By Susan Brinkmann, OCDS Staff Journalist Experts studying the controversial decision overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage say U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker based the ruling in part on his finding that children do not need a mother and/or a father, even though the evidence he used distinctly said not enough studies were available on the subject. CNSNews.com is reporting that Walker's ruling, which overturned a voter-approved amendment to California's constitution that limited marriage to the union of a man and a woman, relied in part upon a brochure published by the American Psychological Association (APA) to make this determination. “Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted,” wrote the judge, who is openly homosexual.   “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”   The Judge goes on to claim that this fact is “beyond serious debate” even though the APA brochure he cites as a source specifically states that: “Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Walker chose not to include this statement from the brochure in his opinion. As CNS reports, Judge Walker does not explain how his finding can be “beyond serious debate” when the very evidence he uses to establish this point states that “[f]ew studies are available regarding gay fathers.” Experts such as psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., say that in every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social and developmental, there is overwhelming evidence to prove that children need both mothers and fathers. In fact, Satinover served as an expert witness against same-sex marriage in Florida's landmark same-sex adoption case, Amer v. Johnson, several years ago. "The state of Florida wanted me to argue that the reason the ban should be upheld was because homosexuals made bad parents and I refused to do that," he told this author shortly after the case was decided. "I said in my testimony, if two homosexuals wanted to adopt a child, I would have no objection to it, as long as one of them was a man, and one of them was a woman." The courts ruled in his favor and banned same-sex adoption. Even though it was appealed all the way to the state's Supreme Court, it was decided that the lower courts were rational in maintaining a child's primary right to both a mother and a father. But physicians in favor of same-sex unions continue to chip away at the stockpile of existing evidence to produce what many say is flawed and outright biased research that supports their theory that gay parenting has no negative impact on children. For instance, Dr. Ellen Perrin, a pediatrician with the Floating Hospital for Children in Boston, told National Public Radio in 2004 that she had reviewed the research on same-sex parenting and said they all come to the same conclusion: "...those studies found no differences in parent-child relationships, in self-esteem, in psychiatric or emotional status or problem behaviors. The findings are quite monotonous. There just were no differences." However, Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, reviewed the same studies and found that  each of them had a fatal flaw. According to Nock, "The primary flaw is that their samples were self-recruited, that individuals volunteered to participate in these studies as a result of seeing an ad or a flier or being approached by a friend or contact, and whether or not people who volunteer to participate in studies resemble the sort who do not is the question." There is an abundance of flawed research out there upon which Judge Walker could base his decision, which he seems to have done, particularly when it comes to determining if children have a right to both a mother and a father. The problem is that Walker's decision could have wide-ranging ramifcations. "Walker’s ruling declaring same-sex marriage protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, if upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, would have ramifications far beyond California, requiring states across the union to recognize same-sex marriages while wiping out any legal protection a child might have from being handed over by state governments to same-sex couples either through adoption or foster parenthood," CNS reports.   "The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied by Walker would require states to grant a marriage license to same-sex couples and would-be parents, while implicitly annihilating the notion that each American child has an equal right to a mother and a father."   As a result of the decision, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) passed a resolution condemning Walker's and all other "attempts by judges to rewrite the Constitution in order to amend the definition of traditional marriage to fit their personal views." Smith's resolution says this kind of behavior "constitutes improper judicial activism." The resolution also accuses Walker, an open homosexual, of failing to conduct himself in an impartial manner during the trial, citing in particular the judge's attempt to broadcast the proceedings in spite of the known threat it would pose to witnesses. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins applauded Rep. Smith for introducing the resolution and for pointing out that "Judge Walker is a single judge who thinks he knows better than seven million Californians and voters in more than 30 states who have approved marriage amendments." Perkins adds: "The judge's opinion ignored the social science, which shows that policies such as no-fault divorce have devalued marriage and truly impacted children. . . . I thank Congressman Lamar Smith and his colleagues for introducing this resolution that counters Judge Walker's notion that a child doesn't deserve a mother and a father. This case is far from over, and we hope that common sense will reign when the case makes its way to the United States Supreme Court." © All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com