As a North Hero summer resident and a tenured associate professor in UVM’s Human Development and Family Studies program, I read Peggy Varney’s recent letter to the editor Tuesday, Feb. 12 with great interest. In particular, relying upon Dr. Fagan’s presentation, she claims that we can conclude that, “on every aspect studied, children living with their married, biological father and mother significantly out preformed (sic) children raised in any other family structure.” A closer examination of the data Dr. Fagan presented simply cannot be used to draw this conclusion.
First, same-sex parented families were not one of the family structures Dr. Fagan presented data on. Thus, Dr. Fagan’s presentation actually offered no information regarding outcomes for children raised by two mothers or two fathers.
Professor Weinstock’s analysis of Dr. Fagan’s arguments and her understanding of the data to which she and Dr. Fagan refer are both deeply flawed. Although she is correct in her assertion that Dr. Fagan was not directly comparing heterosexual couples to same-sex couples (simply because no credible, large scale comparison currently exists - see Dr. Moss’ letter, and FAQ #5), she is wrong in her conclusions that the existing data “do not support the argument against extending marriage to same-sex partners” and “the data that Dr. Fagan presented simply cannot be used to draw this conclusion.” [that children raised by their biological mother and father do better than any other family structure]
As same-sex family structure is our current focus, let us recall from our response to Prof. Moss that all same-sex parented families are defined by deprivation, and nearly all are characterized by rejection of at least one biological parent by the other (often accompanied by rejection of the child by a mother or father) (see details) This fact alone is a sound reason to decide against extending marriage to same-sex partners, as rejection is anything but a positive influence.
To support the child deprivation inherent in same-sex parented families (and the rejection found in nearly all such families) would be no different than supporting divorce as a normative institution rather than as an unfortunate outcome of a failed marriage. France has looked long and hard at such facts as well as the prevailing social science data and has returned with a resounding NO to same-sex marriage, adoption and Assisted Reproductive Technologies.
Second, the data Dr. Fagan presented indicated that families with co-habitating (presumably hetero-sexual partners) typically have lower incomes and their children have lower grade point averages in Math and English than children raised in families with married partners. These kinds of findings actually might support the argument for same-sex parented families--moving such families from cohabiting to married partner families. They clearly do not support the argument against extending marriage to same-sex partners.
Third, when available research studies on outcomes for children raised in same-sex parented families are considered, and data such as that presented by Dr. Fagan is more critically examined the rational conclusion of most social scientists is that family structure, in itself, makes little difference to children’s psychological development. Instead, what really matters is the quality of family life. (Golombok, 2000, p. 99; see also the work of Dr. Judith Stacey, a renowned sociologist). One recent study (Wainright, Russell & Patterson, 2004) that compared 44 adolescents parented by same-sex couples and 44 adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples offers a great example in support of this conclusion. These researchers found ‘that the adolescents in the two groups did not differ significantly on almost all of the many variables they measured related to psycho social adjustment and school outcomes. Instead, the researchers found that regardless of family type, adolescents were more likely to show positive adjustment when their parents described close relationships with them, and when the adolescents themselves perceived more caring from adults.
Professor Weinstock has a long history of activism for gay, lesbian, and transgender causes. She admitted in Vermont Senate Judiciary testimony that one of her primary goals was to remodel society by employing “legislative action establishing new social norms.”
It is not a coincidence that Prof. Weinstock emphasizes the research of Judith Stacey, who also has a long history of advocacy: not for marriage, but against it. In her 1990 book Brave New Families, she, like Prof. Weinstock, applauds “family diversity” (i.e. a variety of non-married family forms) at the expense of marriage. Stacey has a long track record of promoting divorce and the deinstitutionalization of marriage, and is not shy about her real long term goals to establish a new social order:
“If we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, there are few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise... Two friends might decide to marry without basing their bond on erotic or romantic attachment... Or, more radical still, perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic [two parent] limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small-group marriages arranged to share resources, nurturance, and labor.” (Judith Stacey, In the Name of the Family, from David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage)
Judith Stacey is an open advocate of completely unstructured “marriage” and polyamory (i.e. “many loves”): group “marriages” not limited to any number or gender of individuals, all under the banner of “family diversity.” In short - she supports non-marriage. In light of such anti-marriage advocacy, Prof. Stacey’s research should be viewed with caution. It is also worth mentioning here that there exists a strong and observable correlation between anti-marriage advocacy and support for same-sex marriage. As author and marriage expert David Blankenhorn sums up, “People who professionally dislike marriage almost always favor gay marriage... Ideas that have long been used to attack marriage are now commonly used to support same-sex marriage.”
Typical of same-sex marriage advocacy, the study of 44 adolescents Prof. Weinstock cites is far too small to be of statistical value (again, see Dr. Moss’ letter). She also exaggerates Professor Stacey’s findings. For example, Stacey admits that “ideological pressures” sometimes skew such studies, and notes that some studies have downplayed significant differences between children of gays versus heterosexuals - particularly that children of same-sex parents may actually be more open to homosexual experimentation.1
Lastly, same-sex marriage advocates are about twenty years behind the majority opinion in areas of social science research pertaining to family structure. They seem to cling to discredited notions lingering from the 1960s and 70s; particularly the idea that family structure is largely irrelevant. As noted by Dr. Fagan (and the majority of top researchers), serious debate about family structure is over: Family structure is critical to child development, and the best overall family structure for raising children is the intact marriage of the biological parents who conceived them.
These points are affirmed by respected researchers and non-partisan research groups:
“Based on accumulated social research, there can now be little doubt that successful and well-adjusted children in modern societies are most likely to come from families consisting of the biological father and mother”2
“Few propositions have more empirical support in the social sciences than this one: Compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children.”3 (David Popenoe)
“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... Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.” 4
“Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.” 5
The Center for Marriage and Families just released a groundbreaking research brief in Feb. 2008 (The Shift and the Denial), which carefully examined and quantified 266 articles from the Journal of Marriage and Family, the vanguard publication of professional studies of families. The articles, printed from 1977-2002, all dealt specifically with family structure and outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, the report revealed that professional attitudes regarding the effects of family structure have shown a marked change as data has been accumulated over 30 years, noting that “access to more and better data correlates with more concern about family breakdown... When an article took a clearly sanguine [casual] view, it was much more likely to be a theoretical or opinion piece than a data-based study.” The researchers tentatively concluded that ”the better the research design, the more likely the researchers were to conclude that there were important family structure effects on children.”
It is important to note that the report concluded that only one of the 201 quantitative studies in their sampling (1977-2002) failed to find any evidence of family structure effects, and that disagreements about such family structure effects were almost entirely about their magnitude - not whether such effects exist. In short, Prof. Weinstock’s primary assertion that “the rational conclusion of most social scientists is that family structure, in itself, makes little difference to children’s psychological development” is completely refuted by the majority opinion of accepted family research.
At the heart of Prof. Weinstock’s worldview is the notion that the only thing that matters to children’s development is two parents whose gender does not matter. If Prof. Weinstock’s logic is correct, then more parents must be better than less: Ten must be better than two. We know that this is simply not true.
All same-sex marriage advocates insist that there are no meaningful differences between children raised by two men, two women, or a child’s biological mother and father. To demonstrate the weakness of such assertions, imagine the entire world populated only with children raised by their loving biological mothers and fathers. Now imagine, instead, the same world, but populated only by children raised by two women (i.e. a world without fathers) or two men (a world without mothers). This is a world of difference a child would readily understand.
Still think there is no difference?
Yes, there are limits to the available research. For example, as with the above study, most studies of same-sex parented families have tended to be based upon relatively small sample sizes. Yet in this particular case the study actually drew its sample from a national federally funded survey and most importantly, it used matched groups of adolescents--meaning that the adolescents’ same-sex and opposite-sex parented families did not differ on various other demographic characteristics. This is one aim to compare two-Parent families with other types of families. That is, they typically do not match the families on various other demographic characteristics such as demographic resources, time resources, and number of parents versus the gender composition of parents. Thus, most of these studies are unable to help us truly understand the impact on children of being raised in a diversity of family forms.
Finally, across all the studies Drs. Fagan and Golombok have reviewed and reported upon, none indicate that all children raised in any particular family structure will necessarily experience or avoid psychological, behavioral, school or any other problems. We certainly know that not all children t raised in two-parent, married families, avoid such problems. Thus, if we really cared about children’s welfare, we would focus our attention less on family structure and more on supporting all families ·raising children to do the best possible for these children. That means, in my view, that we ought to extend marriage to same-sex couples, so that the many financial, social and relational benefits of marriage are extended to children being raised in same-sex parented families.
Jacqueline S. Weinstock
South Burlington and North Hero
(Islander, 2/19/08)
Perhaps Professor Weinstock is apparently unaware that, through Civil Unions, Vermont has already provided all of the financial, legal, and relational benefits to gays which it can possibly provide. Same-sex (“genderless”) marriage can provide no additional tangible benefits to gays. The remaining “social benefits” to which she refers cannot be provided by law; those benefits are determined by the acceptance of society, and are therefore entirely beyond the arm of the law.
Endnotes:
1 - L.A. Times, Do children of gay parents develop differently?, 10/30/06.
2 - David Popenoe, “Can the Nuclear Family Be Revived?”
3 - “The Scholarly Consensus on Marriage,” Center for Marriage and Families Fact Sheet no. 2., Institute for American Values, 2006
4 - Kristin Anderson Moore, et. al., Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It? (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Research Brief, June 2002).
5 - Harvard Sociologist Robert Sampson, from Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles, the Witherspoon Institute, p.22
.