Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges

Supreme Court precedent establishes that the government may not punish children for matters beyond their control. Same-sex marriage bans and non-recognition laws (“marriage bans”) do precisely this. The states argue that marriage is good for children, yet marriage bans categorically exclude an entire class of children – children of same-sex couples – from the legal, economic and social benefits of marriage. This amicus brief recounts a powerful body of equal protection jurisprudence that prohibits punishing children to reflect moral disapproval of parental conduct or to incentivize adult behavior. We then explain that marriage bans punish children of same-sex couples because they: 1) foreclose their central legal route to family formation; 2) categorically void their existing legal parent-child relationships incident to out-of-state marriages; 3) deny them economic rights and benefits; and 4) inflict psychological and stigmatic harm. States cannot justify marriage bans as good for children and then exclude children of same-sex couples based on moral disapproval of their same-sex parents’ relationships or to incentivize opposite-sex couples to “procreate” within the bounds of marriage. To do so, severs the connection between legal burdens and individual responsibility and creates a permanent class or caste distinction.

Brief for Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Respondent Edith Windsor Addressing the Merits and Supporting Affirmance

This amicus brief filed by Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children turns the spotlight on children in same-sex families. The brief enumerates the ways Section 3 of DOMA impairs children's interests by denying federal recognition of their parents' marriages.

Molecular Genetic Basis of Opposite Gene by Environment Interactions in Reading Disability and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

The goal of this study is to better understand the genetic basis of Reading Disability (RD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by examining molecular G x E interactions with parental education for each disorder. Research indicates that despite sharing genetic risk factors, RD and ADHD are influenced by different types of G x E interactions with parental education - a diathesis stress interaction in the case of ADHD and a bioecological interaction in RD. In order to resolve this apparent paradox, we conducted a preliminary study using behavioral genetic methods to test for G x E interactions in RD and the inattentive subtype of ADHD (ADHD-I) in the same sample of monozygotic and dizygotic Colorado Learning Disabilities Research Center same-sex twin pairs (DeFries et al., 1997), and our findings were consistent with the literature. We posited a genetic hypothesis for this opposite pattern of interactions, which suggests that only genes specific to each disorder enter into these opposite interactions, not the shared genes underlying their comorbidity. This study sought to further investigate this paradox using molecular genetics methods. We examined multiple candidate genes identified for RD or related language phenotypes and those identified for ADHD for G x E interactions with parental education. The specific aims of this study were as follows: 1) partition known risk alleles for RD and/or related language phenotypes and ADHD-I into those which are pleiotropic and non-pleiotropic by testing each risk allele for association with both RD and ADHD-I, 2) explore the main effects of parental education on both RD and ADHD-I, 3) address G-E correlations, and 4) conduct exploratory G x E interaction analyses in order to test the genetic hypothesis. Analyses suggested a number of pleiotropic genes that influence both RD and ADHD; however, results did not remain after correcting for multiple comparisons. Although exploratory G x E interaction findings were not significant after multiple comparison correction, results suggested a G x E interaction in the bioecological direction with KIAA0319, parental education, and ADHD-I. Given the limited power in the current study, replication of these findings with larger samples is necessary.

Clinical Implications for Working with Gay Men A Self Psychological Treatment Approach.

Specific training for conducting psychotherapy with gay men is limited for psychologists, particularly when using a Self Psychology theoretical orientation (Robertson, 1996). In fact, psychologists often are faced with conflicting and contradictory points of view that mirror society's condemnation of homosexuality (Robertson, 1996). This paper is written from a self-psychological perspective to address the lack of a constructive body of literature that explains the unique treatment needs which impact gay men. Estimates of the prevalence of male homosexuality have generated considerable debate. A common assumption is that there are homosexual and non-homosexual men. However, scientists have long been aware that sexual responsiveness to others of the same sex, like most human traits, is continuously distributed in the population (Michaels, 1996). Still the presumption exists that such traits are stable within each man over time (Michaels, 1996). Conflating same-sex sexual experiences with a categorization of the man as homosexual is problematic, in that defining sexuality solely on the basis of experience excludes people who fantasize about sex with others of the same sex but never have sexual contact. Thus, most modern conceptions of sexual orientation consider personal identification, sexual behavior, and sexual fantasy (McWhirter, Sanders & Reinisch, 1990). Gay men's mental health can only be understood in the context of homosexuality throughout history, since religious and moral objections to sexual attraction between men have existed for centuries. Men who desired other men were regarded as sinful and depraved if not ill or abnormal, and same sex contacts were not distinguished from lewd behaviors (Weeks, 1989). Although most people, regardless of sexual orientation, have experienced some feelings of personal rejection, rarely do heterosexuals become targets for disapproval based on the nature of their attractions and behaviors relative to the same and to the other sex. For lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men, however, homosexuality becomes the focus of aspects of themselves that make them feel hated and hateful (Isay, 1989). While gay men and lesbians are often considered together because of the same-sex nature of their relationships and the similar issues that they may experience in their treatment within society, there are many issues where they might be best studied separately. Issues involving with health, parenthood, sexuality and perceived roles and status in society, for example, are often related more to gender than to any shared concept of a 'gay and lesbian community'. Many issues surrounding lesbians and lesbian culture will have more to do with women's issues, and some issues involving with gay men will have more to do with the gay male subculture and with masculinity. The author of this paper has limited experience in working with lesbian and bisexual individuals, and although it is likely that some of the concepts articulated in this paper could translate to working with lesbian and bisexual individuals, further research is indicated to examine the beneficence of utilizing a Self Psychological orientation in psychotherapy with lesbian women and bisexual individuals. This paper presents an overview of the literature including historical treatments of homosexuality, the history of Self Psychology, key principles in Self Psychology, research on Self Psychology, identity development models for gay men, and Self Psychological perspectives on identity development related to gay men. The literature review is followed by a section on treatment implications for psychologists seeking to treat gay men, including case vignettes based on work from my own practice. I have preserved the anonymity of clients by changing demographics, and rearranging and combining presenting issues and historical backgrounds among the case examples.

Influence of Religious Institutions in the Creation and Implementation of Public Policy: The Case of Roman Catholic Argentina and Secular Uruguay

The strong presence of religious institutions in Latin America, especially the Roman Catholic Church, and their participation in the creation and implementation of public policy within a sovereign state can be counter-productive for the social development and progress of that specific country. Argentina and Uruguay and the social controversy of social issues of abortion and same-sex marriage are used as examples to establish the accuracy of the above statement. Historical, statistical, and legislative information about both topics in both countries show that the political power that the Roman Catholic Church has in the region is more an outdated influence than a reality, and the principle of secularization appears to be the most stabilizing philosophy for modern nations.