman threatened to mount a primary challenge to any Republican senator who voted for the measure. The Catholic archbishop of New York, Timothy M. Dolan, called marriage equality “detrimental for the common good.” Legislators insisted on (and secured) language to protect religious institutions from having to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. The legislative session stretched four days past its June 20 scheduled ending.
Comments (31)
Add commentgood thing there's state's rights...
now people freely move to the state that has the rights or protects the rights of the side they choose. If the Fed. steps in this it could get nasty..
Remember-the civil was not only bout slavery... BUT THOUSANDS of non-slave owners voted to fight or leave the union because state's rights laws were abused..
what about
when the same sex marriages fall apart? They should have to follow the same divorce laws. They want the legal marriage...
Opinion?
For being an opinion piece, there is actually very little opinion. Rather, this reads as a historical re-cap of the bill's progress and approval. Come on Dispatch, doesn't anyone there have an opinion?
Um, Hello?!
I am pretty sure they are willing to follow the same divorce laws.
Other opinion
So 6 states have legalised gay marriage and everyone is whooppeee. Except for Iowa and DC, the other 5 are pretty much in the same area. That still leaves 46 states that are more or less saying no gay, not here. Then there are the territories. As for California, land of LaLa Land, well what can you say about a state full of cornballs!
pdnet
What do you think the vote result will be in Minnesota next year for the constitutional amendment?
pdnet, Are you using some
pdnet,
Are you using some sort of new math?
I guess its only appropriate the NY GOP Party
Embarks on their PARTY POLICY of going after the 4 or 5 GOP lawmakers that voted in the change. Funny the GOP Party went after the same number of their own party here in MN when they overturned one of Tim Pawlentys vetos. Think these folks better STOP EATING THEIR OWN before there are none left that actually DO THE RIGHT THING ,instead of what some appointed political guru demands of them.
PDNet, you need to update
PDNet, you need to update your information. Your comment suggests that there are a few isolated states permitting marriage equality, with no tolerance anywhere else. You couldn't be further from the truth!
From the National Council of State Legislatures:
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16430
Issue: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships
Quick facts on key provisions: [Last Update: June 27, 2011]
Issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Massachusetts, Connecticut, California*, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia
Recognizes same-sex marriages from other states: Rhode Island, Maryland (in addition to the the seven states and the DoC above).
Allows civil unions, providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey
Grants nearly all state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples (domestic partnerships): California*, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii. [*regardless of overturn of Prop 8 and subsequent appeals court process, California will continue to acknowledge domestic partnerships unless marriage supercedes that.]
Provides some state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples (domestic partnerships): Maine, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia
That's 18 states that recognize GLBT marriage rights in some form.
AND additionally, IN Minnesota:
Currently, 10 MN cities recognize domestic partnerships:
http://minneapolis.about.com/od/cityservicesgovernment/a/Domestic-Partne...
And several hundred Minnesota companies and corporations offer domestic partnership benefits, regardless of whether the state allows marriage equality or not:
http://www.outfront.org/resources/organizations/wpa/dpbenefits
Opponents to marriage equality want to marginalize the states that recognize equal rights, but the truth of the matter is that well over 40% of Americans already live in a city or state that acknowledges some form of equality for GLBT couples, and the sky is NOT falling. Furthermore, most decent people agree that regardless of personal beliefs regarding homosexuality, it is flat out cruel and wrong to deny people the right to make end-of-life medical decisions or pick up their deceased life-partners at the morgue. When religion is removed from the equation, the majority of people polled agree that it is right to offer the same protections, rights and responsibilities afforded to hetero couples to same-sex couples. As it stands, churches can currently refuse to marry anyone they want to. GLBT people do and will continue to exist in our communities regardless of what the constitution says. That won't change. So what exactly is the right protecting marriage from? GLBT people are working for civil rights -- the basic human rights that are supposed to be afforded all citizens.
we were all created.
You need to study evolution--- I will except the premise of marriage equality as long as those who seek to wed with multiple partners and animals have the same rights as the GLPT and straight couples in wedding who/what they want.
Evolution--The ability to Procreate-- is the essence of evolution--apart from polygamy how do those marriages exist in darwins theory??
last question
How do you define Marriage 'we were all created' in his image except our "sinful nature" should be added
church/state
lastly if you believe in separation of church & state and most everybody gets married in a religious institution what the hell is the government making laws that the Church has already set.. Constitutionally speaking-- the government should only recognize Individuals-- not couples, marriages, corporations, etc--- its individual citizens that get those rights and the state needs to quit making philosophical/religious decions and except the separation of church and state and the church do its own thing and let the government worry about solving real problems or atleast make real problems, whether they previously existed b4 or not
religion shouldn't dictate rules for a diverse democracy
You didn't bother responding to a single point I made, but instead trotted out the same tired, non-logical arguments that work on a bumper sticker, but won't hold an ounce in a court of law, or in the legislature. The slippery slope argument isn't valid.
Linking bestiality and polygamy to marriage doesn't hold up in logic or in a court of law. Why? Because they are not related any more than pedophilia and certain religious denominations. Marriage is about a union between two consenting adults. Animals can't give consent. Travel out to Utah or Northern Arizona where plural marriages do still exist in fundamentalist communities, and you'll see firsthand why those relationships, rife with abuse, incest, teen rape, fraud in the welfare system and the subjugation of women are not good for society. [source: John Krakauer's book Under the Banner of Heaven] Should also be noted that the children in GLBT families have been found to be as well adjusted or better adjusted than their peers.
[source: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-... ]
GLBT families are looking for access to the same legal protections given their neighbors. It's not about who can make babies or who can get married in the Roman Catholic Church. (lots of already divorced people can't get married there either, but that doesn't prevent the state from allowing them to give it another try.)
Seriously, marriage rights include rights like the ability to make end-of-life decisions for your spouse, access to intensive care units (only granted to legal family), the ability to pick up your dead spouse from the morgue, the right to be informed when your spouse dies, the right to file a joint tax return for a single household, access to your spouse's health insurance, access to sick leave to care for your spouse. Human decency asks who are we to deny these rights to people in long-term committed relationships. Prohibiting people from these basic rights, which is what this amendment will entrench, seems mean-spirited and cold-hearted at best.
Furthermore, the purpose of marriage sanctioned by the state has nothing to do with Darwin's theory. Find a legal-binding state or federal document stating that the state's purpose for marriage is to create more people. You won't find one. Under marriage law, you will find legal definitions of families and property law.
If procreation was the case, we'd have laws making it illegal to procreate outside marriage, or we'd have laws fining couples unable to fulfill their marital duties if they couldn't procreate.
Biology takes care of procreation just fine, and it happens all too often in Brainerd outside the boundaries of marriage anyway. If the purpose of marriage is to procreate, then we should outlaw it for couples too old to conceive, or for those who are infertile. "Oh wait, that's not fair," you'll say. But you can't have it both ways. Additionally, in an age of over-population, do you really think procreation is the government's purpose for marriage? No. It is to define who is your kin, and to define property rights. Ask any divorce attorney what they fight over. It's not the right to make more babies. It is over who gets the house and toys.
Religion puts its stamp on marriage, but the church did not write marriage laws; the state did. A church marriage and the state definition are actually completely separate of the other. The state does not request nor require any religious involvement to get married. So to bring that in as the basis to deny marriage rights is wrong. And to say, "well, that's how we've always done things" is also wrong. The old testament sanctioned polygamy and the rape of women as an avenue to marriage. We don't continue those practices today. Women were given in marriage as an exchange of property, and were used as peace treaties to appease warring parties. We sure don't continue that today. The tradition argument doesn't hold water, because the idea of marriage has completely evolved in the past 2 millenia.
The church MAY act as an officiant of a state-sanctioned marriage, but it is not the only official that is available to perform the service. Court magistrates, or quite honestly, anyone who registers with the state may perform marriages. You don't get your marriage license at a church. You get it at the court house. You don't follow the pastor's rules to get the license; you follow the state's. And when you legally divorce, you don't divorce in the church (although some denominations make you pay a fee or prevent you from marrying again, but that's their business, not mine). You get divorced in the court house. Do you see how this refutes your claims that marriage is a solely church-run institution?
The religious ceremony is up to each individual institution and honestly has nothing to do with the legal side of things. Each church decides whether or not it will marry two individuals. Some churches currently marry GLBT people. Some do not. So why should some religious denominations dictate non-religious, civil rights for everyone?
Example: My cousin is a divorced Catholic and her fiance is Jewish. They CAN'T get married in the Catholic church unless he converts and she takes out a loan to pay for that anullment. They COULD get married in his out-of-town synagogue. But because of other constraints (travel for families), they compromised. They paid for and got their marriage license at the court house. And then they actually got married quietly, on their lunch hour, there. Not a religious officiant in site, just their siblings as witnesses and a judge saying "by the powers vested in me by the State of Minnesota, I now pronounce you legally wed." And they held the reception at a local resort. Are they any less married because they didn't use a priest, rabbi or place of worship? No. And were they allowed to get married even though some clergy and churches were opposed to their marriage? Yes. Why should a church dictate whether or not they can get married? Why should a church dictate that for any of us?
Just because "most everybody gets married in a religious institution" doesn't mean your institution should dictate the rules. Revisit your civics lessons, and then go into any courthouse and apply for a marriage license. A marriage license and religious ceremony are NOT linked according to the state. There is a reason for separation of church and state. The founding fathers didn't want one state religion dictating its will on the people. According to your logic, we should outlaw marriage for atheists and perhaps for those Christians who have strayed off the true path and only attend services on the big holidays as well.
If you want the government to only recognize individuals, then urge your legislators to write that constitutional amendment and promote IT on the ballot. If you want them to "protect marriage," then have them write a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce or requiring pre-marital counseling. Instead, you seem to think that it is ok to dictate your personal bias and beliefs on a minority whose committed relationships will have no impact on you personally. I fail to understand how that helps anyone out.
Years ago, people used their Bibles and passed laws to "protect marriage" from miscegnation -- interracial marriage. It was thought that allowing blacks and whites to marry would be the utter downfall of U.S. society. It wasn't. And even though the majority of the people were against interracial marriage, "activist judges" struck down the laws barring these marriages. And Virginia (the state with the court case) didn't fall into the ocean. BTW: the last constitutional amendment on interracial marriage was finally repealed in Alabama in the year 2000. That's a long time to have a law history has taught us was wrong still on the books. And today we know that a majority dictating its beliefs, denying basic civil rights to a minority is on the wrong side of history.
I do know same sex families, and they engage in all sorts of subversive activities, like, you know, taking out the trash, shopping for groceries, attending parent conferences, paying taxes (more than you and I, because they can't file as a family), sitting around bonfires, gardening, and volunteering. They are already here, and your kids already play with their kids, attend school with them, play on sports teams with them. What purpose will the amendment serve? It will make it harder for some of your neighbors, and that at a time when it's quite honestly hard enough for all of us already.
Again, over 40% of the U.S. lives in a city or state, or works for a company that provides at least domestic partnership benefits to same sex couples. 99% of the counties in Minnesota have same-sex families residing in them now (according to the last TWO census). How has that personally harmed you? What exactly do you think we need protection from?
I really would love for you to respond to even some of the points I've raised.
Human decency says we don't go out of our way to create more harm than good for our fellow citizens.
And you
And you shouldn't be allowed to be anywhere near a key board and a BDD opinion post. My God, can you get to the point in 200 words or less?
"Travel out to Utah or
"Travel out to Utah or Northern Arizona where plural marriages do still exist in fundamentalist communities, and you'll see firsthand why those relationships, rife with abuse, incest, teen rape, fraud in the welfare system and the subjugation of women are not good for society."
So...GLBT marriage good. Polygamy bad.
Hummm?
"....Instead, you seem to think that it is ok to dictate your personal bias and beliefs on a minority whose committed relationships will have no impact on you personally...."
Much like you did with another of your statements:
"Travel out to Utah or Northern Arizona where plural marriages do still exist in fundamentalist communities, and you'll see firsthand why those relationships, rife with abuse, incest, teen rape, fraud in the welfare system and the subjugation of women are not good for society."
Your argument is full of signs that eerily point to a condition commonly referred to as; bi-polar. You know they have medicine to control that condition?
By the way, if a Lesbian has a sex change, and marries another woman, is it still considered same sex marriage?
I addressed several points
I addressed several points thoroughly. These issues are more complex than bumper-sticker analysis.
I credited my sources. Wasn't personal bias. I reported conditions described at length in John Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven." Same issues w polygamy were presented in several newscasts:
ABC news -- http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/hear_me_out/hear-me-out%3A-shou...
MSNBC (reported widely on all major networks) -- 534 women, kids leave polygamist compound http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/women...
I stated that these experiences were common to women in several specific fundamentalist communities. Call me biased for stating that incest, teen rape and fraud are bad. Ok.
I also provided evidence (there is plenty) from several journaled studies showing children from GLBT homes are as well-adjusted if not better so than their peers.
Here are additional sources:
Time magazine: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
Pittsburgh Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
American Academy of Pediatrics (among others via wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Children.E2.80.99s_outcomes
So if you weigh those two ideas, I guess you have come to the right conclusion: polygamy in those situations is bad.
GLBT families, based on the conclusions of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association appear to be doing just fine. "In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in the American Psychologist: 'If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed.'"
Call me names, but I've provided ample evidence and legitimate sources to back up my claims, and all you've spewed are baseless words.
polygamy-we were all created
I love the self-righteous liberals to say marriage should be between 2 consenting adults but not 3.. Where there heck do you derive your beliefs from or are you self-righteous and intellectual enough to make up your own morals in a way that makes you happy.. liberalism has no end, as its a decrease of moral values that degrades itself to self-destruction.
Mark my word, marriage apart from 1 man and 1 women has no ending point as any consenting amount of creatures can make the same logical and rational idea of what they want to marry... it will happen-- there's enough smart crazies to push the envelope just like Sodom and gommorrah did and they will all fall, including the US as we have completely and utterly kicked dirt in our founding fathers face and recreated the freedomless society that we left Britain for and many died for. patriot act, illegal wars, imminent domain, educational system leaving behind its primary intentions...
we were all created--- I also love people who pick and choose the elements of the Bible they like and dismiss the others as they are self-righteous enough to know better than Jesus' right hand chosen men...
gay marriage
As a health nut and health conscience individual I seek to put in my body stuff that makes me healthy. People who perform sodomy have a 90% increase chance of anal cancer and hepatitis, aids--look it up.. the detrimental health effects from sodomy is well-written by our scientists.. So just based on pure human health welfare, sodomy has no part in a modern culture that wants to improve through evolution. Thus said I am against sodomy from any person, drug addictions, etc not gay marriage. It will also lead to increased health care costs.
we were all created
what flawed comments..
Religious institutions have the right granted to them by the constitution to do what they want unless its downright illegal..
They have the authority to marry who they want. period., because if it doesn't work they take the blame and if 2 consenting adults have different beliefs the increase chance of divorce is crazy high so they are being prudent and wedding people usually who take marriage classes and see eye to eye on most everything.
If you don't follow a religion I see no reason why they would want to get married, just like sweden where agnostics see it as pointless taking part in a religious tradition they don't believe in...
The bible states sodomy is a sin, he doesn't say gay marriage is forbidden there I rest my case.
tell it like it is for me we were all created.
I was born from the wound homophobic I have a natural disgust for any form of it since I can remember.. Evolution made me that way and its ok and I'm out of the closet and I'm sick of people telling me thats discrimination.. Its normal and natural and I'm proud of it... I hold no hateful feelings for homosexuals yet the thought of sodomy is utterly repulsive to me and most people.
@ecocafemx
that was my point also. Religious institutions can make decisions on who to marry INSIDE their own places of worship. Some churches won't marry interfaith couples (Christians and Muslims, or Christians and Jews). Some churches maintain their constitutional rights allow them to deny interracial marriages. Many churches won't perform same-sex marriages. But that number is changing pretty quickly. And there are some churches that DO perform same-sex marriages.
My point is that the churches can decide what happens inside their denomination; that is and has always been their right. Even if gay marriage is legalized down the road, churches don't have to marry ANYONE they don't want to, whether they are gay, straight or purple.
But no single church should dictate its opinion and beliefs on the rest of society, especially for people who do not follow it. That is, unless you want to live in a Taliban-like society.
I also provided evidence
I also provided evidence (there is plenty) from several journaled studies showing children from GLBT homes are as well-adjusted if not better than their peers.
Here are additional sources:
Time magazine: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
Pittsburgh Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
American Academy of Pediatrics (among others via wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Children.E2.80.99s_outcomes
So if you weigh those two ideas, I guess you have come to the right conclusion: polygamy in those situations is bad.
And GLBT families --- based on the conclusions of the
American Academy of Pediatrics,
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
the American Psychiatric Association,
the American Psychological Association,
the American Psychoanalytic Association,
the National Association of Social Workers,
the Child Welfare League of America,
the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and
Canadian Psychological Association
--- appear to be doing just fine. Yes, ALL of these major groups dedicated to healthcare and research -- the groups that certify our doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, councelors -- all of them have asserted that children in GLBT families do fine, and have demonstrated their findings through multiple independent studies.
In fact, noted psychology researcher Gregory M. Herek stated in the American Psychologist "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed."
Call me names, but I've provided ample evidence and legitimate, expert sources to back up my claims. All you've spewed are baseless claims and words.
Ey
Before you comment with incoherent dribble......you should probably revisit some of my posts from earlier this month regarding this subject. You obviously have no idea where I stand on it. Perhaps I should have writen a dissertation of 1,000+ words or more to help you. Fact is, I really could care less what you believe to be dogma or fact. You have not lent one fact to this subject yet. So, your attempt to chastise others is a bit disingenuous.
"Call me biased for stating
"Call me biased for stating that incest, teen rape and fraud are bad."
Not biased on stating those things are bad. Just steroetyping all polygamists.
woflfg 1
I did NOT stereotype all polygamists. I provided evidence to a specific group of fundamentalists, and cited where my info came from. I showed that there was a documented problem with that particular group of polygamists, and that statistically they aren't an anomoly (there are bad apples in every group) but are a part of the reason polygamy is opposed.
and @southnet1. LOL. How about acknowledging that people in life-long committed relationships should have access to civil rights? It's not about sex (how or who it happens with, or who approves of it) or what a particular religion says is right, because we are not a theocracy, yet. It's about giving people access to their loved ones in the hospital, allowing people to pick up their spouses from the morgue, allowing families to use one health insurance plan.
In fact, Wolfie, I'm bothered
In fact, Wolfie, I'm bothered that you didn't pick that up from my original post. Perhaps you're itching for the debate so badly you missed it? I did NOT say all polygamists are bad -- that's a conversation for another thread. I was careful about specifically identifying this particular fundamentalist group of polygamists located in Utah and Northern Arizona, documented in Jon Krakauer's book that is a thorough examination of the fundamentalist Mormons that still practice plural marriage.
I mentioned them at all in response to someone else's claim that gay marriage will lead to plural marriage and marrying one's pet. That argument works great in online forums but not in courts of law (already established). There is no personal harm from gay marriage, which according to the state would be a legal definition of kinship between two consenting adults. Whereas there is extensive documented harm on an on-going basis to early teens who are offered up as 2nd or 3rd wives in these fundamentalist sects, in some cases to their own stepfathers, without any say in the matter themselves. That's why I said that that form of polygamy is bad. Don't know why you think that point is even worth debating.
Abuse to children in GLBT families is at or below the statistics for the rest of the straight population -- I provided links in previous posts. Abuse to young girls in polygamous families is documented and rampant in the fundamentalist community.
"but are a part of the reason
"but are a part of the reason polygamy is opposed"
So it's OK to deny them "access to civil rights"?
I am also curious what the
I am also curious what the other "part" is?
Read Krakauer's book -- he
Read Krakauer's book -- he spends 432 pages explaining in detail the history behind the U.S. government's opposition to plural marriage, how that relates to its modern form, and the way young girls have been exploited. It is not a statistical anomaly, but rather a sizeable problem in that community. I've already referenced that that is the source material I drew on that informed my comments.
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/1400032806/re...
Specifically to address your question: according to published, reputable sources, part of the reason that the U.S. government is opposed to plural marriage seems to stem from the historical uneasy and often contentious relationship between the Mormon founders and both U.S. and state government officials (in New York, Illinois, Missouri and eventually Utah).
Another part of the reason is because of the situation many young girls, under the age of consent, find themselves in today. Did you bother to look at any of the links I provided in a recent post? And if so, why is that not reason enough? Still today in plural marriages girls are "married" off to men in arrangements made by FLDS and community leaders, and often are married off to kin -- uncles, step-fathers, cousins. Essentially polygamy is used as a cover for incest and statutory rape, not to mention the subjugation of older women. Within that community it happens often enough that it is an identifiable problem, and one that baffles the government as far as how to prosecute.
I feel like you are asking these questions so as to set up some comparison to the GLBT community, but there is none. There is no criminal or statistical evidence, no community practices that put children at harm. In fact, an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary exists showing that children in GLBT families are as healthy, well-adjusted and safe as their peers from hetero-marriage families. I'd post links, but the Dispatch seems to be limiting posts right now.
some of you seem to be trying to compare GLBT families to polyga
some of you seem to be trying to compare GLBT families to polygamy. Not a valid comparison. Created Equal showed how some polygamy leads to dangerous environments for kids. no similar case to be made for gay families.
Gay families, according to the conclusions of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and even the Canadian Psychological Association -- appear to be doing fine, and their kids are safe. These aren't biased, one-sided organizations. These are the major health institutions in the country. And their research has been stacking up for years w similar findings.
The groups that certify our doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, counselors -- all of them have say that children in GLBT families do well or as well as their straight counterparts, and have demonstrated their findings in published, reputable journals.
In fact, noted psychology researcher Gregory M. Herek stated in the American Psychologist "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed."
The same can not be said for this off-shoot of fundamentalist polygamists you seem so interested in.