He was right - he was happily married until all those pre-Prop 8 gay marriages took place. The fact that they weren't thrown out meant his marriage was doomed. It's simple cause and effect.

Allowing gay marriage isn't the answer to life, the universe, and evertying, but it's close enough as to be a threat to psychologists and their future.

*everything

You know I have listened to Dan for years and read his column even longer but the more I read his blog the more it makes me happy to know the GLBT community is as much, if not more so, bigoted than the folk they hate.

What I get out of this post is once again the GLBT is trying to deprive somebody of their constitution right of free speech and to petition their government over something like marriage which last I checked wasn't in the Bill of Rights anywhere. Go go GLBT bigots.

Ugh. Do we really have to have the conversation about what freedom of speech means again? For real?

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". That is what the 1st amendment says about speech. Mr. Manchester is free to say whatever he wants about gay marriage, @4. The law/Congress isn't going to stop him. I am free to think whatever his says is stupid or hateful and to not spend my money at his hotel (and to encourage other like-minded people to not spend their money there as well). That in no way interferes with his right to say what he wants. Criminy.

Sounds like a traditional marriage to me. He also sounds like a lovely Catholic. I hope she fucks him over royally.

Thanks, Julie @5. It sure does get tiresome explaining the Constitution to so-called "Constitutionalists." I remember hearing someone from the Rutherford Institute on the radio claim that the policy of a San Francisco paper prohibiting the use of certain "politically incorrect" terms in its pages was "censorship." What a bunch of maroons.

Thanks, Julie (@5). The point here is that the APA is saying "we support LBGT rights" and then is turning around and asking their members to put their money in the pocket of Doug Manchester, so that he can turn around and work against what the APA has said it is for. That's just bad leadership.

And thanks, Dan, for broadcasting this to your sizable audience!

The more the APA gets involved in political issues like gay marriage the more credibility and standing within the medical field it looses. There needs to be a take over of the APA old guard that has brought it into the gutter in which it currently finds itself and more diverse opinions that balance out the fringe elements to keep it from endorsing political ideologies. Either that or take away the american from the psychological association, because more and more american people are seeing them in an unfavorable light.

@9: by this we infer that you are a member of the APA, LooseChild? If not, what specifically are your credentials to criticize the leadership of a scientific organization?

Loveschild might have a point if gay rights had no impact on mental health. But the psychological literature strongly suggests that discrimination and denial of rights harms the mental health of LBGT people. Thus it is a mental health issue. That doesn't mean it has to be one the organization takes up--plenty of mental health factors are not taken up by the APA--but the APA has chosen to claim it has taken it up as an issue of concern. So now their move looks hypocritical. In my post on Bioethics Forum, Given the mental health issues here, I likened this to the most prominent pulmonology association funneling its members' dollars to a tobacco pusher. Sure, you could do it, but it sure would make you look stupid.

I can't wait until the release the names of those who signed R71 last year. Time for more retribution. Even when we win there must be consequences for those who tried to take away our basic human rights.

As a former student affiliate of this professional organization-
I have to say that I disagree with loveschild. Surely no one would think poorly of the APA's long overdue statement disapproving of the torture of human beings. The APA is a professional organization, which uses scientific research and the code of ethics which it endorses for all psychologists to make such public statements. Diversity is a value that this professional organization clearly holds in the ethics code. Valuing diversity means not discriminating against a group of people. As a member of the organization who has let her membership fall passed due, I agree with others here, this looks bad for the APA. Their original statement was warranted... and this action looks hypocritical.

5.

Do we really have to have the conversation about what freedom of speech means again? For real?

Yes, Julie, we do. And we will. Again and again. And this is because most people don't have the critical thinking and reading skill of your average 6th grader. I'm not exaggerating. The public education system is in tatters, and it's reflected in comment boxes all over the country.

Somebody needs to learn the difference between "lose," as in to misplace or not win, and "loose," as in not tight.

Does anyone have a comprehensive list of these types of hotels? I have to tell you, for LGBT supporting meeting planners, it is sometimes hard to figure out which hotels are supporters and which are not. Not that it lets the APA off the hook, but I would venture to guess that the program is planned by a professional meeting planner, who probably solicited for bids. And this hotel probably came up with the best price because they are probably at a stage where they will cut crazy rates for a conference this large.
It would be helpful if there was a list of pro LGBT hotels and those hotels we should boycott when planning meetings.

Um, @5 - you spelled "their" and "there" differently in different places. Please bring your spelling up to date, i.e. pick one spelling and use it at all times. Thanks.

And I may have to revise my theory that LC is a sock puppet for a group of sociology grad students working on a project. Looks like it might be a group of psychology students instead.

Well, we can't really pass judgment on them for trying to save money in such a poor economy. After all, for all we know, all their available funds might already be tied up, and for them to pay a lot more money to get out of this and plan a new location for this meeting might be financially straini--

Oh, they recently received more than three times the amount of money that they'd lose in a worst case scenario? Money that wasn't part of their original budget? So they could pay out the highest possible amount and still end about $2.5M up? Okay, yes, then that would make them look like a collective horse's ass, yes.

@18 - the comments written by @5 - Julie used the correct spelling. You're the idiot. Their indicates possession - it was their money. There indicates a place - they refused to stay there because the place is owned by a bigoted ass.

@20 - I was hoping that, on this forum, I wouldn't need to indicate that this was sarcasm. Sorry about that.