A new study published in the March edition of American Journal of Public Health finds that gays and lesbians living in states where gay marriage is banned are at greater risk to psychiatric disorders.

Researchers analyzed data from lesbians, gays and bisexuals who were interviewed in 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 for the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The participants lived in states that instituted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage following the 2004-2005 elections.

The researchers found a significant increase in the prevalence of mood disorders, generalized anxiety Researchers analyzed data from lesbians, gays and bisexuals who were interviewed in 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 for the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The participants lived in states that instituted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage following the 2004-2005 elections.

The researchers found a significant increase in the prevalence of mood disorders, generalized anxiety disorders and alcohol use disorders among lesbians, gays and bisexuals after the states banned gay marriage. The greatest increase — more than 200 percent — was seen in generalized anxiety disorder.

The study found among gays and lesbians the following outcomes: mood disorders (36.6% increase), generalized anxiety disorder (248.2% increase), any alcohol use disorder (41.9% increase), and psychiatric comorbidity (36.3% increase).

The historic Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell hearings began today. Entire hearing is below.

The depositions of Prop 8 witnesses Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young who may have withdrew out of fear for their own safety reveal today how damaging their statements could have been (and ultimately are) to their case. Watch:

Paul Nathanson a Canadian religious scholar who just happens to be gay (duh!) was also trotted out in Varnum v. Brien which ultimately led to the Iowa Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. In the document Defending Faith, Family and Freedom by the Family Research Council Nathanson is quoted as saying that cultures can only survive and thrive via opposite-sex marriage.

“Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival … every human society has had to promote it actively … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

Not surprisingly marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher also surfaces in said document.

Nathanson and Young also co-authored  Marriage à la mode: Answering the Advocates of Gay Marriage in 2003 which attempts to dissect and tear down many marriage equality positions. Some of their arguments below.

Argument 7: Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones: This comparison is false, because it involves the best of one scenario with the worst of another. A legitimate comparison would compare either the best of both or the worst of both. Once again, we suggest that the best of marriage (providing at least one parent or other adult of each sex) is better than the best of gay marriage (which provides two parents of the same sex and none of the other one).

Argument 15: Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic: This argument amounts to verbal terrorism. By “homophobic” is meant prejudice and hostility, although this word actually connotes the neuroticism of a phobia. The implication is that only evil or sick people can possibly disagree with any claim made by gay people. So much for the possibility of rational debate. (Never mind that not even all gay people are in favor of gay marriage.)

Moreover, this is an ad hominem argument. It is easy to trivialize arguments by attacking the personal integrity of those who make them. That way, you need not deal with the argument itself.

It’s a lengthy document but a good source for “verbal terrorists” such as myself in developing counter arguments.

By a slim 5-4 margin the U. S. Supreme Court today blocked cameras from broadcasting the Prop 8 trial.

In an unsigned opinion Wednesday, the court criticized [Judge] Walker for attempting to change the rules “at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials.”

While the court set no time limit in its ruling, any further proceedings at high court likely would come after the trial was over.

The four justices in dissent were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens.

At this time it is still unclear if the trial proceedings will be posted on YouTube as that was not addressed in today’s decision.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights which is leading the challenge against Proposition 8 released the following statement:

“Proposition 8 attacks the core of what our nation stands for — that all of us are entitled to equal protection under the law and equal treatment from the government. A trial on constitutional rights should be accessible to as many people as possible,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Given the powerful evidence against Prop. 8 presented in court today, we are not surprised the initiative’s defenders sought to keep this trial as private as possible.”

Not surprisingly the ruling broke cleanly along idealogical lines and fear it doesn’t bode well for when the case ultimately reaches the Supreme Court.