Friday Gay Blogging

Marriage Note: From Jeremy Hooper comes this bit about same-sex marriage on prime-time TV -- the way it ought to be done:


Watch CBS Videos Online

And another from Hooper, this one about the Florida man who won a court case to adopt his foster son. The Miami Herald did really good story on it.

And speaking of gay adoptions, guess what? Someone's done a study, and we need more gay couples adopting. From the Chicago Tribune:

While Clay Aiken may be on the cover of People cradling his infant (through surrogacy) and Rosie O'Donnell has long shared stories of her brood with mainstream America, the highly charged issue of gay parenthood continues to rally conservatives, who say such homes are not in the best interest of a child.

But findings by a nonpartisan adoption group being released Thursday conclude that gays and lesbians are an important resource for children awaiting adoption. There is near "universal professional consensus" that these applicants should be judged on their qualifications, not sexual orientation.

And every study done on the subject says that children raised by same-sex parents are just as well-adjusted as those raised by opposite-sex parents, no matter what lies you hear from James Dobson. The "better with a mother and father" argument, as you will remember, is a mendacious retelling of studies that compared the children of single-parent and dual-parent households. None of them made any reference to the sexual orientation of the parents.

And speaking of lies and the liars who tell them, there's this note from Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin:

A British researcher has denounced two North American anti-gay web sites for distorting his research. University College London professor Michael King, in a statement to Box Turtle Bulletin, clarified the findings of his research on depression and suicide among LGB people, and emphasized the importance that “all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens. . . .”

The BMC Psychiatry article by professor Michael King and colleagues is available online for free. This means that you don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything; you can read it yourself. And as you do, you’ll notice that the study bears little resemblance to Gilbert’s description of it.

Ack! We're veering into Wingnut Watch here, which I try to avoid on Fridays.

Enough.

And what about dessert? Australian magazine DNA to the rescue: