Astonishingly, the media doesn’t see this angle to the story, nor does it see it as a problem and, again, fails to report it as fact.
Yet, it’s a fact.
Despite Walker’s claim that this “fact” is “beyond serious debate,” one of the sources he cited for it was a brochure published by the American Psychological Association (APA) that was entered into evidence in the case, which specifically stated twice: “Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Walker did not quote this part of the brochure in his opinion.
However, Walker did quote this same brochure as saying: “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents–concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people–are unfounded.”
This quote comes from a side-bar box on page five of the six-page APA brochure. The box purports to answer the “most common questions” about homosexual parents, posing four such questions and giving the APA’s answer to them.
To support this finding, Walker notes that California’s attorney general, who is Jerry Brown, “admits that the laws of California recognize no relationship between a person’s sexual orientation and his or her ability to raise children.”
“Attorney General admits,” writes Walker, “that California law protects the right of gay men and lesbians in same-sex relationships to be foster parents and to adopt children by forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
A child put out for adoption or foster parenting by the state, or a child conceived through technological means and gestated in a hired womb, would have no right not to be assigned to a homosexual couple who would act as his or her father and father or mother and mother.
Congratulations, California. One judge has just made it so that the state gets to determine whether a child is adopted to a home where there is no mother or no father. But it must be a good thing because it says so right in the brochure!
Many a vacation and fortune has come to ruin because of buying what was being sold in a brochure. One California judge, through the misapplication of the 14th Amendment in this ruling, is about to force the rest of America to embark on a dangerous social experiment, the likes of which has never been seen on earth in its entire existence.
Here are some other sources that Judge Walker seems to have disregarded in his “research”.
- Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. (slate.com)
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger — the reductio ad absurdum of “living constitution” jurisprudence (powerlineblog.com)