Roy Moore’s Morally Courageous History Lesson That ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity Is “High Treason Against The King Of Heaven,” Contrary To Right Reason, Natural Order
 

ROY S. MOOREBy John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com

President Obama, referring to the necessity of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ sex perverts being allowed to serve openly in our military, says no one should be prevented from service to our nation “just because they are gαy.” Interesting phrase, “just because they are gαy,” — as if being “gαy” is like being left-handed or having blue-eyes? But, is being “gαy” like being left-handed or having blue eyes? No.

The following are excerpts from remarks by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy. S. Moore re: a case involving a lesbian woman seeking custody of a child. This case was ruled on during the Court’s October term, 2001-2002.

All the emphases are mine.
Judge Moore:
“I write specially to state that the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ conduct of a parent — conduct involving a sɛҳuąƖ relationship between two persons of the same gender — creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others…

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society — the family. The law of Alabama is not only clear in its condemning such conduct, but the courts of this State have consistently held that exposing a child to such behavior has a destructive and seriously detrimental effect on the children. It is an inherent evil against which children must be protected….

Alabama’s courts, even beyond the context of a custody dispute, have expressed a moral revulsion to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity, reminiscent of that expressed by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. Earlier courts refused even to describe the activity inherent in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, stating that “[the crime against nature] is characterized as abominable, detestable, unmentionable, and too disgusting and well known to require other definition or further details or description.” Horn v. State, 49 Ala. App. 489, 491, 273 So. 2d 249, 250 (1973)…..

Having made the point that the crime of sodomy involves moral turpitude, the Williams Court made its condemnation of such conduct unequivocal: “We are aware of no other crime at common law that has been as vehemently and copiously characterized as infamous.” 55 Ala. App. at 438, 316 So. 2d at 364. Although the Court referred to Britain’s 1967 “decriminalization of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior by consenting adults in private,” id., the Court explained that the nation’s earlier history, law, and literature counseled otherwise and “[testified] alike to the generally recognized baseness of the crime, and the word infamous is usually found as a concomitant epithet.” 55 Ala. App. at 438, 316 So. 2d at 364. The act itself is so “infamous” that the slanderous or libelous accusation of someone being guilty of the crime is ‘one of the most grievous wrongs”:

“‘If any crime, says Bacon, deserved to be punished in a more exemplary manner, this one certainly does. Other crimes may be prejudicial to society, but this one strikes at its being. A person who has been guilty of so abusing his faculties will not be likely afterwards to have a proper regard for the opposite sex. The tendency is to deprave the appetite and produce in the person insensibility to the most ecstatic pleasure which human nature is capable of enjoying — the society of women. … The tendency of the imputation is to degrade the person charged both morally and socially, and forever brand him with unpardonable infamy and disgrace — a social outlaw; and hence the charge, if unfounded and maliciously made, must be regarded as one of the most grievous wrongs known to the law of our land.’”

Williams, 55 Ala. App. at 438, 316 So. 2d at 364 (quoting Newell, Slander and Libel § 116 (3d ed.)).

Finally, as if to remove any doubt that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is disfavored, the Court marshaled further legal precedent:

“If we need to say more, if the record of constant quadrimillennial revulsion of moralistic civilizations from the vice that evoked the total and everlasting destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has been blurred by the mutations of a few years of a single century, we underscore what was said in Horn v. State, 49 Ala. App. 489, 273 So. 2d 249 (1973):

“‘The statute here questioned only fixes the punishment for crime against nature, a criminal offense recognized as against human morality and to apply to carnal copulation contrary to nature by the common law and anciently. We adopted the England common law. Title 1, § 3, Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled, 1958. Johnson v. State, 18 Ala. App. 70, 88 So. 348 [(1921)]. Public and legal history is replete with knowledge of this criminal offense.’”….

Thus, the policy of the law in Alabama — from its civil law to its Criminal Code to the educational programs provided to its public-school students consistently condemns ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity and the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lifestyle. The effect of such a lifestyle upon children must not be ignored, and the lifestyle should never be tolerated.

III. Alabama Common Law
American law derives its principles from the common law of England, clearly explained in Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone. In 1799, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, James Iredell, charged the grand jury of the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania as follows:

“[F]or near 30 years [The Commentaries on the Laws of England] has been the manual of almost every student of law in the United States, and its uncommon excellence has also introduced it into the libraries, and often to the favourite reading of private gentlemen; so that [Sir William Blackstone’s] views of the subject could scarcely be unknown to those who framed the Amendment to the Constitution, ….”

Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser, April 11, 1799, Philadelphia, 3 The Docuмentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, at 347 (Maeva Marcus, ed., Columbia University Press 1990) (emphasis added). Because Blackstone’s Commentaries was the manual for law students in the United States during and after the revolutionary period and the drafting of the United States Constitution, we should consider his interpretations of common law not only as influential but also as authoritative for applying the common law today.

Blackstone’s explanation of the common law is important because of the influence it has had upon the American legal system. In 1993, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

“The conception of the judicial role that [Chief Justice John Marshall] possessed, and that was shared by succeeding generations of American judges until very recent times, took it to be ‘the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,’ Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis added) — not what the law shall be. That original and enduring American perception of the judicial role sprang not from the philosophy of Nietzsche but from the jurisprudence of Blackstone, which viewed retroactivity as an inherent characteristic of the judicial power, a power ‘not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one.’ 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 69 (1765).” Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 107 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring).

Natural law forms the basis of the common law. (7) Natural law is the law of nature and of nature’s God as understood by men through reason, but aided by direct revelation found in the Holy Scriptures:

“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.” (8)
William Blackstone, Commentaries 42. Blackstone’s Commentaries explain that because our reason is full of error, the most certain way to ascertain the law of nature is through direct revelation. The ultimate importance of this law and its influence upon our law cannot be understated.

“Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There is, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former.”
Blackstone, Commentaries 42.

There are impeccable American sources for the above proposition. James Wilson, Associate Justice on the first United States Supreme Court and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, said:

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine …. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”

James Wilson, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation,” in 1 The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, 104-06 (Bird Wilson ed., Bronson and Chauncey 1804). John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and coauthor of the Federalist Papers, declared:

“[N]o sovereign ought to permit those who are under his Command to violate the precepts of the Law of Nature, which forbids all Injuries ….”

“John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury of the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, May 22, 1793, Richmond, Virginia.” 2 The Docuмentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, at 386 (Maeva Marcus, ed., Columbia University Press 1988).

Our own Declaration of Independence refers to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”:

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

It would be an odd logic to assert that the American colonies could use the law of God “to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them,” but not to decide the fundamental basis of their laws.

Alabama has adopted the common law, as evidenced by § 1-3-1, Ala. Code 1975. That section states: “The common law of England, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, laws and institutions of this state, shall, together with such institutions and laws, be the rule of decisions, and shall continue in force, except as from time to time it may be altered or repealed by the Legislature.”

Our cases have held consistently and frequently that Alabama is a common-law state. See, e.g., Louisville & N.R.R. v. Cook, 168 Ala. 592, 53 So. 190 (1910); Hollis v. Crittenden, 251 Ala. 320, 37 So. 2d 193 (1948); State v. Taylor, 415 So. 2d 1043, 1047 (Ala. 1982). Our jurisprudence explains that old English statutes are a part of the common law. The statutes passed in England before the emigration of our ancestors, which amend the law and are applicable to our situation, constitute a part of our common law. See, e.g., Nelson v. McCrary, 60 Ala. 301 (1877); Clark v. Goddard, 39 Ala. 164 (1863); Carter v. Balfour’s Adm’r, 19 Ala. 814 (1851).

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is strongly condemned in the common law because it violates both natural and revealed law. The author of Genesis writes: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them…. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 1:27, 2:24 (King James). The law of the Old Testament enforced this distinction between the genders by stating that “f a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 (King James).

From the passage in Leviticus 20:13, the early western legal tradition garnered its laws on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. “It is Justinian’s collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English).” (9) The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris:

“‘Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,’ and [is] translated in a footnote as ‘Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.’ At common law ‘sodomy’ and the phrase ‘infamous crime against nature’ were often used interchangeably.”

Raymond B. Marcin, Natural Law, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Conduct, and the Public Policy Exception, 32 Creighton L. Rev. 67 (1998) (quoting 58 C.J. 785). In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas, a preeminent disciple of natural-law theory, called ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity “contrary to right reason” and “contrary to the natural order.” St. Thomas Aquinas, 4 Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae, Quest. 154, Art. 11 (Benziger Bros. Press 1947).

Sodomy was codified by statute as a serious crime early in England. “The earliest English secular legislation on the subject dates from 1533, when Parliament under Henry VIII classified buggery (by now a euphemism for same-sex activity, bestiality, and anal intercourse) as a felony. Penalties included death, losses of goods, and loss of lands.” Vern L. Bullough, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity: A History 34 (New American Library 1979).

Taking his cue from this tradition, Sir Edward Coke, the dean of English law, called ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity “a detestable, and abominable sin, amongst Christians not to be named, committed by carnal knowledge against the ordinance of the Creator, and order of nature, by mankind with mankind, or with brute beast, or by womankind with brute beast.” Blackstone called it “the infamous crime against nature,” 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 215, a phrase used interchangeably with sodomy at common law. Marcin, supra, at 67.

America borrowed from England this steadfast view of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as an intolerable evil. “[Sodomy] was made a felony by an English statute so early that it was a common-law offense in this Country, and statutes expressly making it a felony were widely adopted.” Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 465 (3d ed. 1982). In its second edition, published in 1910, Black’s Law Dictionary tells us that sodomy “is often defined in statutes and judicial decisions as meaning ‘the crime against nature,’ … or as carnal copulation, against the order of nature….” Black’s Law Dictionary 1094 (2d ed. 1910).

To disfavor practicing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in custody matters is not invidious discrimination, nor is it legislating personal morality. On the contrary, disfavoring practicing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in custody matters promotes the general welfare of the people of our State in accordance with our law, which is the duty of its public servants. Providing for the common good involves maintaining a public morality through both our criminal and civil codes, based upon the principles that right conscience demands, without encroaching on the jurisdiction of other institutions and the declared rights of individuals.

The State may not interfere with the internal governing, structure, and maintenance of the family, but the protection of the family is a responsibility of the State. Custody disputes involve decision-making by the State, within the limits of its sphere of authority, in a way that preserves the fundamental family structure. The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.

The family unit does consist, and always has consisted, of a “father, mother and their children, [and] immediate kindred, constituting [the] fundamental social unit in civilized society.” Black’s Law Dictionary 604 (6th ed. 1990). To reward a parent, who steps outside that unit by committing a “crime against nature” with custody of a child would represent a reprehensible affront to the laws of family government that the State must preserve. The best interests of children is not promoted by such a subversion of fundamental law, the very foundation of the family and of society itself. The State may not — must not — encourage the destruction of the family.

No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as an inherent evil, and if a person openly engages in such a practice, that fact alone would render him or her an unfit parent.

In this case, the Court of Civil Appeals stated that “[n]o evidence indicated that the mother’s ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship, which is accepted under California law through the ‘Domestic Partnership Act,’ would have a detrimental effect on the well-being of the children.” The “detrimental effect” of such conduct is established by the great mass of Alabama law, which prohibits and condemns ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ conduct. Courts must make decisions based on fixed principles. Judges should not make decisions based on the latest psychological or (10) the interpretations of which are subject to the bias (11) and philosophical leanings of the researchers, subject to being refuted by other studies. (13)

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one’s ability to describe it. That is enough under the law to allow a court to consider such activity harmful to a child. To declare that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is harmful is not to make new law but to reaffirm the old; to say that it is not harmful is to experiment with people’s lives, particularly the lives of children. (14)

Blackstone sums up the duty of the judge, who is “sworn to determine, not according to his own private judgment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one.” 1 Blackstone, Commentaries 69.

Conclusion
sɛҳuąƖ relations between persons of the same gender violate both the criminal and civil laws of this State and have been declared by our courts to be “inherently immoral.” 55 Ala. App. at 437, 316 So. 2d. at 363. Evidence before the trial court in this case indicates that D.H., the mother of the minor children, not only participated in such illicit and immoral conduct, but also would knowingly expose her children to its devastating effects. The trial judge properly found that D.H. was not entitled to custody under the facts of this case. The findings of the trial court based on ore tenus evidence must be affirmed, absent an abuse of discretion. The Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court and holding that there was no evidence indicating that the mother’s ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship would have a detrimental effect on the children. From its earliest history, the law of Alabama has consistently condemned ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

The common law adopted in this State and upon which our laws are premised likewise declares ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity to be detestable and an abominable sin. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ conduct by its very nature is immoral, and its consequences are inherently destructive to the natural order of society. Any person who engages in such conduct is presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children under the established laws of this State. D.H. is no exception. Therefore, I concur in reversing the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case.

In a footnote, the Court noted that Alabama “forbids the issuance of a marriage license ‘… to parties of the same sex,’” and does not recognize as valid a same-sex “marriage” that occurred or was alleged to have occurred elsewhere. 730 So. 2d at 1195 n.3 (quoting Act No. 98-500, Ala. Acts 1998, now codified as § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975).

To varying degrees, other state courts have agreed that a parent’s ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior and lifestyle may be considered in child-custody and visitation matters. See, e.g., J.A.D. v. F.J.D., 978 S.W.2d 336, 339 (Mo. 1998) (courts may “consider the impact of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or heterosɛҳuąƖ misconduct upon the children in making a custody determination”); S. v. S., 608 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980) (lesbian mother’s “deviate practice is sufficient, in this case, to warrant the change” in custody from mother to father); Constant A. v. Paul C.A., 344 Pa. Super. 49, 496 A.2d 1, 10 (1985) (“[T]here are sufficient social, moral and legal distinctions between the traditional heterosɛҳuąƖ family relationship and illicit ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship to raise the presumption of regularity in favor of the licit, when established, shifting to the illicit, the burden of disproving detriment to the children.”); Jacobson v. Jacobson, 314 N.W.2d 78, 80 (N.D. 1981) (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is “a significant factor to be considered in determining custody of children”); Roe v. Roe, 228 Va. 722, 727-28, 324 S.E.2d 691, 694 (1985) (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ “father’s continuous exposure of the child to his immoral and illicit relationship renders him an unfit and improper custodian” and his “unfitness is manifested by his willingness to impose [upon his child the burden of social condemnation of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lifestyle] in exchange for his own gratification”).

“‘The State, representing the collective expression of moral aspirations, has an undeniable interest in ensuring that its rules of domestic relations reflect the widely held values of its people…. State regulation has included bans on incest, bigamy, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity ….’” G.G. v. R.S.G., 668 So. 2d 828, 831 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995), quoting Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 399 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment).

Other states make ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ conduct a crime, most characterizing the prohibited act as sodomy, a “crime against nature,” “buggery,” or, like Alabama, “deviate sɛҳuąƖ intercourse.” See, e.g., Idaho Code § 18-6605 (Michie 2000); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3505 (2000); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14.89 (West 2001); Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-59 (2001); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.090 (2001); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-177 (2001); Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 886 (2001); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-120 (Law. Coop. 2001); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06 (Vernon 2001); Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-403 (2001); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361 (Michie 2001).

Section 13A-6-60 defines “deviate sɛҳuąƖ intercourse” as “[a]ny act of sɛҳuąƖ gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.”
The Legislature explained in the Commentary to § 13A-6-65:
“In the original draft, § 13A-6-65(a)(3) covered deviate sɛҳuąƖ intercourse without lawful consent under the same terms and circuмstances as subdivision (a)(1) covers vaginal intercourse. If both actors were adult and both consented, there was no offense; but this subdivision was changed by the legislature to make all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ conduct criminal, and consent is no defense. However, § 13A-6-65(a)(3) does not apply to married persons, as this is not within the basic definition of ‘deviate sɛҳuąƖ intercourse.’ Section 13A-6-60(2). See also, § 13A-6-70(b)(3).”

The court explained further its definition of moral turpitude:
“‘Moral turpitude means something “immoral in itself. … It must not be merely mala prohibita, but the act itself must be inherently immoral. … It is the nature of the act itself, and not its legislative characterization or punishment which must be the test in determining whether or not it involves moral turpitude.”’”
Williams, 55 Ala. App. at 437, 316 So. 2d at 363 (quoting McElroy § 145.01(7), quoting in turn Ex parte Marshall, 207 Ala. 566, 566, 93 So. 471, 471-72 (1922)).
There can be no debate as to the connection between the common law and the natural law. Alabama uses a phrase that harkens back to the natural law — “crime against nature” — to refer to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. See § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975. Chief Justice Sir Christopher Wray and the entire Court at King’s Bench resolved a point of law as follows: “That in this point, as almost in all others, the common law was grounded on the law of God ….” Ratcliff’s Case, 76 Eng. Rep. 713, 726 (K.B. 1592).

Blackstone indicated that one law was more reliable than the other:
“If we could be as certain of the [natural law] as we are of the [revealed law], both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.”
William Blackstone, Commentaries 42.

Vern L. Bullough, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity: A History 32 (New American Library 1979).
“Another important academician who had a significant impact upon the continued influence of Roman law in England was Vacarius, a gifted scholar who had taught Roman law at Bologna. Vacarius founded the law school at Oxford and it is generally recognized that his influence ‘began a new era in the history of English law and of its connection with the legal system of Rome.’ [Quoting Burdick, The Principles of Roman Law, 67 (1938).] Vacarius was the first professor of law in England and one of his most popular texts, a summary of law for poor students, was essentially a condensed version of Justinian’s Code and Digest.
“The most ancient work on the common law, a Latin text written between 1187 and 1189 called A Treatise of the Laws and Customs of England, was written by Ranulf deGlanvill who was a student of Vacarius. [Citing Stubbs, ‘The History of the Canon Law in England,’ in 1 Select Essays in Angelo-American Legal History, 248, 259 (1907).] Glanvill enjoyed the complete confidence of Henry II and became his Chief Justice in 1190. Glanvill’s treatise, which clearly pays tribute and reference to Roman law and Justinian’s Code and Digest, was the standard text book on the laws of England and established the method of legal writing for centuries to come.”
Richard A. Pacia and Raymond A. Pacia, Roman Contributions to American Civil Jurisprudence, 49 Rhode Island Bar Journal 5, 35 (May 2001).

The American Psychiatric Association (“APA”) has for years debated the harmful effects of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Apparently, the answer rests upon who makes the most noise and has the most supporters at the APA’s annual meetings. For many years, the APA regarded ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as a pathological mental disorder. However, in 1973, the APA voted to declassify ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as a disorder.
“In 1970, … gαy activists confronted their tormenters at the [APA’s] annual convention in San Francisco. They wanted to remove the characterization of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as a psychiatric disorder …. Irving Bieber, then the leading antigαy psychiatrist, was laughed off the stage by gαy protesters…. The crowd … erupted in pandemonium at the conclusion of the [presentation]. While some psychiatrists clamored for air fare refunds, others called on the police to shoot the protestors.
“Dr. Kent Robinson, a psychiatrist, … negotiated a panel at the 1971 APA convention, which would include gαy representatives. Robinson contacted gαy activist Frank Kameny to organize the panel. Despite securing an official panel at the 1971 convention in Washington, D.C., the activists … continued to organize street protests. On May 3, 1971, gαy activists stormed the stately Convocation of Fellows at the APA Convention, and Kameny seized the microphone to deliver a diatribe against the profession: ‘Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.’ gαy activists later went on to conduct their panel. At the end of the convention, Kameny and his fellow panelists demanded that the APA revise its diagnostic manual to delete references to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as a psychiatric disorder.
“Two years later, after continued pressure from gαy activists, … the APA’s Nomenclature Committee was poised to accept the change.”
William N. Eskridge, Jr., Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet: Establishing Conditions for Lesbian and gαy Intimacy, Nomos, and Citizenship, 1961-1981, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 817, 934-35 (1997).

Apparently, there is widespread bias among those researching the very area we are dealing with in this opinion — the effects upon children of parents who practice ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity:
“This reticence [of the researchers] is most evident in analyses of sɛҳuąƖ behavior and identity — the most politically sensitive issue in the debate. Virtually all of the published research claims to find no differences in the sɛҳuąƖity of children reared by lesbigαy parents and those raised by nongαy parents — but none of the studies that report this finding attempts to theorize about such an implausible outcome. Yet it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sɛҳuąƖ development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigαy parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosɛҳuąƖ parents.”
Judith Stacey & Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the sɛҳuąƖ Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Official Journal of the American Sociological Association 159, 163 (April 2001). Stacey & Biblarz are quite candid in their belief that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a healthy and moral lifestyle.
“It is quite a different thing, however, to consider this issue a legitimate matter for social science research. Planned lesbigαy parenthood offers a veritable ‘social laboratory’ of family diversity in which scholars could fruitfully examine not only the acquisition of sɛҳuąƖ and gender identity, but the relative effects on children of the gender and number of their parents as well as of the implications of diverse biosocial routes to parenthood. … To exploit this opportunity, however, researchers must overcome the hetero-normative presumption that interprets sɛҳuąƖ differences as deficits, thereby inflicting some of the very disadvantages it claims to discover.”
Stacey & Biblarz, supra, at 179.

One prominent psychiatrist analyzed the APA’s decision as follows:
“The APA could only take the action it did by disregarding and dismissing hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports that had been done on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity over the previous two decades …. The APA ignored the science, and, for reasons that were nothing but political, ‘cured’ ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity by fiat.”
Charles W. Socarides, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity: A Freedom Too Far 74 (Adam Margrave Books 1995). Thus began the “scientific” endorsement of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. There have even been attempts to prove that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is genetically determined. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard’s famous study of twins is one such attempt. J. Michael Bailey & Richard Pillard, A Genetic Study of Male sɛҳuąƖ Orientation, 48 Archives of General Psychiatry 1089, 1090 (1991). Commenting on Michael Bailey’s study, Anne Fausto Stirling, a developmental biologist at Brown University, criticized: “It’s such badly interpreted genetics.” D. Gelman et al., ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity: Genetic Aspects, Newsweek, Feb. 24, 1992, at 46.

See, e.g., Theo G. M. Sandfort et al., Same-Sex sɛҳuąƖ Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders, 58 Archives of General Psychiatry 85, 88 (table) (Jan. 2001) (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are three times more likely than heterosɛҳuąƖs to suffer from mood disorders); 58 Archives of General Psychiatry at 88 (table) (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are five times more likely to have suffered from bipolar disorder); J. Michael Bailey, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Mental Illness, 56 Archives of General Psychiatry 883, 884 (Oct. 1999); 58 Archives of General Psychiatry at 88 (table) (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are twice as likely to have suffered from major depression, neuroses, eating disorders, and phobias within their lifetime). Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, Health Care Needs of gαy Men and Lesbians in the United States, 275 JAMA 1357 (1996); Joanne M. Hall, Lesbians Recovering from Alcohol Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Experiences, 43 Nursing Research 238 (1994); Anne H. Faulkner et al., Correlates of Same-Sex sɛҳuąƖ Behavior in a Random Sample of Massachusetts High School Students, 88 Am. J. of Pub. Health 262 (Feb. 1998) (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs run a significantly greater risk for substance abuse); Curtis D. Proctor et al., Risk Factors for ѕυιcιdє Among gαy, Lesbian, and BisɛҳuąƖ Youth, 39 Social Work 504 (Sept. 1994) (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs run a much greater risk for ѕυιcιdє); Journal Watch, 31 Nation’s Health 18 (July 2001) (reporting that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ youth were more than twice as likely to commit a violent crime and were at a higher risk of being attacked by others); and Gary Remafedi, Adolescent ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity: Psychosocial and Medical Implications, 79 Pediatrics 331, 334 (March 1987) (noting that nearly one-half of all young ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have been arrested, placed in juvenile detention or arraigned in juvenile court on at least one occasion).
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activists have proffered that many, if not all, of the mental problems associated with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are not due to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity; rather, they argue, these problems are due to a “homophobic” and “intolerant” society. Eskridge, supra, 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 1378. However, recent studies appear to contradict this proposal. See 18 Harvard Mental Health Letter 4 (Aug. 2001) (reporting that in the Netherlands, “a country that is especially tolerant of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity,” ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs continue to exhibit a much higher incidence of mental health problems).

Certain sociologists seem to have no compunction encouraging such experiments or “natural laboratories”:
“When researchers downplay the significance of any findings of differences [between heterosɛҳuąƖ and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ parents], they forfeit a unique opportunity to take full advantage of the ‘natural laboratory’ that the advent of lesbigαy-parent families provides for exploring the effects and acquisition of gender and sɛҳuąƖ identity, ideology, and behavior.”
Stacey & Biblarz, supra, at 162-63.