Can you please give me a specific instance of a judicial ruling that threw out one side’s expert testimony without using facts or evidence provided by the other side to support its position?

Yes, the ones in this article who were pushing gay adoption without allowing the disbarred judge to consult existing evidence. That’s what this post was all about, wasn’t it?

I assume you’re referring to the 2nd paragraph of the intro to the review? Odd, that. It doesn’t seem to have been accepted by the entire Florida judiciary. Didn’t Judge Lederman refuse to accept Rekers’ expert testimony just this past November and rule that the FL same-sex adoption ban is unconstitutional?
Additionally, Rekers’ testimony may or many not have been any part of the SCOTUS decision. Just because the case succeeded all the way to the US Supreme Court does not mean they accepted any of Rekers’ arguments or findings; the SCOTUS ruling could have been as narrow as “The state of Florida is within its rights to set its own restrictions on adoption.” I’ll be sure to look up the ruling to see what it says.
You said “every shred of exisiting SUPPORT for such things is based ENTIRELY ON BIAS and not facts or research.” Can you please give me a specific instance of a judicial ruling that threw out one side’s expert testimony without using facts or evidence provided by the other side to support its position?

In contrast, the State of Florida used this kind of scientific research provided by Dr. Rekers in defending the law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children, which defense succeeded all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in January, 2005.

So, it sounds like the State of Florida and the Supreme Court both found this research to be conclusive enough to at least partially base their rulings on it. It is also not the point of reviews to come to conclusions so much as it is up to those actually conducting the research. And, as I said before, the review is well-documented, and the studies are listed extensively in the footnotes (I just checked to make sure).

It’s interesting, though, that the testimony of a professional who is against homosexual adoption, etc, was rejected due to his bias (at least that’s what the above comments seem to imply), since every shred of existing SUPPORT for such things is based ENTIRELY ON BIAS and not facts or research.

NARTH Quoted On WorldNetDaily Over Gay Adoption Controversy

Okay, finally had some time to take a look at the Rekers review and the background of the court case, etc. I disagree that the review determines ANYthing conclusively, however. It’s not very persuasive to have one’s “expert testimony” thrown out by the judge. The Arkansas court specifically said that:

“Dr. Rekers’ willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court” and “Dr. Rekers’ personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues.”

If you have studies or reviews by other people to lend support to your stance, could you please provide them?

From the article:

On November 21 the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) released what it calls a “Groundbreaking Report on Health Disparities Based on Sexual Orientation”.

As the DPH press release describes:

“The report revealed significant disparities among people who identified as homosexual or bisexual in the areas of access to care, self-reported health status, anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, smoking, binge drinking, illicit drug use, sexual assault victimization, intimate partner violence, disability, obesity, asthma and heart disease . . . Lesbians were 2.2 times more likely than heterosexual women to be obese.
…

Interestingly, the Massachusetts DPH is probably the most pro-homosexual public health department in America. It’s run by DPH Commissioner John Auerbach, who is “married” to another man.”

The full report can be accessed from the article above.

however, the judge had asked for clarification from the Spanish Supreme Court equivalent for guidance on the issue, AND had provided a way for the homosexual partners to overcome his concerns through testing. That the tests were never completed because the state was reluctant to conduct them is a red flag to me concerning the acceptability of homosexual adoption in that nation.

The most interesting part of this particular case to me is not that this man stood up and made a statement against homosexual adoption, because I don’t think that’s necessarily what he did. Rather, it is interesting to me that despite other failures in the system, this man’s religion was the preferred and acceptable scapegoat, allowing every other failing to be swept under the broad “homophobia” rug.

The idea that personal religious beliefs automatically make you a target in increasingly secular societies is alarming to me—especially as I consider myself a deeply religious person in an increasingly secular society here in the states.

I have to say that the irony of it strikes me. Had Spain not been so open minded in “tolerating” same sex unions, this man would not have faced such intolerance for his personal beliefs, and yet, here in our country, we face the same guilt trip. Be tolerant! Accept us!

True tolerance flows both ways.

Yes,I see that but the Rekers review is the only one. And it’s not published in a peer-reviewed journal, so I was asking if he had more cites to provide.