Conjugal Marriage Fosters Healthy Human and Societal
Transcript
Conjugal Marriage Fosters Healthy Human and Societal
Conjugal Marriage Fosters Healthy Human and Societal Development A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH “Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and tho’ it consists chiefly in such a communion and right to one another’s bodies and is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to write their care and affection, but also necessary to their common off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves.” 1 -- John Locke Introduction Locke’s view, as stated above, reflects the important benefits marriage provides to a good society, including permanency, sexual complementarity and mutual fidelity. Marriage as so understood from time immemorial has contributed to the healthy development of both men and women and provides an optimal environ for child rearing, all of which have added to the betterment of society. The benefits of this family structure find extensive support in the scientific literature. Other family structures do not provide similar benefits and may, indeed, even cause harm. Traditional Marriage Benefits Both Men and Women The well-being of adults is an important consideration in marriage. Men and women who marry benefit financially, emotionally, physically and socially from this unique institution. Married men and women, when compared to unmarried men and women, are more likely to be financially stable, to accumulate assets, and to own a home. 2 This conclusion holds true 1 Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government, Hackett Publishing, c. VII, s. 78, p. 43. Wilcox, W. B. et al. (2005). Why marriage matters: Twenty-six conclusions from the social sciences. 2d ed. New York: Institute for American Values. 2 1 even when the comparison group is cohabiting adults. 3 The income of men who are married is 10 to 40% more than that of single men with similar professional/educational background and experience. 4 Women who are married do not experience a similar financial advantage over women who are not, primarily because most women combine marriage with motherhood, which tends to depress the earnings of married women. 5 However, women from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to fall into poverty if they marry and the marriage stays intact. 6 Marriage is protective of the emotional and physical health of men and women. Adults who are married have greater longevity, less disease and illness, increased happiness and lower levels of mental illness, especially depression and substance abuse, than do both single and cohabiting adults. 7 Married men and women are more likely to encourage their spouses to seek medical screenings and health care than do cohabiting partners. 8 Adult maturity and fidelity correlates with marriage and provides a source of motivation for both men and women to avoid risky health behaviors, such as heavy alcohol and drug use, as well as promiscuous sexual behaviors. 9 In addition, the financial stability associated with marriage enables men and women to afford better health care. 10 The social and emotional support that emerges from marriage reduces the consequences of stressors and the associated stress hormones, like cortisol, that often cause both physical and mental illnesses. 11 3 Id. Id. 5 Budig, M.J. & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review 66:204-225. 6 Wilcox, W. B. et al. (2005). 7 Waite, L. & Gallagher, M. (2000). The Case for Marriage. New York: Doubleday. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. 4 2 Replicated studies have arrived at the same conclusion: marriage-related gains are translated into increased life expectancy and overall better health for men. 12 Women also experience gains, but the marriage benefits differ for women depending upon marital quality. The marital benefits for women are associated with the quality of the marriage: marriages that are poor in quality are associated with psychological distress in women, while good quality marriages provide women with important psychological and physical boosts. 13 Marriage plays an important social function in turning men toward the good of family and society. Married men, for example, are less likely to commit crime. 14 It is important to note that it is not marriage, the institution, that civilizes men, but rather the gender complimentarity afforded by marriage that has the civilizing effect. 15 That is, it is not marriage per se that civilizes men but rather the influence of women in the marriage relationship. Married men tend to be less sexually promiscuous, more faithful and less likely to abuse alcohol than single men. 16 They are more frequent church attenders, spend more time with relatives than with friends and work longer hours. 17 One researcher concluded that only 4% of married men had been unfaithful during the past year compared to 16% of cohabiting men and 37% of men who were presently in an ongoing relationship with a woman. 18 In his longitudinal research, Nock (1998) concluded that these effects were the direct result of marriage, not an artifact of selection. In his research, Nock tracked men longitudinally from being single as they transitioned into marriage and post marriage. He concluded that men’s 12 Wilcox, W. B. et al. 2005. Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-six Conclusions from the Social Sciences. New York: Institute for American Values. Lorraine Blackman, Obie Clayton, Norval Glenn, Linda Malone-Colon, and Alex Roberts, 2005. The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review: New York: Institute for American Values. 13 Wilcox, W. B. et al. (2005). 14 Nock, S. (1998). “The Consequences of Premarital Fatherhood,” American Sociological Review, 63: 250-263. 15 Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen. Washington, D. C.: Joseph Henry Press, p. 100. 16 Waite, L. & Gallagher, M, 2000. 17 Nocke, S., 1998. 18 Waite, L. & Gallagher, M.. (2000). 3 behavior actually underwent a change after marriage which included working harder in their place of employment, frequenting bars less often, attending church more often and spending more time with relatives. 19 For men, it appears that marriage is a rite of passage that transitions them fully into the adult world of responsibility and self-control. 20 The gender specific characteristics accorded by biology also support the importance of marriage in lowering testosterone levels in men. 21 Research on men, marriage and testosterone finds that married men, particularly married men with children, have lower levels of testosterone than single men. 22 Also, cohabiting men have lower testosterone levels than do single men. 23 Testosterone levels in men are moderated by secure, stable, permanent procreative relationships. 24 According to the literature on testosterone, this decrease in testosterone levels is associated with marriage and makes men less inclined to risky, aggressive behavior. 25 Women are uniquely benefited by marriage as well. In 1994, a Department of Justice report concluded that single and divorced women were four times more likely to be victimized by violent crime than married women. 26 Married women were significantly less likely to be abused by a partner than women in a cohabiting intimate relationship.27 The data from one study found that 4% of married couples compared to 13% of cohabiting couples had arguments that resulted in domestic violence. 28 Researchers suggest that infidelity is higher in cohabiting 19 Nock, S. (2005). “Marriage as a Public Issue.” The Future of Children 15: 13-32. The Witherspoon Institute. (2006). Marriage and the public good: Ten principles. Princeton, June: p. 21. 21 Wilcox. W. B. et al (2005) 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Dabbs, J. (2000). Heroes, rogues, and lovers: Testosterone and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. 26 Waite, L. & Gallagher, M., (2000), p. 152. 27 Id. 28 Waite, L. & Gallagher, M., (2000), p. 155 20 4 couples than in married couples and that infidelity invites serious marital conflict. 29 Marriage, it appears, provides a safe harbor for women. Dual Gender Parenting and Child-rearing The research supporting the importance of dual gender parenting and child-rearing is extensive and clear in its singular conclusion: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father. 30 Mothers and fathers contribute in gender specific and in gender-complementary ways to the healthy development of children. Children reap unique developmental benefits when reared in a home with a married, reasonably harmonious union of their own biological mother and father. A Child Trends research brief provided the following scholarly summary: Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage…There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents. 31 Children raised in homes with both mothers and fathers navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid and secure in their sense of self and in their sense of gender identity, perform better in the school system, have fewer social and emotional problems and become better functioning adults. The plethora of studies which span decades supports the conclusion that gender-linked differences in child-rearing are protective for children. From her research, Baumrind (1982) concluded that children of dual gender parents are more competent, 29 Id. Popenoe, D. 1996. Life without father. New York: Mark Kessler Books, The Free Press, pg 176. 31 Moore, K.A. et al. (2002). Marriage from a child’s perspective: How does family structure affect children and what can we do about it? Child Trends Research Brief (Washington D.C.: Child Trends)(June) 30 5 function better with fewer problems in living.32 Her later research (1991) focused on the complementary nature of the expressive parenting of mothers and the instrumental parenting of fathers. 33 Greenberger (1984) noted that the essential contributions to the optimal development of children are not only gender specific but also gender complementary and virtually impossible for a mother or father to do alone. 34 Children learn about male and female differences through parental modeling. The parental, mother-father relationship provides children with a model of marriage, the most meaningful, enduring relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lives. The complementary contributions of mothers and fathers are readily observable in their gender specific parenting styles. The parenting style of mothers is most often seen as flexible, warm and sympathetic while fathers’ styles are more directive, consistent and predictable. Rossi (1987) supported this observation with research which concluded that mothers could better read an infant’s facial expressions, respond with tactile gentleness and soothe with the use of voice. 35 Fathers, on the other hand, were less involved in caretaking and engaged in more overt play. 36 Such complementary contributions appear critical for later development. Male and female differences are readily observed in the characteristics of physicality associated with mothering and fathering. Mothers use touch to calm, soothe and to bring comfort to children. When mothers reach for children, they frequently bring them to their breasts to provide safety, warmth 32 Baumrind, D. (1982) Are androgynous individuals more effective persons and parents? Child Development, 53, 44-75. 33 Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Adolescence, 11(11), 59-95. 34 Greenberger, E. (1984). Defining psychosocial maturity in adolescence. In P. Karoly & J.J. Steffans, (Eds.) Adolescent behavior disorders: foundations and temporary concerns. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 35 Rossi, A.S. (1987) Parenthood in transition: From lineage to child to self-orientation. In J.B. Lancaster, J. Altman, A.S. Rossi, and L.R. Sherrod, eds., Parenting across the life span:Biosocial dimensions. New York: Aldene de Gruyter, 31-81. 36 Yogman, M.W. (1982) Development of the father-infant relationship. In H.E. Fitzgerald, B.M. Lester and M.W. Yogman, eds. Theory and research in behavioral pediatrics. New York: Plenum Press. 6 and security. Fathers’ touch is most often described as playful and stimulating, bringing with it a sense of excitement to the child. This rough and tumble play (RTP) is characterized by holding the child at arm’s length in front of them, making eye contact, tossing the infant in the air and holding the child in such a way to have the child look over the father’s shoulder. Shapiro (1994) notes that these “daddy holds” emphasize a sense of freedom for the child. 37 Rohner and Veneziano (2001) conducted an analysis of more than a 100 studies on the role of fathers in child development and concluded that not only did a nurturing father play a critical role in a child’s well-being but in some cases father-love was a stronger factor in a child’s well-being than mother-love. 38 The researchers concluded: “Overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well-being.” 39 Clarke-Stewart (1980) also investigated differences in how mothers and fathers play with children. 40 She noted that mothers tended to play at the child’s level, and are more likely to provide opportunities to direct the play, allowing the child to proceed at his or her own pace. On the other hand, fathers’ play was more instructional. RTP was much more noticeable, focusing clearly on acceptable/non-acceptable behaviors. It is important to clarify that RTP does not correlate with aggression and violence, but rather is associated with self-control. Through RTP, children quickly learn that physical violence such as biting and kicking are not acceptable. In 37 Shapiro, J.L. (1994). Letting dads be dads. Parents, June, 165, 168. Rohner, R. P. & Veneziano, R.A (2001). “The importance of father love: history and contemporary evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5.4, 382-405. 39 Id at 405. 40 Clark-Stewart, K.A. (1980). The father’s contribution to children’s cognitive and social development in early childhood. In F.A. Pedersen, ed., The father-infant relationship: observational studies in the family setting. New York: Praeger. 38 7 RTP, children learn from their fathers how to manage emotionally-charged situations in the context of play and how to recognize and respond appropriately to an array of emotions. 41 Stress resilience is another area where fathers’ contributions are noticeable as well. The research conducted by Diener (2002) at the University of Utah is particularly poignant. 42 She demonstrated that infants (12 months old) who had close relationships with their fathers were more stress resistant than those who did not have close relationships with their fathers. These babies who had secure father relationships used more coping strategies. Diener concluded: “there may be something unique to fathers that provides children with different opportunities to regulate their emotions.” 43 Discipline is another area where differences between mothers and fathers emerge quite prominently. Fathers more frequently rely on firmness, principles, and rules. Mothers rely more on responding, negotiating, and adjusting toward the children’s moods as well as to the context. Mothers place much more emphasis on intuition in trying to understand their children’s needs and the emotions of the moment. Gilligan (1982) attributes these characteristics to innate differences between men and women: men stress fairness, justice and duty based on rules and principles whereas women are more inclined to focus on understanding, sympathy, care and helping. 44 Another area of considerable research activity is the investment of fathers in their biological children. Wilson (2002) concluded that children of married, biological parents 41 Cromwell, N.A. & Leper, E.M. (Eds.) (1994) American fathers and public policy, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 42 Diener, M.L., Mangelsdorf, S.C., McHale, J.L & Frosch, C.A. (2002). Infancy, 3(2), 153-174. 43 Broughton, A.E. (2002). U. study says dads are important, too. Salt Lake Tribune, April 5:A1. 44 Gilligan, C. (1994). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. 8 received a greater investment from their fathers than children of cohabitants. These differences persisted after controlling for socioeconomic factors. 45 The children of unmarried or divorced parents are at risk for emotional, behavioral and health problems. They are more likely to be abused by their own parents, by step-parents or parents’ boyfriends/girlfriends. Children of unmarried or divorced parents have lower academic achievement, poorer school attendance and more discipline problems when compared to children of married parents. These academically-related problems are associated with more use of remedial and special needs resources. In addition, these children are more apt to encounter trouble with the law such as committing crimes, abusing drugs, and spending time in incarceration. They are more likely to have difficulty in forming their own stable families. 46 The consequences of father absence has been well-documented. Blankenhorn (1995) concluded that father hunger is the primary cause of the declining well-being of children in our society and is associated with social problems such as teenage pregnancy, child abuse, and domestic violence against women. 47 Masser (1989), a psychiatrist at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, noted that an increasing number of children who seek psychiatric care are suffering from father hunger. 48 Golombok, Tasker & Murray (1997) found that “children in father absent families perceive themselves to be less cognitively competent and less physically competent than children in father-present families, with no differences between children in lesbian and single 45 Wilson, R.F. (2002) Book review, 35 Fam. L.Q. 833, 863 (reviewing June Carbone, From Partners to Parents: The Second Revolution Family Law (2003)) 46 Garfunkel I. & McLanahan. S.S. (1986). Single mothers and their children. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, pp 30-31. 47 Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent social problem. New York: Basic. 48 Masser, A. (1989). Boys’ father hunger: The missing father syndrome. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 23(1), 44-50. 9 heterosexual families.” 49 Most of the research on gay parenting compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless families. Such studies cannot be used reasonably used to contradict extensive social science research which concludes that family structure indeed matters, and the intact, married biological family structure is the most protective of child well-being. 50 Although there is more research to support the ill effects of father hunger in children, the consequences of mother hunger are beginning to emerge in case studies. This is partially explained because of the historical preference for mothers to be the primary caretakers of their children even when divorce occurs. The Eisold report (1998) provides evidence that mother hunger may indeed emerge when a child is deprived of a mother or mother figure. In the article titled “Recreating Mother,” a male child was conceived by a surrogate mother for two homosexual men. 51 They had arranged an artificial insemination with a woman who agreed to relinquish her parental rights in return for medical care and financial compensation. The child, Nick, was cared for by a hired nanny and began attending school when he was two years old. When Nick was 2½ years old, the nanny was abruptly terminated, another nanny was hired and subsequently fired, and a third nanny was hired. The homosexual couple adopted a second child. At 4½ years old, Nick’s behavioral problems resulted in a referral to a female child psychologist, a fourth mother substitute. Because Nick lived in a world where mothers were hired and fired, he fantasized about buying a new mother. Eisold questioned, “How do we explain why this child, the son of a male couple, seemed to need to construct a woman—‘mother’—with whom he 49 Golombok, S., Tasker, F., & Murray, C. (1997). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: Family relationships and the socioeconomic development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38:783-791, 788. 50 Spaht, K.S. (2006). The Current Crisis in Marriage Law, Its Orign, and Its Impact. In Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elshtain The meaning of marriage: Family, state, market, & morals. Dallas: Spence Publishing Co., p 216. 51 Eisold, B., (1998) Recreating mother: The consolidation of ‘heterosexual’ gender identification in the young son of homosexual men. American J. of Orthopsychiatry 68:3:433-442. 10 could play the role of a loving boy/man? How did such an idea enter his mind? What inspired his intensity on the subject?” Eisold sees some normal, innate developmental forces at work in a boy who has no mother: if he has none, he will need to make one. Biller’s (1993) extensive research on parent-child interaction yields the following conclusion: mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. 52 His research concludes that: • • • • • Paternal and maternal differences are stimulating for the infant as they provide contrasting images via differences in mothers’ and fathers’ dress, their movements, even voices. Because of these differences, infants may prefer mothers when they want to be consoled or soothed and fathers when they want stimulation. These differences are important sources of complementary learning for children. Where there are strong parental attachments, infants are at a decided developmental advantage compared to those infants who only had close maternal relationships. Fathers who are involved with their children stimulated them to explore and investigate whereas mothers focused on pre-structured and predictable activities. Parental relationships seem particularly important for boys during the second year of the child’s life, as boys become more father-focused. Unlike boys, girls do not seem to have this consistent focus during this developmental period. 53 Biller’s research demonstrates clearly the importance of mothers and fathers to the healthy development of children, not only in the unique paternal and maternal contributions, but in the complementary nature of those contributions. The following conclusion aptly summarizes his research: Infants who have two positively involved parents tend to be more curious and eager to explore than those who do not have a close relationship with their fathers….Well-fathered infants are more secure and trusting in branching out in their explorations, and they may be somewhat more advanced in crawling, climbing and manipulating objects. 54 52 Biller, H. (1993). Fathers and families: Paternal factors in child development. Westport, CT: Auburn House. Id. at 12-14. 54 Id. at 16. 53 11 The extensive research spanning decades yields an overwhelming abundance of data supporting the importance of both mothers and fathers to the healthy development of children. Recent evidence is likewise not only supportive, but compellingly demonstrates that a society concerned with optimal child development is most benefited by traditional marriage and married, dual-gender parenting. Same-sex Marriage and Societal Harm The scientific data clearly demonstrates than traditional marriage offers a protection for men, women and children who are raised in intact heterosexual families. Such families have unique benefits not found in other family structures. Not all family structures are equally as healthful or helpful for individuals, especially children. Society is harmed when the family structures within it are harmed. Unlike the benefits society reaps from traditional marriage, the benefits of same-sex marriage accrue primarily to a few individuals at the expense of society. Gay marriage advocates are fond of pointing out that civil marriage confers more than 1049 automatic federal and additional state protections, benefits and responsibilities, according to the Federal Government’s General Accounting Office. If these governmentally-bestowed benefits and responsibilities are indeed the core of marriage, then this package should be equally available to all citizens, including homosexual couples. It follows, however, that making them available to homosexual couples means that these benefits should also be available to any grouping of individuals, of any size or combinations of genders, of any degree of permanence. 55 Ironically, as feminist scholar Martha Fineman observed, the protections of same-sex marriage would actually exclude non-sexual arrangements for those who seek the protections 55 Fineman, M. The Neutered Mother and the Sexual Family, p. 229. 12 that marriage offers, such as a sister caring for an ill brother or sister, single parents with children, or close neighbors and friends who would benefit from the protections of marriage.56 Yet, permitting same-sex couples to call their sexual arrangements “marriage” while excluding non-sexual arrangements from marriage is incongruous considering that The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has declared that procreation as the ground that explains and justifies marriage may not be privileged, nor is consummation a necessary ingredient defining marriage. 57 But by this reasoning, the Court opens itself to arguments that marriage should be open to uncles and nieces or fathers and daughters who happen to be sterile and intimate. Or to the man who is willing to have a vasectomy in order to marry his mother. Or even to the marriage of a father and a son. 58 It is important to recognize that a significant number of influential voices on the gay left reject the idea of same-sex marriage, suggesting that marriage itself is oppressive. They tolerate same-sex marriage only as a transitional moment toward the eventual abolition of marriage.” 59 The lawyer activist Nan Hunter laid out this view when she wrote, “the impact of gay and lesbian marriage will be to dismantle the legal structure of gender in every marriage.” According to her, this arrangement has “the potential to expose and denaturalize the historical construction of gender at the heart of marriage.”60 For Hunter and those who share her views, there is really no motivation to shore up marriage as an institution. For them, discrediting of marriage is simply an interim step to its disintegration. 61 56 Fineman’s most mature theory of dependency can be found in her recent book, The autonomy myth: A theory of dependency (2004). New York: The New Press. 57 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003). 58 Hadley A. 2006. The Family and the Laws, in Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elshtain (ed.) The Meaning of Marriage. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 129-130. 59 Warner, The trouble with normal, pp 88-89. 60 Hadley, A. 126. 61 Id. 13 The concept of sexual orientation itself is noticeably absent in recent discussions about same-sex marriage. Homosexuality, unlike gender and race, is a self-attribution. According to social constructionism, the philosophy underlying queer theory, homosexuality is a construct, not a biological reality. Those who hold this view suggest that the distinction between gay and straight is giving way to a new, liberated concept of sexual fluidity. Lisa Diamond, in an article in the Monitor on Psychology, concluded from her research that “sexual identity is far from fixed who are not exclusively heterosexual.” 62 Schechter supports this fluidity in her research on women who, after ten years in a lesbian relationship, are now in heterosexual relationships lasting more than a year. 63 Further, a recent issue of the Advocate decries the use of the term “gay,” preferring to replace it with the terms queer, fluid, open or questioning. 64 Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in response to the fluidity of homosexuality, makes this comment: “We as a movement can take pride that we opened this door for young people to be much more fluid about sexuality, gender, gender roles, orientation and sexual behavior than any other generation in history. That’s what the gay movement has contributed to society, and that’s a tremendously good thing.” 65 But what is the impact of this fluidity on children? While there is a paucity of research on same-sex couples and child-rearing, the literature on the impact of changes in parental sexual orientation and children is non-existent. The greater issue is whether or not gender is important and whether or not gender matters for children. 62 Diamond, L. (2000) Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren’t exclusively heterosexual, Monitor on Psychology, vol 31, no.3, p 15. 63 Schecter, E. (2004) Labels may oversimplify women’s sexual identity, experiences. Monitor on Psychology, vol 35, no. 9, p. 28. 64 Vary, A.B., (2006, June 20) Is gay over? Advocate, pp. 98-102. 65 Id., at pp. 98-99 14 A distinguished group of 33 neuroscientists, pediatricians, and social scientists recently reviewed the evidence on gender as a basic reality. They concluded that boys and girls differ in a number of distinct areas such as selection of playmates, toy preference, fantasy play, rough and tumble play, activity level and aggression. Though some of these differences are likely related to environment, others are biologically primed and established pre-natally. They noted that as early as 18-24 months of age that children begin to make sense of their sexual embodiment. As children search for meaning, the relationship with both mothers and fathers assist in understanding the same-sex-as-me parent and the opposite-sex-as-me parent. 66 They summarized their findings succinctly: Gender also runs deeper, near to the core of human identity and social meaning— in part because it is biologically primed and connected to differences in brain structure and function, in part because it is also deeply implicated in the transition to adulthood. 67 From the Stacey research it is quite clear that parenting can derail this biological priming. Gender nonconformity was a observable consequence of parenting by lesbian couples. Simply, gendered differences in response to father absence/father presence is sufficient affirmation that gender is important. In fact, sexual orientation itself assumes that gender exists and that it is important for human relationships. If gender is important to adult romantic relationships, one must also assume that it also has significance in the hungry love a child feels for his or her parents. 68 Many people are capable of loving and caring for a child who is not biologically related to them. Nonetheless, over the broad sweep of history, the phenomenon of kin altruism suggests that creating social connections between children and their biological 66 Commission on Children at Risk. (2003). Hardwired to connect: The new scientific case for authoritative communities. New York: Institute for American Values, p 23. 67 Commission on Children at Risk, (2003). Hardwired to connect: The new scientific case for authoritative communities. YMCA, Dartmouth Medical School, Institute for American Values, pp. 23-25. 68 Gallagher, M. (2006) (How) Does Marriage Protect Child Well-being? In Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elstain (ed.) The Meaning of Marriage. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 211. 15 parents has value for children. Kin altruism basically refers a mutual process between biological parents and their offspring. Natural parents bond with their children because they recognize them as an extension of themselves, a continuation to be valued, preserved and protected. Biological children perceive this bodily connection from those who gave them life and attach their parents accordingly. 69 Same-sex marriage harms men, women, children, and society. It undercuts the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It undermines the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. Same-sex marriage harms women because it increases transactional procreation.70 Like transactional sex, transactional procreation exploits, demeans and devalues women. Because same-sex male couples can not procreate, it is likely that men will contract for reproductive services. Children become commodities or trophies, products for bargains. 71 James warns, “ If we imagine that every relationship is simply contractual, and can be broken at will—at a price to be paid for the renunciation of the contract—we find ourselves in a position where the bedrock of certainty of which contracts depend melts away.” 72 Same-sex relationships are different from opposite-sex relationships in ways that are harmful both to society and to the individuals themselves. Same-sex relationships are less permanent and its participants are less monogamous. Those engaged in homosexual relationships are at greater risk for mental illness and physical disease. Although the reasons for 69 Browning, D. & Marquardt, E. (2006). What about the Children? In Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain (ed.) The Meaning of Marriage, Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, p. 36. 70 Williams, C. S. (2005, December 12). Women, Equality and the Federal Marriage Amendment. 71 Id. 72 James, H. (2006) Changing Dynamics of the Family in Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elshtain, The Meaning of Marriage. Dallas, Spence Publishing Company, 73. 16 these differences are not clear, efforts need to be made to seek answers and solutions. Bailey notes that the sociopolitical environment should not preclude the seeking of such answers. 73 Mental Health Data on Homosexuality Research clearly demonstrates that homosexual practices place individuals at risk for some forms of mental disorders such as anxiety, depression, suicidality and multiple disorders. The studies have repeatedly shown that the risks for mental illnesses remain even in societies where there is a greater acceptance of homosexuality. Herrel, Goldberg, True, Ramakrishnan, Lyons, Eisen (1999) offered the following conclusion from their research: “same gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures…the substantial increased lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men is unlikely due to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity.” 74 Ferguson, Horwood, and Beautrais (1999) reached the following conclusion: “Gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression…generalized anxiety disorder…conduct disorder…nicotine dependence…multiple disorders…suicidal ideation…suicide attempts.” 75 Commentators Bailey, Remafedi and Friedman reviewed this research, seeking to discover reasons for these significant differences. They all concluded that there was little doubt 73 Bailey, J. M. (1999). Homosexuality and mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 884. Herrell, R. Goldberg, J. True, W.R., Ramakrishnan, V., Lyons, M. Eisen, D. et al. (1999). Sexual orientation and suicidality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 867. 75 Ferguson, D.M., Horwood, J.L. & Beautrais, A.L. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 876. 74 17 that there is a strong association between homosexual practices and mental illness. 76 Bailey in particular offered the following hypotheses for consideration: • • • The increased depression and suicidality among homosexual individuals are consequential to society’s negative views of treatment of this group. Because homosexuality represents a deviation from normal heterosexual development, it represents a developmental error, rendering homosexual individuals vulnerable to mental illness. The increased psychopathologies in homosexual people is a lifestyle consequence such as the risk factors associated with receptive anal sex and promiscuity. 77 Bailey’s first hypothesis is quite unlikely because the study was replicated in The Netherlands, arguably the most gay-affirming society in the world, with similar, more robust results. The researchers, Sandfort, de Graaf, Bijl and Schnabel (2001) summarized their research which was conducted in The Netherlands: Homosexual men had a much larger chance of having 12-month and lifetime bipolar disorders, and a higher chance of having a lifetime major depression…the greatest differences were found in obsessive-compulsive disorder and agoraphobia. The 12-month prevalences of agoraphobia, simple phobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder were higher in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. 78 Researchers have concluded that lesbians have a much higher rate of substance abuse disorders during their lifetime as well as a higher prevalence of mood disorders. 79 Suicidal attempts are significantly higher among lesbians. 80 There are higher rates of sexual molestation reported in the history of homosexuals than in the history of heterosexuals. Using a non-clinical population, Tomeo, Templer, Anderson, and 76 Bailey, J. M. (1999). Homosexuality and mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 883-884. Remafedi, G. (1999). Suicide and sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 565, 885-886. Friedman, R. C. (1999). Homosexuality, psychopathology, and suicidality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 887-888. 77 Bailey, J. M., p. 884. 78 Sandfort, T.G. de Graaf, R. Bijl, R.V. & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex behavior and psychiatric disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 87. 79 Healthwatch. Study: “ Lesbian, bisexual women take more health risks than gay men. The Washington Advocate, December, 2002. 80 Id. 18 Kotler (2001) found that 46% of gay men and 22% of lesbians were sexually abused as children compared to 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of lesbians. 81 Particularly intriguing was the finding that 68% of the men and 38% of the women did not self-identify as gay or lesbian until after the molestation. 82 Significantly higher rates of domestic violence have also been found in homosexual relationships. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder (1997) concluded from their sample of 283 participants that 47.5 % of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner. 83 Lockhart (1994) found that 90% of lesbians had been recipients of one or more acts of violence in the 12 months preceding the study. 84 Lie and Gentlewarrior (1991) concluded that more than 50% of the lesbians in their study had been abused by a partner. 85 Island and Letellier (1991) noted that the incidence of domestic violence among gay men almost doubled that of the heterosexual population. 86 Bradford, Ryan, Rothblum (l994) in their national survey of lesbians found that 75% of the 2000 respondents had received psychological care, a large number for depression. 87 These researchers noted that among this sample there was high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental illness which included physical, sexual, alcohol, and drug abuse. Twenty percent of this sample had attempted suicide during the past year and more than a third of the sample had been depressed. 88 81 Tomeo, M.E. et al. (2001). Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(5), 535-541. 82 Id. 83 Waldner-Haugrud, L.K., Gratch, L.V. & Magruder, B. (1997). Victimization and perpetration rates of violence in gay and lesbian relationship: Gender issues explored. Violence and Victims, 12(2), 173-185. 84 Lockhart, L.L., (1994). Letting out the secret: violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 469-492. 85 Lie, G.Y. & Gentlewarrior, S. (1991). Intimate violence in lesbian relationships; discussion of survey findings and practice implications. Journal of Social Service Research, 15, 41-59. 86 Island, D. & Letellier, P. (1991). Men who beat the men who love them: Battered gay men and domestic violence. New York: Haworth Press. 87 Bradford, J., Ryan, C., & Rothblum, R.C. (Eds.), 1994. National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for mental health care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 228-242. 88 Id. 19 Medical Health Data on Homosexuality Public health and medical researchers have produced morbidity and mortality data for those engaged in homosexual practices. From their research in a major urban area in Canada, Hogg and Strathdee offered the following summary: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. 89 The AIDS epidemic is driven overwhelmingly by behavior, with homosexual behavior as the primary means of transmission in the United States. Of the twenty-four categories of AIDS transmission listed by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, male homosexuality occupies the first space. 90 Of the 402,722 cumulative AIDS cases reported through 2004, 55% involved the single mode of exposure of men who had sex with men. 91 By including all modes of exposure that involved male homosexual behavior, the sole or potential cause of more than seventy percent of all AIDS cases that have been reported in the United States from the first case through 2004 is male homosexual behavior. 92 Extensive medical evidence supports greater rates of medical disease among homosexuals. 93 For example, the rate of anal cancer infection is 10 times the rate of heterosexual males. 94 Other medical conditions where there is an overrepresentation among homosexual males include damaged sphincter tissue leading to incontinence, hemorrhoids and 89 R. S. Hogg. & S. A. Strathdee (1997). “ Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.” International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3), 657. 90 2004 HIV/Aids Surveillance Report, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Vol. 16, at 32, Table 17. 91 Id. 92 Id. 93 Riggs, J. R., The health risks of gay sex, Corporate Resource Council, 1-16. 94 Id at 4. 20 anal fissures, anorectal trauma, retained foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, and penile edema. 95 A study of cancer incidence among male registered homosexual partners in Denmark likewise showed an elevated risk of cancer compared to cancer incidence among the general population. 96 Lesbians have higher rates of hepatitis B & C, bacterial vaginosis, heavy cigarette smoking, intravenous drug use and abuse of alcohol. 97 The June 2003 issue of The American Journal of Public Health focused on health risks associated with homosexual practices. 98 The journal’s editor summarized, “Having struggled to come to terms with the catastrophic HIV epidemic among MSM (men who have sex with men) in the 1980s by addressing the pointed issues of sexuality and heterosexism, are we set to backslide a mere 20 years later as HIV incidence rates move steadily upward, especially among MSM.” 99 Homosexual Relationships Differ from Heterosexual Relationships Homosexual relationships differ in significant ways from heterosexual relationships. Promiscuity is not a myth among gay men. Rotello, a gay author, noted “Gay liberation was founded…on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.” 100 In fact, there is a significant portion of the gay community who question whether or not adapting to marriage is a betrayal of those who fought at Stonewall. In a recent article in The New York Times (July 30, 2006), gay activists, such as Bill Dobbs, question whether or not monogamy is normal and 95 Id. Frisch, M. et al., (2003). Cancer in a population-based Cohort of men and women in registered homosexual partnerships, Am. J. Epidemiology 157(11). 97 Riggs, Id. 98 93,6. 99 Nothbridge, M. E. (2003). HIV Returns, American Journal of Public Health, 93 (6), 860. 100 Rotello, G. (1997). Sexual ecology: AIDS and the destiny of gay men. New York: Penguin Group. 96 21 questioned why gay men and lesbians are buying into an institution [marriage] they see as rooted in oppression. 101 There are those gay activists who are strongly opposed to marriage, which they view as a way of narrowing of sexual opportunity, noting that in France “…adultery is actually an equal opportunity. Women have almost as much adultery[sic] relationships as men.” 102 Prior to the AIDS epidemic, Bell and Weinburg (1978) reported that 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 life time partners. 103 Subsequent to the AIDS epidemic, homosexual men averaged four partners per month instead of six partners. 104 CDC reported that between 1994 and 1997, the percentage of gay men reporting multiple partners increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase in men under 25 years of age. 105 In another CDC report, 30 percent of all gay black men were HIV positive. 106 Sternberg (2001) reported that 46% of study participants had unprotected anal sex during the previous month, and less than 30 percent realized that they were infected. 107 While promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, an Australian study revealed that lesbians were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. 108 Homosexual relationships are significantly less sexually monogamous than heterosexual relationships. Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata (1994) concluded that the vast majority 101 Hartocollis, A. For some gays, a right they can forsake. (2006, July 30) New York Times, 9,2. Id. 103 Bell, A.P. & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon & Schuster. 104 McKusick, L. (1985). Reported changes in sexual behavior of men at risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84— The AIDS behavioral research project. Public Health Reports, 100, 6, 622-629. 105 Center for Disease Control (1999). Resurgent bacterial sexually transmitted disease among men who have sex with men—King County, Washington, 1997-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(35), 773-777, September 10. 106 Sternberg, S. (2003). 1 in 3 young gay black men are HIV positive, USA Today, February 6. 107 Id. 108 Price, J. et al. (1996). Perceptions of cervical cancer and pap smear screening behavior by women’s sexual orientation. Journal of Community Health, 2(2), 89-105. 102 22 of heterosexual couples were monogamous while the marriage was intact. 109 Ninety-four percent of married couples and 75% of cohabiting couples had only one sexual partner in the previous 12 months. 110 Gay men who were coupled reported that they had sex with someone other than their partner in 66% of the cases during the first year, rising to 90 percent if their relationship lasted for five years. 111 McWhirter and Mattison studied 156 couples who had been in homosexual relationship from 1 to 37 years. Of these couples, only seven had been able to maintain sexual fidelity, and of these seven couples, none had been together for more than 5 years. 112 The authors suggest a different standard for homosexuals couples: fidelity without monogamy. 113 A more recent study published in the journal AIDS found that gay “marital” relationships in The Netherlands lasted 1½ years on the average and had a mean of eight partners per year outside those relationships. 114 Bailey references the preeminence of sexuality, the relatively short typical duration and the sexual infidelity in homosexual relationships, and concludes “Gay men will always have many more sex partners than straight people do. Those who are attached will be less sexually monogamous. Although some gay male relationships will be for life, these will be fewer than among heterosexual couples.” 115 Further, Bailey notes, “Gay men who are promiscuous are expressing an essentially masculine trait. They are doing what most heterosexual men would do 109 Michael, R., Gagnon, J.H. Laumann, E.O. & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. 110 Id. 111 Id. 112 McWhirter, D.P. & Mattison, A. M. (1984). The male couple: How relationships develop. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc. 113 Id. 114 Xiridou, M. et al. (2003). The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS, 17 (7), 1029-1038. 115 Bailey, J.M. (2003), Id. 23 if they could. They are in this way just like heterosexual men, except they don’t have women to constrain them” 116 This lack of monogamy and relational stability in gay male relationships finds significant support in the research. These characteristics of homosexual relationships alone fail the primary purpose of marriage. It is interesting to note that same-sex marriage advocates downplay the importance of fidelity in their definition of marriage. Surveys conducted of men who entered same-sex unions in Vermont indicate that 50% of them do not value sexual fidelity. 117 Judith Stacey (1998), a leading advocate of gay marriage, suggests that “perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriages and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small group marriages.” 118 Indeed, the recent pages of the Advocate, the mainstream gay publication, suggest that such arrangements are already occurring. Greg Hernandez, the author of “Big Gay Love,” focuses on groups who consider themselves engaged in a marriage. One member of a trio concludes, “We’re as married as we could be…we all have rings and have a day we celebrate our anniversary.” A man from another trio states, “There were definitely ups and downs…because Richard and Reid had already been together. But the initial adjustment is over. No regrets.” 119 In fact, soon after same-sex marriage advocates suffered a defeat in Washington State, a group of 250 academics and celebrities including Cornell West, Gloria Steinem, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Judith Stacy, Nan Hunter and Armistead Maupin signed the manifesto, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage, A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,” which petitions for legal rights and privileges of marriage for all arrangements, 116 Id. at 87. Rothblum, E. & Solomon, S. (2003). Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology. 118 Stacey, J. (1998) Gay and lesbian families: Queer like us. In All Our Families: New Policies for a New Century, edited by M.A. Mason, A. Skolnick, and S.D. Sugarman. New York: Oxford University Press, pp 117, 128-129. 119 Hernandez, G. (2000, June 6) Big gay love. The Advocate, 37-42. 117 24 like extended families living in one household and friends in long term, care-giving relationships. 120 Much of the public discourse about same-sex marriage has downplayed the differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. The notion that there are no differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples lacks basis in the scientific literature. In fact, these differences should and must be considered when focusing on the institution of marriage and when considering the best interest of children. Same-sex Couples and Child-rearing The gay rights movement, with its push for the recognition of same-sex marriage, has forced the issue of parenting by same-sex couples to center stage. Advocacy groups argue that there are no differences between children raised by same-sex and those raised by opposite-sex parents. Though the advocacy seems to be illogical and at odds with the significant number of well-conducted studies, attempts continue to blur the lines between men and women. The studies on same-sex parenting are quite limited and quite limiting. They are basically restricted to children who were conceived in a heterosexual relationship whose mothers later divorced and self-identified as lesbians. It is these children who were compared to divorced, heterosexual, mother-headed families. A better comparison would have been with children in intact families because the research is clear that children in single parent families are at risk for a variety of difficulties including juvenile criminal offenses, mental illness and poverty. The logical conclusion is that children from both of these family forms are at risk for a number of problems. 120 Hartocollis, Id. 25 Studies of children raised by male couples are virtually non-existent. The few available studies are either anecdotal in nature or so plagued by methodological flaws as to make them simply invalid from a scientific perspective. In their excellent review of the existing studies on children raised by homosexual couples (primarily lesbian couples), Lerner and Nagai (2000) reached the following conclusion: The claim has been made that homosexual parents raise children as effectively as married biological parents. A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies, which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they suffer from severe methodological flaws. In addition to their methodological flaws, none of the studies deals adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious correlation. 121 Williams (2000) arrived at similar conclusions to those of Lerner and Nagai, but actually went further in his re-analyses of some of the major studies whose authors reported no differences between children raised in lesbian and heterosexual families. 122 In reviewing both the Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter (1983) research 123 and the Golombok and Tasker research (1996), 124 Williams noted that the authors ignored a follow-up study that found that the children of lesbian parents were more likely to have considered and actually engaged in homosexual relationships. In reviewing other studies, Williams found similar omissions. For example, Huggins noted a difference in the variability of self-esteem between children of homosexual and heterosexual parents but did not test for significance. 125 Upon a re-analysis of the data, Williams discovered the difference to be significant. Lewis recorded differences in social and 121 Lerner, R. & Nagai, A.K. (2000). Out of nothing comes nothing: Homosexual and heterosexual marriage not shown to be equivalent for raising children,” paper presented at the Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the 21st Century conference, Brigham Young University, March, Provo, UT, p.1 122 Williams, R. N. (2000) A critique of the research on same-sex parenting. In D.C. Dollahite, ed. Strengthening Our Families, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 325-355. 123 Golombok, S., Spencer, A. & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572. Sociological Review, 66(2), 159-183. 124 Golombok, S. & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Finding from a longitudinal study of lesbian families? Developmental Psychology, 32, 3-11. 125 Williams, R.N. ( 2000). 26 emotional difficulties in the lives of children of homosexual parents but left such data unreported. Patterson (1995) also observed and left unreported similar data in her research. 126 Patterson’s research, which has been repeatedly cited by the American Psychological Association to support gay rights, has come under significant criticism not only because of methodological flaws but because of substantial misrepresentation and selection bias. In fact, her research and subsequent testimony were excluded from a Florida court because of the use of herself and friends as subjects and her unwillingness to comply with a court order to provide documentation, even when requested by her own side in the conflict. 127 More recently, Wainwright and Patterson reported research on adolescents with lesbian parents/ heterosexual parents and the relationship to delinquency, victimization and substance abuse. 128 Their conclusion that adolescents raised by lesbian couples do not differ from those raised by heterosexual couples, and subsequently their findings “provide no warrant for legal or policy discrimination” find little support in their own study. 129 First of all, no parents in their study were asked about their sexual identities. Secondly, their conclusion that adolescents whose parents had good relationships with them reported less delinquent behavior and substance abuse is not a novel finding. It is interesting that Wainwright and Patterson either did not address or did not find differences on other measures such as sexual behaviors (they only reported sex behavior under the influence of alcohol). In order to make a case for policy, the authors would need to replicate with much larger sample sizes, directly ascertain the sexual identities of the parents and follow these adolescents into adulthood. Stacey and Biblarz accurately highlighted the 126 Patterson, C.J. (1995). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Parent’s division of labor and children’s adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 31-115-123. 127 JUNE AMER, Petitioner, v. Floyd P. Johnson, District Administrator, District X, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Case No. 92-14370 (11). July 27, 1997. 128 Wainwright, J. & Patterson, C. (2006). Journal of Family Psychology, 20,3,526-530. 129 Id at 529. 27 importance of longitudinal studies noting, “Thus far, no work has compared children’s long-term achievements in education, occupation, income, and other domains of life.” 130 Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, reviewed all of the available studies on parenting by same-sex couples and concluded, “Through this analysis I draw my conclusion that 1) All of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) Not a single one of those studies was conducting according to general accepted standards of scientific research. 131 Even the activist, Charlotte Patterson, conceded the following: 1. No research used nationally represented samples. 2. There were limited outcome measures, most of which were unrelated to standards of child well-being used by family sociologists. 3. There were few longitudinal studies which followed children of same-sex couples into adulthood. 4. Virtually all of the studies compared single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers rather than comparing single lesbian mothers to married heterosexual mothers. 132 The Stacey and Biblarz (2001) meta-analysis repudiated over 20 years of research which claimed to show no difference between children raised by homosexual parents and those raised by heterosexual parents. 133 This research clearly demonstrated that lesbian mothers had a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughters. Boys raised by lesbian mothers behaved in less traditionally masculine ways, and girls, particularly “adolescent and young girls raised by lesbian mothers, appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste.” 134 130 Stacy, J. & Biblarz, T.J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review,66 (2), 172. 131 Nock Affidavit ¶3. Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct. of Justice) (copies available from the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy: [email protected]). 132 Patterson, C.J. et al. (2000). Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Research, Law and Policy in Bette L. Bottoms et al., eds., Children and the Law: Social Science and Policy 10-11. 133 Stacy, J. & Biblarz. T.J. Id, at 159-183. 134 Id. at 171. 28 The most reputable scientists would agree that the research on children raised by samesex couples is in its infancy. However, in spite of the many flaws in the very limited pool of rigorous studies such as small sample size, selection bias, and lack of longitudinal data, there appears to be an emerging theme: children raised by same-sex couples exhibit poor outcomes not so dissimilar to those raised by divorced heterosexual parents. The comparison groups in most of the studies have been: children in divorced households headed by a lesbians or gay men or children in divorced households headed by heterosexual divorced parents. Children in both of these groups are at higher risks for certain kinds of problems than are children raised in an intact family headed by a mother and father who are married. 135 In addition, children raised by a lesbian couple may be at risk for unique problems associated with gender non-conformity. In summary, the available research supports the following: children raised in homes headed by gay men and lesbians do not resemble their peers raised in homes with a married mother and father. And given the historical and prevailing legal and psychological standard, the best interest of the child, one can reasonably conclude that based upon this standard, the optimal health, well-being and best interest of a child is not best served by support of motherless or fatherless family structures. The placement of children in such settings begins a slippery slope filled with potential harms for children that society simply cannot afford to take. Conclusion Traditional marriage has supported societies for millennia. Historical and current research clearly demonstrate that both adults and children benefit from this family structure. Differences emerge when comparisons are made between same-sex couples and opposite-sex 135 Parke, M. (2003). “Are married parents really better for children?” Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief, May: 1. 29 couples. Same-sex relationships are less permanent and less monogamous. Homosexual practices place its participants at risk for mental illness and physical disease. Emerging research suggests potential risks for children raised by lesbian parents including gender non-conformity. The rejection of gender roles thus appears to be unhealthy. Same-sex marriage essentially redefines marriage, discounts gender realities, and rejects the historic relationship between marriage and kin altruism. It dispenses with the principle that individuals who give birth to children should be the ones to raise those children. Same-sex marriage is adult-centered, where the rights of adults take center stage and the best interests of children are considered only superficially. The battle of beliefs which is at the base of same-sex v. opposite-sex marriage was articulated by Morse, who summarizes, “I claim the sexual urge is a natural engine of sociability, which solidifies the relationship between spouses and brings children into being. Others claim that human sexuality is a private recreational good, with neither intrinsic moral or social significance. I claim that the hormone oxytocin floods a woman’s body during sex and tends to attach her to her sex partner, quite apart from her wishes or our cultural norms. Others claim that women and men alike can engage in uncommitted sex will no ill effects. I claim that children have the best life chances when they are raised by married, biological parents. Others believe children are so adaptable that having unmarried parents presents no significant problems. Some people believe marriage is a special case of free association of individuals. I say the details of this form of free association are so distinctive as to make marriage a unique social institution that deserves to be defended on its own terms, and not a special case of something else.” 136 136 Morse, J.R. (2006). Why unilateral divorce has no place in a free society. In Robert P. George & Jean Betheke Elshtain, The Meaning of Marriage. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 78. 30 The Goodridge Court viewed marriage as a legal construct with its importance for children and society consisting of the legal benefits and responsibilities the law dispenses along with a marriage license. However, this view is not consistent with the social science evidence we have on the effects of family structure on child well-being. If the legal benefits of the social status of marriage played a critical role in protecting child well-being, we would expect children who live with remarried parents to do better than children who remain with an unmarried parent. In fact, children in remarried families do no better (or worse) on the average than children raised by single mothers. As noted in the Child Trends research, it is not marriage that protects children’s well-being, but the intact, married, reasonably harmonious union of the child’s own biological mother and father. 137 Children born within a marriage are far more likely to be socialized, outgoing and able to form permanent relationships of their own than children born out-of-wedlock. Children of married parents find a place in society already prepared for them, furnished by a regime of parental sacrifice, and protected by social norms. Taking away marriage exposes children to the risk of coming into the world as strangers, a condition in which they may remain for the rest of their lives. 138 Brown and Marquardt conclude that “…there is a persistent core value that is widely cherished and protected around the world. This is the importance of the people who give life to the infant also being, as nearly as possible, the ones who care for it. This principle is based on the widely held assumption that people who conceive a child, when they recognize their relation to it, will on the average be the most invested in its nurture and well-being. It is also based on the 137 Gallagher, M. p. 204 Scruton, R, (2006), Sacrilege and Sacrament, in Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elshtain (ed.). The Meaning of Marriage, Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 6. 138 31 observation that, when other things are equal, children themselves want—indeed, often long—to be raised by those who gave life to them.” 139 On July 6, 2006, the New York Court of Appeals issued a 4-2 decision determining that the state’s marriage law limiting marriage to only a man and a woman is constitutional. 140 The New York court concluded, “ Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children” and “homosexual intercourse does not,” noting that the legislature “could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born” by offering an inducement to opposite couples to marry. The same considerations do not apply to same-sex couples because they cannot have children without intending to do so.” 141 The New York Court is correct. Gender matters. Family structure matters. Conjugal marriage fosters healthy human and societal development. Traditional marriage benefits both men and women, is protective for children, all of which contributes to the good society. 139 Browning, D. & Marquardt, E. (2006), Id.. Hernandez v. Robles, 2006 WL 1835429 (N.Y. 2006) 141 Id. 140 32