The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the U.S. Constitution bars states from denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples cited 10 pages of APA's amicus curiae brief filed in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges. Many other associations with an interest in mental health signed on to APA's brief, including the Kentucky, Ohio and Missouri state psychological associations, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social workers, the American Medical Association and others.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy cited scientific research in finding no reason to discriminate against couples on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to the right to marriage.
The APA amicus brief argued that scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality; that gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects; that same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual parents to raise children, and that their children are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted; and that denying same-sex couples access to marriage contributes to the negative treatment of lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
"It is amazing to realize that the court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down state laws that criminalized same- sex intimacy, occurred only 12 years ago," says APA Counsel Nathalie Gilfoyle, JD. "That decision, in which APA also filed an amicus brief, was the foundation for the subsequent cases seeking recognition of marriage equality."
Since 2005, APA has filed 35 amicus briefs in state and federal courts presenting social science research to rebut stereotypes about sexual orientation and same-sex relationships, and to accurately present the effects of parents' sexual orientation on children and the nature of stigma, Gilfoyle says. "Our briefs evolved over the years to present new research and address changing arguments presented by the opponents of marriage equality. Ultimately science was critical to rebutting stereotypes that had been used by legislatures and courts to justify discrimination."
— Kim Mills
