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