Maryland Psychological Association joins APA in same-sex marriage brief

As I indicated in two recent MPA-NEWS articles, MPA was asked by APA last month if it would co-sign an amicus curiae brief on a case that is pending before the Maryland Court of Appeals. In the case (Deane & Polyak et al. v. Conaway et al.), the plaintiffs asserted that the state’s prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the Maryland Declaration of Rights. In January, Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, writing that the prohibition “discriminates, based on gender against a suspect class, and is not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling governmental interests.”

Last month, the Maryland Psychological Association was asked by the APA to join them in filing an amicus brief in support of a MD case seeking marriage rights for same-sex couples. A Maryland psychologist made me aware of the APA request and I have been following with interest the deliberations of the MPA. The MPA president and board gave their members and psychologists nationally opportunity to offer opinions and comments about how the MPA board should respond. Although I favored neutrality, I commend Dr. Clavelle and his colleagues for their openness to input from all sides of the issue.

Here is Dr. Clavelle’s email that accompanied his article describing the deliberations and the outcome (which was to join the APA in the brief).

Dear Dr. Throckmorton,

My apologies for the delay in responding to your request for the outcome of our deliberations about the APA brief.

I have attached an article I sent out to the MPA listserv regarding the process we followed to address this matter, as well as the result of our deliberations.

I trust this will give you a good idea of how we proceeded and the position we ended up taking.

Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

All the best.

Paul Clavelle

MPA President, 2006-2007

2 thoughts on “Maryland Psychological Association joins APA in same-sex marriage brief”

  1. Ken: The Amicus Brief is now linked in the post so you can find it there. As for the arguments against signing on, I do not have copies of letters or papers submitted. I favor professional neutrality on this issue and I suspect some argued in that way. Others probably argued that the research used to support same-sex marriage is weak. If I get any of those documents, I will post them.

  2. Can you get a copy (or a link to a copy) of the brief? Or at least the literature citations that where used?

    I’d also be interested in hearing what the arguments against signing on to the brief where.

Comments are closed.