Ryan Anderson at Heritage's Foundry blog writes an extensive examination of the bad reasons being used to redefine marriage:
The majority of Americans think it best to keep civil marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But a handful of judges have overruled the reasonable judgments and will of the people and their elected representatives, claiming that animus and anti-gay bigotry underlie such conclusions.
For example, Judge Joseph Tauro, a federal district court judge in Boston, when he ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, explained that “Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit.”
In striking down traditional marriage laws, courts frequently appeal to the authority of social science. Consider the opinion of Judge Vaughn Walker. In the case that overturned California’s state marriage amendment Proposition 8, he included as a “finding of fact” that “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.”
Only it isn’t accepted. Or, at least, it shouldn’t be. The jury is still out. That’s the message of two new peer-reviewed articles out last week in the academic journal Social Science Research. While much attention has focused on Mark Regnerus’s New Family Structures Study (NFSS), it is important not to overlook the work of Loren Marks. Marks reviewed all 59 studies that the American Psychological Association relied on when it issued a brief in 2005 embracing the conclusion that there are “no differences” in outcomes for children from same-sex parenting and traditional moms and dads.
10 Comments
Mark Regnerus' study has nothing to do with same-sex parents or same-sex marriage. If you actually look into it, you will find that it compares child outcomes between those raised in stable homes by their married, biological parents, and those raised in homes in which one of their biological parents has had a same-sex relationship during their childhood. In other words, it compares stable homes to home where homosexuals married someone of the opposite sex, had children, but then had their relationship fall apart for obvious reasons. That is, Regnerus' study shows that when homosexuals try to adopt the traditional heterosexual lifestyle and marry traditionally, it leads to broken homes and in turn to worse experiences for children.
However, when conservatives write about the study they use very misleading language: "The author of a new study showing some negative outcomes for young adults whose parents had same-sex relationships is under attack because his findings conflict with what, in some corners, has become conventional wisdom.
Apparently, the idea that there is “no difference” between children of same-sex parents and their peers raised in traditional married mother-and-father households has become so entrenched among some advocates that new research presenting a contrasting picture is unwelcome—to put it mildly." (taken from the linked page from the above article) This goes from one paragraph of saying "parents who engaged in same-sex relationships" to "children of same-sex parents" in the next. While this may seem like the same thing, and that I'm playing with words here, the two are fundamentally different. The study does examine the children of male/female couples in which one parent is actually homosexual (leading to a broken home). The study does not examine the children of same-sex parents (two parents of the same gender who adopted a child or, if two women, have a child who is a biological child of one of the parents).
If anything, his study is evidence that same-sex marriage is a good thing, as it will mean fewer broken homes due to homosexuals being forced to marry someone they are not sexually attracted to, and will mean better results for American children.
The 59 studies that the APA relied on, while flawed, were looking at kids raised by same-sex parents, which this whole debate is about. Which is better evidence, then? One study that does not study children raised by same-sex parents at all, or 59 imperfect studies that are researching the issue at hand? The studies, at the very least, show that there are many cases in which children of same sex parents turn out well (even if we can't conclusively determine that statistically they'll turn out the same as with heterosexual parents yet).
@Jon
You say that homo people should not try to adopt the hetro life style. So why are they trying to put their union under the same name of the supreme form of the hetero life style “marriage”.
I understand that there might be a feeling that this is the only way they can get full acceptance into culture and the obtaining of children. But this is creating an injustice for those who feel the difference between the two types of unions is enough that it is reasonable and sane for the society and the education of their children to have different words to name these two different things.
I take it that you do not believe that there are any differences between the man-womon union, physically and so psychologically, from that of the man-man union that are worth signaling out by a different word given to the two unions. As we don't give a different word to couples with different hair color, height or race.
If this is your feeling, it can be understood.
But we do feel the difference is great enough to have it signaled out by a unique word (marriage). Why do you attack us for wanting to signal this difference out. How does it destroy the wishes of the homo community not to have this name of marriage? Do you feel one injustice is worth the justice that that injustice would produce? Or do you really not see any valid, unprejudiced reason that someone would want to have a unique word for the man-woman union?
I can understand that you might see all this questioning as just one big word trap that needs to be counter attacked. But its not. The questions can be posed with the same feelings of hurt and isolation, and of not being accepted, as the question of the homo who might ask, “but why don't you want me to get married”. They are sincere questions.
Put simply: Why don't you want the man-woman union to be given a unique name?
Jon, while I agree that Regnerus’s study shouldn’t be interpreted beyond its scope, it is the best study we have to date on same-sex parenting.
Yes, it is on same-sex parenting, and I’ll try to explain why.
Regnerus’s study is more so descriptive than explanatory. It’s not seeking to determine the capacity of same-sex couples to rear children. That was the original intent, but the number of adults who have been raised by a same-sex couple is so small that it cannot be empirically analyzed.
Such small numbers may lead us to say that we can’t draw conclusions on how children raised by same-sex couples fare. But proponents of same-sex parenting have not let the lack of data prevent them from drawing wild generalizations in the past. Maybe Regnerus’s study will slow them down.
The 59 imperfect studies also focus on broken families—usually lesbian divorcees were compared to heterosexual divorcees or single mothers.
Pretty much all of the studies focusing on partnered lesbians involved children who had experienced household transition and family change. And since they were not longitudinal, they were mere snapshots in time, and are also insufficient to tell us how children *raised* by same-sex couples fare. For instance: if you measure an eight year old living with a same-sex couple, but then the mother leaves that relationship and marries a man, has that child been raised by a same-sex couple?
Basically, there is really *no* study that measures same-sex parents in the way that critics of Regnerus’s study say that he should have.
But here’s the real kicker. Even studies of partnered lesbians—like the longitudinal study published in Pediatrics in 2010—showed high relationship dissolution rates for lesbian couples, and actually reported that the positive findings for lesbian couples extended to lesbian families that had separated. Translation: it didn’t matter if one's parents separated; if the child had a lesbian mother, their outcomes were better than all other children!
This results of this study—though questionable—would, in effect, reject your claim about the need for stability for same-sex families. Even the article you shared on a previous thread from the Australian Psychological Association made the outrageous claim that family structure is not important to child well-being, just parental quality.
It seems there is a philosophical disconnect between the people fighting for ssm on the ground level and those in the “high places.”
Of course one would get flattering results like those published in Pediatrics, when one employs such a methodology: 1) data based on self-reporting from the women and children on a small number of outcomes (Regnerus measured about 40 outcomes); 2) disproportionately wealthy and educated lesbian women; 3) who were self-selected from Boston, Washington, DC, and San Francisco (non-representative); 4) and a comparison group that is a random sample of all American.
In every respect, Regnerus’s study is better than past research. Any criticism that can be mounted against his study can be thrown at the much celebrated research of yesteryear.
If Regnerus accomplished nothing else, he put the past body of same-sex parenting research in its proper place. I think that’s what he wanted to do.
He basically said: “OK. Look, all of this talk about lesbian parents being superior sounds a little fishy to me. So, I’m going to do a random sample of American adults; screen them in such a way as to maximize the number of children who have ever been in a same-sex household; and compare them to the intact family after controlling for a number of confounding variables. WHOOPS! There are only two children out of a random sample of 15,000 who have ever lived with a same-sex couple for the entirety of their childhood. Well, the previous same-sex parenting studies also focused on broken lesbian families by comparing them to other broken families. People are using this research to reject the idea that children do best with a married mom and dad. So, let’s compare these children to the intact family just to erase any doubt.”
(I'm reading his mind. This is not a quote from Regnerus.)
Of course, they didn’t measure up. They even had slightly worse outcomes than other broken families, but those were not statistically significant.
Regnerus’s study is better than all the rest. People may misinterpret it. But it merely shows that the claims that have been made heretofore about children of same-sex couples are without evidentiary backing. The married mom and dad continue to reign supreme.
Interesting study. Though I think it is worth reiterating and educating people on the truth that men and women are different.
@Jon
"it will mean fewer broken homes due to homosexuals being forced to marry someone they are not sexually attracted to, and will mean better results for American children."
4-5% of the population won't have an impact on the number of broken homes in this country. And since statistics prove that homosexual households are unstable and are more likely to divorce, your argument here completely falls apart.
What I don't understand with liberals is that when something is broken, their solution is to make it worse. They say Marriage is broken, but instead of rolling back the damage done by their decades old legislation, they decide that it's high time to redefine it.
Zack, how would you like to "roll back" old legislation, and what pieces of legislation would you like to roll back?
@Layne
Repeal no-fault divorce which has shifted Marriage from a life-time commitment to a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship that can be ended on a whim.
@Zack: LOL!! Good luck getting that one put on the ballot...
@Zack, You do realize that "4-5%" of the population is many millions of people, right? If that isn't a significant number in your book, then I'm not quite sure what to tell you.
Excellent article. The studies (we are, laughably, well-conditioned to studies) have impacted the debate extremely well.
Good.
The mere fact that studies are entirely irrelevant to the serene facts of human biology, can be overlooked in the interest of the political contest ion a very deeply conditioned society, which apparently needs studies to notice that children are the product of the union of two complementary genders, and require the nurture of both.
Insanity.
But there it is, and therefore I applaud the studies in spite of their perfect irrelevance.
Each "same-sex parenting" scenario lacks either a mom or a dad in the home.
It is not an intact family.
It has much in common with other scenarios that are not intact families.
As with single parenting, the lack of the other sex is structural.
As with the use of so-called "donor" gametes, the child is not raised by the man and woman who created her.
As with adoptive scenarios, either mom or dad or both have not remained in the child's family home.
As with children of divorced or estranged parents, either mom or dad is not present in the family home.
That last scenario is the most prevalent among those very few same-sex households (census term assuming the household is led by person in a same-sex sexualized relationship) which have children resident.
So non-intact families are well-studied and fall short when compared with the intact families led by the married parents in a low conflict marriage.
Why would gayness somehow overcome the structural similarities with these other scenarios? SSMers have no answer of substance for that question.
They merely assert the false equivalency -- not with other non-intact scenarios -- but with the intact scenario that is the standard against which all other scenarios fall short in terms of outcomes for children.
The issue is the ideal. And the ideal can be achieved -- with societal supports via the foundational social institution of marriage. Is marriage perfect? Nope. But that is not the standard.
In the meantime, SSMers who draw attention to children do so not by focussing on the children but by dragging children into the spotlight that is on the adults. The routine reaction of SSMers to parenting studies is to smear good studies and to cheer the profoundly pro-gay flawed studies.
Why is that if not for the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over and above all other considerations? SSMers do not have a good answer to that question either.