START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
784,101 people care about Civil Rights

Prof. Claims DOMA Defense Distorted Her Research

Prof. Claims DOMA Defense Distorted Her Research

 

Professor Lisa M. Diamond has claimed that lawyers acting on behalf of the United States House or Representatives to defend in court Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act that bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, have “completely misrepresented”  her research and “distorted” her findings.

Lawyers for the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), headed by lawyer Paul Clement, recently intervened in the case of Windsor v. United States where New York resident Edie Windsor is challenging the exorbitantly high inheritance tax penalty on her late wife’s estate levied because DOMA means the federal government treats married same-sex partners as legal strangers. She is asking the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to deliver a summary judgement on DOMA Section 3. In a court memorandum arguing against such a move, BLAG lawyers asserted that gay and lesbian identity is fluid and that therefore it cannot be a cognizable group.

In doing so, they cited — on a number of occasions – research by Utah Professor Lisa M. Diamond, a leading researcher on human sexuality. Diamond has now filed a court brief in this case in which she says that BLAG’s lawyers have misrepresented her research.

She says in the brief (emphasis as in the text, paragraphing added for ease of reading):

BLAG misconstrues and distorts my research findings, which do not support the propositions for which BLAG cites them. Specifically, on p. 11 of their opposition to the motion for summary judgement, BLAG quotes the following statement from one of my papers: “…there is currently no scientific or popular consensus on the exact constellation of experiences that definitively ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual” — as support for their claim that sexual orientation is not immutable. This is incorrect.

My quoted statement concerns the scientific and popular debates over the defining characteristics of LGBT individuals and it says nothing whatsoever about the immutability of sexual orientation itself. Hence, BLAG has incorrectly characterized my research. BLAG goes on to state on page 11 that “according to multiple studies, a high number of persons who experience sexual attraction to members of the same sex early in their adult lives later cease to experience such attraction” and in support of this claim the provide the following quote from on of my articles: “50% [of respondents] had changed their identity label more than once since first relinquishing their heterosexual identity”.

This quoted statement refers to sexual identity labels (i.e., how individuals describe and interpret their sexuality), and not to sexual orientation. Neither this article nor any of my other published work supports BLAG’s claim that “a high number of persons who experience sexual attraction to members of the same sex early in their adult lives later cease to experience such attraction” (p.11). Hence they have completely misrepresented my research.

Diamond goes on to say:

Counsel for BLAG never requested that I serve as an expert witness for them in the above-refrenced lawsuit. If they had so requested, I would not have agreed to do so.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Edie Windsor, who sort to strike 12 of BLAG’s pieces of evidence they say were based on here-say and not facts, have said Professor Diamond’s brief rather proves their point that BLAG’s evidence is unreliable, writing in a reply memo (h/t AMERICAblog Gay):

As for citations to writings by individuals who may well have expertise for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, many of these individuals’ work simply does not support BLAG’s position, as one of thse authors has now made exceedingly clear… And others have made statements contrary to the porpositions BLAG advances in the very materials that BLAG cites.

The Obama administration announced in February of this year that, having undertaken a review of Section 3 of DOMA and finding it lacking, it would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law in court. House Republicans duly took up defending the law.

Both President Obama and the attorney general for the state of New York have filed briefs in support of the plaintiff.

Related Reading:

Leukemia Took My Partner & Now DOMA Will Take My Home (VIDEO)

Despite DADT Repeal, No Spousal Benefits for Gay Soldiers

Stephen Colbert: It Gets Better! (VIDEO)

Read more: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License with thanks to netsu.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

23 comments

+ add your own
4:10PM PDT on Oct 6, 2011

Gee, how very unlike the right-wing (almost always Republican) advocates to misrepresent, distort, and take out of context scientific research, when they aren't dismissing it outright as contradicting the GREATEST science books of all time, the Bible!

Color me surprised.

4:31AM PDT on Aug 31, 2011

Geez, such an argument wouldn't even stand in my freshman english class.
Don't try to bull**** the court.

10:26AM PDT on Aug 29, 2011

opinion = fact up = down right=left backwards = forwards

9:53AM PDT on Aug 27, 2011

Can anyone explain to me how if the republican/right wing/conservative cause is just? If their hearts are pure. If they are justified in protecting our country from the evils of the encroachment of homosexuality. Why, then, must the resort to focusing on irrelevant male bovine excrement, misrepresentations, outright lies, falsified and distorted 'researches' and creating a distraction from an impartial, unbiased presentation of all of the pertinent facts.
I realize that those pesky facts have always been more of an impediment and an obstacle to these people. Why do you suppose that is?
~;^}>

Superstition is harmful to children and other living things

6:35PM PDT on Aug 25, 2011

You got it Ed! "They quote themselves or some other person that misquoted an article - all of a sudden it's a "fact". "They" won't even consider being their own truth police, because most of them THINK they are experts on everything.


1:04PM PDT on Aug 25, 2011

For years people have misquoted *EVERYTHING* and gotten away with it. People do not look up every quote and likewise they should take every quote with a grain of salt. The anti gay people like wise do the same thing, misquoting.

Then they quote themselves or some other person that misquoted an article all of a sudden its a "fact". You really need to be your own truth police in any area you are not an expert in.

11:49AM PDT on Aug 25, 2011

@ Dan(iel) M

How boring life would be if the only people who commented on an article were those who agreed with it. Not afraid of a little criticism are you? Nor of differing view points?

11:38AM PDT on Aug 25, 2011

Great article.

10:09AM PDT on Aug 25, 2011

Gee. What a surprise that the haters would lie about something that didn't represent what they believed in order to fool others. I am so glad that she caught them and has let people know about thier lies!

10:00AM PDT on Aug 25, 2011

hUMMMM!!!!!!

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.