Maman Poulet | Clucking away crookedly through media, politics and life

Your tax euros at work

October 11th, 2006 · 14 Comments · KAL Case, Lesbian, LGBT, Same Sex Partnerships

Yesterday the state called Professor Patricia Casey to give evidence on their behalf in the case being taken against them by Dr. Katherine Zappone and Dr. Ann Louise Gilligan. Professor Casey is a psychiatrist at the Mater Hospital and also based at UCD.

Professor Casey is a member of the Irish Catholic Churches Commission on Social Justice, she is also a renowned Pro-Life campaigner.

Professor Casey also opposed an equal age of consent for homosexuality in 1993. She opposed the introduction of Divorce and in 2004 produced research to indicate that divorce was more harmful to children than the death of a parent – research which was widely reported amongst catholic fundamentalist activists.

In her evidence yesterday Casey said that the studies on children raised in lesbian households should be treated with caution.

The claims about the welfare of children raised in same sex families, on scientific grounds, could not be supported because nobody knows what the reality was, Prof Casey said.

So how does anyone know anything about anything? What is research? Casey said that snowballing methods could not be trusted. How else would she propose researching hard to reach groups? If we don’t know something how do we find out about it? I suggest that Casey would rather we never found out anything about lesbian families and the children raised within. Not if it is going to show that there are no effects on the children – that wouldn’t do at all. In fact it has been remarked that children raised in lesbian families are probably over researched and analysed due to concerns that they are at risk.

Was Casey asked for her opinion on the stance of many professional associations of pediatricians, psychologists and psychiatrists who have released statements and findings indicating that there are no risks?

So the Irish Government called a leading psychiatrist to back up their case – a woman with a long track history in her links with the Catholic Church and opposing social change in Ireland. Unfortunately I do not know what occurred in cross examination but I hope someone pointed out the bias under which she operates.

Speaking of bias, an American sociologist also gave evidence to the court by video link yesterday. Professor Linda Waite from Chicago has written strongly in favour of the institution of heterosexual marriage – what this has to do with any expertise on same sex marriage or relationship recognition I don’t quite know. So I thought I’d have a little look around the net to see where her expertise lies.

Professor Waite is listed on the Personnel Page of the Institute for American Values. 

She co-authored a book on the Case for Marriage with Maggie Gallagher who was discovered to have taken tens of thousands of dollars from the White House whilst testifying in favour of heterosexual marriage and writing nationally syndicated columns on the issue. She ‘forgot’ to tell anyone that she was being paid by the White House to do so. (More on Gallagher and the funding can be read widely including here.) Maggie Gallagher is a speaker for hire against same sex marriage

Professor Waite has not published exclusively on same sex marriage –  see her Curriculum Vitae here –  but is quoted as being afraid of what the social costs of same sex marriage will be.  She is also a signatory of the Institute for American Values and Institute for Marriage and Public Policy’s Statement of Principles on Marriage and the Law (registration required) which argues against legal interference in marriage law.

We agree however that the basic understanding of marriage underlying much of the current same-sex marriage discourse is seriously flawed, reflecting all the worst trends in marriage and family law generally. It is adult-centric, turning on the rights of adults to make choices. It does not take institutional effects of law seriously, failing to treat with intellectual seriousness any potential consequences that changing the basic legal definition of marriage may have for the children of society. In many cases it directly or indirectly seeks to disconnect marriage from its historic connection to procreation.

A little fact checking of a Wednesday morning, just so you know what the Government through their defence of the Zappone/Gilligan Case are thinking of you if you are a lesbian or gay man living in Ireland. It’s not really surprising that they are dragging the wingnuts out of the dust to give evidence but I think we are all better knowing what our government are paying for in terms of their experts. 



14 Comments so far