While reading James Taranto’s excellent pieces (April 15 & April 18) on the Kermit Gosnell murder trial, I noticed a reference to a grand jury report in this case. If you are interested in the case, the January 2011 grand jury report is easily available for download. The document is about 280 pages in length. Sohrab Ahmari’s interview of Dr. Leon Cass on Gosnell should be available here. Thanks to the Wall Street Journal.
In a stunning overreach of authority last week, a District Court Judge overruled the decision of U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding Plan B, an “emergency” contraceptive. In 2011, Sebelius refused to extend over-the-counter (OTC) status for Plan B to teens under 17 years of age. Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York ruled that within 30 days, the FDA must make Plan B available OTC for all ages – putting the health of girls at risk and trampling the right of parents to be involved in decisions regarding their daughters’ well-being.
There have been no studies on the effects of this powerful hormonal drug on adolescents. Additionally, the label comprehension study done on Plan B did not include young girls. As a result, even if it were safe for young girls to use this drug, there is no way of knowing whether they have the capacity to administer the medication properly. In fact, in the defense of her decision, Sebelius noted that there are “significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age.” These potential dangers highlight the necessity for parental guidance and professional medical input into the administration of contraceptives to young girls.
No parent wants a teenage daughter to acquire potentially dangerous medication without his or her consent. Allowing OTC access for a drug that has a close correlation to premature sexual behavior presents dangers of increased sexual activity among minors and with it, the increased likelihood of the contraction of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
The total number of STI’s in the United States has reached 110 million, according to the Centers for Disease Control. This represents the total number of STIs, not the total number of persons infected. Because a person may have several STIs simultaneously, sexual promiscuity plays a key role in their spread and quantity. Most of the new cases crop up in young people, ages 15-25. In the UK, where emergency contraception is already available OTC for teens, there has been a spike in the incidences of STI’s. To compound the problem, since teens will not need a prescription for these emergency contraceptives, they will avoid routine medical screenings during which STI’s would have been identified and treated.
Additionally, there is a very real danger that making Plan B available OTC will result in administration of the drug to young girls under coercion or without their consent. Doctors and parents are the first line of defense for girls who have experienced some kind of sexual abuse. By allowing this drug to be available without medical supervision, we run the serious risk of not identifying instances of sexual abuse among teens, especially as human trafficking becomes more widespread in our country.
In a day and age when the family unit is under attack from all angles, it is extremely irresponsible to create a new situation that will serve to drive a further wedge between parents and teens. Instead of distributing contraception like candy to teens, we should encourage honest communication within families. Parental guidance is areas of sexual behavior and health is essential to the development of responsible, healthy adults.
Here’s a new approach to the chief argument made by same-sex marriage proponents: When they say limiting marriage to man-woman unions is like committing racial discrimination, tell them they’re using the wrong analogy.
Read more from William Mattox, member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors…
Below is a guest post from Newsbusters that provides a brief overview of the past week’s media coverage on marriage.
Media Distort Coverage In Favor Of Gay Marriage
From networks to news sites, reporters set liberal agenda.
By Katie Yoder
As thousands trekked across the country this week to protest at the Supreme Court while justices heard arguments on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), the media did the same by voicing their own opinions. From the networks to online news sites, so-called neutral journalists twisted coverage in support of gay marriage.
CBS led the network pack and focused a one-sided light on Tuesday evening reports, the night of the first Supreme Court arguments. CBS went personal March 26 as reporter John Blackstone, during “Evening News,” highlighted a story of lesbian couple Torri and Sunnie. The program showed at least 12 different video or photo clips of gay weddings and quoted two gay marriage advocates – with one traditional marriage supporter.
Tuesday morning wasn’t much better, with four voices advocating for gay marriage, and one counter. Wednesday’s “This Morning” devoted over three minutes to David Boies, an attorney who argued at the Supreme Court against Proposition 8 with no one to offer a counter argument during the segment.
ABC followed suit in the Tuesday evening reports without any counter argument as anchor Terry Moran quoted two separate people whose family members sued for gay marriage. As Moran put it, ““For the two gay couples at the heart of the case … this was their family’s moment.”
NBC reporter Kristen Dahlgren flooded her report with TV gay icons, from Ellen DeGeneres to “Modern Family.” She acknowledged the media’s power on the issue though: “Over the years, television has changed the conversation about American sexuality.” She continued to say, “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” What she left out of her report was her own network’s pro-gay advocacy with the show “The New Normal.”
The one-sided coverage attracted even the attention of the liberal Huffington Post, which published a headline reading, “The Supreme Court May Be Divided On Gay Marriage, But The Media Isn’t.” In it, HuffPo media editor Jack Mirkinson noted major news outlets’ support of gay marriage and said, “Gay marriage is different. It is no longer all that controversial for many in the media.”
It wasn’t like another side to the story didn’t exist. Traditional marriage supporters made themselves hard to ignore March 26 by attending the National Organization for Marriage (NOM’s) March for Marriage. According to NOM’s Thomas Peters, 15,000 marchers attended as the networks stood silent even during the next day’s morning shows. The Washington Post decided to cover the event though – even if they did shrink 15,000 attendees into a ‘few dozen.’
When the media decided to cover traditional marriage supporters, reporters didn’t play nice. ABC’s Wednesday “Good Morning America” illustrated the tug-of-war on marriage’s definition as the “21st century social movement” of gay marriage versus the elderly “downright perplexed” justices.
CNN contributor and GOP strategist Ana Navarro sang a similar tune and proclaimed gay marriage opponents must “get into the 21st century.” While urging Republicans to push the hot issue into the background, she lectured opponents that “folks who are in denial about this that have to get out of the closet. They have to wave goodbye to the GEICO caveman and step out gingerly and carefully into the brave new world.”
But then, according to the media, gay marriage already won the hearts of Americans. Just look at the upcoming TIME magazine showcasing two different covers – one of a lesbian couple kissing, one of a gay couple kissing – while advertising an article by David von Drehle titled, “Gay Marriage Already Won: The Supreme Court hasn’t made up its mind – but America has.” TIME magazine’s Joe Klein, on March 26’s “Morning Joe,” commented on how rapidly the issue of gay marriage changed: “My God, I haven’t seen anything like it … To my kids, it’s just mystifying that anyone would be opposed to it.”
The Washington Post boasted a similar headline to TIME magazine that read “Political debate on same-sex marriage is over.” Writer Chris Cillizza explained, “[N]o matter how the high court rules later this year on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, one thing is already clear: The political debate over gay marriage is over.”
Those who thought the gay marriage debate still exists were in for a brutal media bash. After citing GOP strategist Karl Rove on the possibility of a 2016 Republican presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage, CNN’s Carol Costello asked Alliance Defense Fund’s Austin Nimocks, “Austin, you heard what Karl Rove just said. Are you on the wrong side of history?” CNN zeroed in on traditional marriage supporters as host Piers Morgan and openly gay anchor Don Lemon smashed opponents as “homophobic” and likened them to segregationists.
When asked about fair coverage by social conservative Peter LaBarbera, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer pulled race into the argument and bluntly replied, “You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter.”
MSNBC personality Luke Russert unleashed his opinion on FRC’s Tony Perkins during Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” and asked, “What do you fear so much” about gay marriage? When Perkins replied that he didn’t fear anything, Russert challenged, “Then why are you opposed?” He later charged Perkins with equating homosexuality with polygamy, after Perkins stated that the basis of marriage requires more than merely loving someone.
Those who did rally for gay marriage became heroes. New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg showered favor upon Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), and gushed, “Ms. Bonauto is too busy juggling legal briefs, homework and piano lessons to see herself as a woman making history.” During March 27 “World News,” Diane Sawyer praised an 83-year-old lesbian involved in the case against DoMA and explained, “Edith Windsor received a hero’s welcome when she emerged from the Supreme Court, saying it’s time to take a stand for marriage equality.”
That left one to ponder how DoMA ever passed the first place – but the media held the answer to that too. Former President Bill Clinton signed it due to sleep deprivation and pressure from his 1996 opponent Bob Dole, according to The New York Times’ Peter Baker.
On the bright side, gay marriage reportedly benefits the economy. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos cited an 8-year-old study Thursday and stated that legalizing gay marriage “could bring in up to $1 billion a year – so, a net benefit for the Treasury from gay marriage.” He explained, “if gay or lesbian couples are married and they have about equal income, they would actually pay more in taxes than if they were single.” CBS anchor Charlie Rose agreed, saying on Thursday’s “This Morning” that “if it’s [DOMA is] struck down, it may not be a financial windfall for same-sex couples. The case has centered on federal benefits. If they become eligible for the benefits, they would also have to pay higher taxes.”
It was scary enough when NBC’s Reporter Kristen Dahlgren admitted “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” But a more frightening thought is to realize that what happens in the networks – on the news sites – doesn’t tend stay there either.
The brilliant legal scholar Nelson Lund, who co-authored FRC’s amicus brief on the President’s health care plan with the director of our Center for Religious Liberty, Ken Klukowski, has written a landmark op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on the lack of any sociological data on how same-sex marriage affects children. Professor Lund, who teaches at George Mason University’s School of Law and formerly was executive editor of the University of Chicago Law Review, notes that “There are no scientifically reliable studies at all, nor could there be, given the available data,” with respect to the affects of same-sex parenting. He concludes, “If the Supreme Court constitutionalizes a right to same-sex marriage … there will be no going back,” says Professor Lund. “The court cannot possibly know that it is safe to take this irrevocable step.” Read his compelling analysis here.
On March 26 and 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases challenging the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, they will consider the constitutionality of the definition as enshrined in the California state constitution by voters in that state when they adopted “Proposition 8” in 2008 (effectively reversing the decision of the California Supreme Court to impose same-sex “marriage” earlier that year). In Windsor v. United States, they will consider the constitutionality of the same definition of marriage being adopted for all purposes under federal law through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
In anticipation of those oral arguments, I am running a series of blog posts with questions and answers related to the issue. Today I look at what is perhaps at the crux of the debate—the question of what harm marriage redefinition would do.
Q—What harm would it do to the institution of marriage if we redefine it to include same-sex couples?
At the outset, it is worth noting that this question is often framed in a rather misleading way: “What harm would a same-sex couple getting married do to your opposite-sex marriage?” The issue, however, is not how any one couple’s marriage would affect any other specific couple’s marriage—the issue is how changing the definition of marriage under the law would change the social institution of marriage.
Giving unique privileges and a unique status to the only type of relationship that can ever result in the natural creation of another human being sends an important message to society. Contrary to the charges of those who would redefine marriage, that message has nothing to do with “sexual orientation” as such. It simply sends the message that relationships of a type which can result in natural reproduction are unique, and are uniquely valuable to society; and it further sends the message that children benefit uniquely from being raised by their own mother and father (as well as the message that a man and woman should take responsibility for children produced by their union).
If “marriage” is redefined to include same-sex couples, it will of course not abolish civil marriage as an institution, or prevent opposite-sex couples from marrying and having children. However, it will effectively negate—and indeed, reverse—the social message that privileging “marriage” over other relationships would send.
Instead of sending the message that potentially procreative relationships are uniquely valuable and that children being raised by their mother and father is uniquely valuable, the message to society will be the exact opposite. Since same-sex relationships, which are intrinsically infertile and can never result in natural procreation, would be treated as identical under the law to opposite-sex relationships which are the only type that can ever result in natural procreation, the explicit message to society would be that there is nothing uniquely valuable about the very reproduction of the human race. This would be a shocking denial of a reality that is literally fundamental to human existence.
By the same token, same-sex couples never provide a child with a home that includes the care of both their mother and father, and on the contrary deliberately and permanently deny a child such a home. Treating such couples—which are deliberately motherless or fatherless—in a way identical to couples that provide both a mother and father would send the message to society that there is nothing uniquely valuable about a child being raised by his or her own mother and father.
Sending these messages—officially denying, as a matter of public policy, the unique value and importance of reproduction, and of mothers and fathers—would inevitably have an impact on the behavior of people in society.
The following harms would be the predictable results (these are adapted and updated from my 2010 Family Research Council booklet, The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex “Marriage):
The greatest tragedy resulting from the legalization of homosexual marriage would not be its effect on adults, but its effect on children. For the first time in history, society would be placing its highest stamp of official government approval on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless households for children.
There simply cannot be any serious debate, based on the mass of scholarly literature available to us, about the ideal family form for children. It consists of a mother and father who are committed to one another in marriage. Children raised by their married mother and father experience lower rates of many social pathologies, including:
These benefits are then passed on to future generations as well, because children raised by their married mother and father are themselves less likely to cohabit or to divorce as adults.[vii]
In a perfect world, every child would have that kind of household provided by his or her own loving and capable biological parents (and every husband and wife who wanted children would be able to conceive them together). Of course, we don’t live in a perfect world.
But the parent who says, “I’m gay” is telling his or her child that he or she has no intention of providing a parent of both sexes for that child. And a homosexual who “marries” someone of the same sex is declaring that this deprivation is to be permanent—and with the blessing of the state.
Homosexual activists argue that research on homosexual parenting has shown no differences among the children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. Even leading professional organizations such as the AmericanAcademyof Pediatrics, under the influence of homosexual activists, have issued policy statements making such claims.[viii]
A close examination of the actual research, however, shows that such claims are unsupportable. The truth is that most research on “homosexual parents” thus far has been marred by serious methodological problems.[ix] However, even pro-homosexual sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report that the actual data from key studies show the “no differences” claim to be false.
Surveying the research (primarily regarding lesbians) in an American Sociological Review article in 2001, they found that:
The most comprehensive study of children raised by parents who had homosexual relationships, conducted by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus and published in 2012, showed that such children suffered numerous disadvantages—relative to children raised in an “intact biological family,” but also in comparison to other family forms.[xi]
Critics of the Regnerus study questioned its relevance to the marriage debate, because some of the children of homosexual parents never lived with that parent and a partner, and almost none were raised by a same-sex couple from birth. (This illustrates, in part, how rare such “stable” same-sex households are in the real world). However, a 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children of homosexual couples the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured.[xii]
As scholar Stanley Kurtz says,
If, as in Norway, gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic Nordic pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution. In the American context, this would be a disaster.[xiii]
This harm is closely related to the previous one, but worth noting separately. As more children grow up without a married mother and father, they will be deprived of the tangible and intangible benefits and security that come from that family structure. However, most of those who live with only one biological parent will live with their mothers. In the general population, 79% of single-parent households are headed by the mother, compared to only 10% which are headed by the father.[xiv] Among homosexual couples, as identified in the 2000 census, 34% of lesbian couples have children living at home, while only 22% of male couples were raising children.[xv] The encouragement of homosexual relationships that is intrinsic in legalization of same-sex “marriage” would thus result in an increase in the number of children who suffer a specific set of negative consequences that are clearly associated with fatherlessness.
Homosexual activists say that having both a mother and a father simply doesn’t matter—it’s having two loving parents that counts. But social science research simply does not support this claim. Dr. Kyle Pruett of YaleMedicalSchool, for example, has demonstrated in his book Fatherneed that fathers contribute to parenting in ways that mothers do not. Pruett declares, “From deep within their biological and psychological being, children need to connect to fathers … to live life whole.”[xvi]
Children—both sons and daughters—suffer without a father in their lives. The body of evidence supporting this conclusion is large and growing.[xvii] For example, research has shown that “youth incarceration risks in a national male cohort were elevated for adolescents in father-absent households,” even after controlling for other factors.[xviii] Among daughters, “father absence was strongly associated with elevated risk for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy.”[xix] Even researchers supportive of homosexual parenting have had to admit that “children raised in fatherless families from infancy,” while closer to their mothers, “perceived themselves to be less cognitively and physically competent than their peers from father-present families.”[xx]
President Obama has also acknowledged the importance of fathers. In a speech during his 2008 campaign for President, he said this:
“We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”[xxi]
Some lesbian couples are deliberately creating new children in order to raise them fatherless from birth. It is quite striking to read, for example, the model “Donor Agreement” for sperm donors offered on the Human Rights Campaign website, and to see the lengths to which they will go to legally insure that the actual biological father of plays no role in the life of a lesbian mother’s child.[xxii] Yet a recent study of children conceived through sperm donation found, “Donor offspring are significantly more likely than those raised by their biological parents to struggle with serious, negative outcomes such as delinquency, substance abuse, and depression, even when controlling for socio-economic and other factors.” [xxiii] Remarkably, 38% of donor offspring born to lesbian couples in the study agreed that “it is wrong deliberately to conceive a fatherless child.”[xxiv]
One of the most fundamental tasks of any society is to reproduce itself. That is why virtually every human society up until the present day has given a privileged social status to male-female sexual relationships—the only type capable of resulting in natural procreation. This privileged social status is what we call “marriage.”
Extending the benefits and status of “marriage” to couples who are intrinsically incapable of natural procreation (i.e., two men or two women) would dramatically change the social meaning of the institution It would become impossible to argue that “marriage” is about encouraging the formation of life-long, potentially procreative (i.e., opposite-sex) relationships. The likely long-term result would be that fewer such relationships would be formed, fewer such couples would choose to procreate, and fewer babies would be born.
There is already evidence of at least a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” At this writing [from March 2011 publication—update pending], five U.S. states granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As of 2007, four of those five states ranked within the bottom eight out of all fifty states in both birth rate (measured in relation to the total population) and fertility rate (measured in relation to the population of women of childbearing age).[xxv]
Even granting marriage-related benefits to same-sex couples is associated with low birth and fertility rates. As of March 2011 there were sixteen states which offered at least some recognition or benefits to same-sex relationships.[xxvi] Twelve of these sixteen states ranked in the bottom twenty states in birth rate, while eleven of them ranked in the bottom seventeen in fertility rate. Vermont, the first state in the U. S. to offer 100% of the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through passage of its “civil unions” law in 2000[xxvii], ranked dead last in both birth rate and fertility rate.[xxviii]
Similar data are available on the international level. In March 2011 there were ten countries which permitted same-sex “marriage.”[xxix] Six of these ten fell well within the bottom quarter in both birth rates and fertility rates among 223 countries and territories. All ten fell below the total world fertility rate, while only South Africa had a birth rate that was higher (barely) than the world rate.[xxx]
It could be argued that the widespread availability and use of artificial birth control, together with other social trends, has already weakened the perceived link between marriage and procreation and led to a decline in birth rates. These changes may have helped clear a path for same-sex “marriage,” rather than the reverse.[xxxi] Nevertheless, legalization of same-sex “marriage” would reinforce a declining emphasis on procreation as a key purpose of marriage—resulting in lower birth rates than if it had not been legalized.
Of course, there are some who are still locked in the alarmism of the 1960’s over warnings of over-population.[xxxii] However, in recent years it has become clear, particularly in the developed world, that declining birth rates now pose a much greater threat. Declining birth rates lead to an aging population, and demographers have warned of the consequences,
… from the potentially devastating effects on an unprepared welfare state to shortages of blood for transfusions. Pension provisions will be stretched to the limit. The traditional model of the working young paying for the retired old will not work if the latter group is twice the size of the former… . In addition, … healthcare costs will rise.[xxxiii]
The contribution of same-sex “marriage” to declining birth rates would clearly lead to significant harm for society.
[i] Kristin A. Moore, “Nonmarital School-Age Motherhood: Family, Individual, and School Characteristics,” Journal of Adolescent Research 13, October 1998: 433-457.
[ii] John P. Hoffman and Robert A. Johnson, “A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60, August 1998: 633-645.
[iii] Chris Coughlin and Samuel Vucinich, “Family Experience in Preadolescence and the Development of Male Delinquency,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58, May 1996: 491-501.
[iv] Debra L. Blackwell, “Family structure and children’s health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001–2007,” Vital and Health Statistics, Series 10, No. 246 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, December 2010). Online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf
[v] Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, America’s Children: Key Indicators of Well-Being 2001,Washington,D.C., p. 14.
[vi] Deborah A. Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53, August 1991: 573-584.
[vii] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval, Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversity Press, 1997, pp. 111-115.
[viii] Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, American Academy of Pediatrics, “Policy Statement: Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian,” Pediatrics Vol. 31, No. 4, April 2013, pp. 827-830 (Reaffirmed May 2009; online at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0376.full.pdf+html
[ix] Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
[x] Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter,” American Sociological Review 66 (2001), pp. 159-183.
[xi] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
[xii] Sotirios Sarantakos, “Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development,” Children Australia 21, No. 3 (1996): 23-31.
[xiii] Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses,” The Weekly Standard 9, No. 20 (February 2, 2004): 26-33.
[xiv] Rose M. Kreider, “Living Arrangements of Children: 2004,” Current Population Reports P70-114 (Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau), February 2008, Figure 1, p. 5.
[xv] Simmons and O’Connell, op. cit., Table 4, p. 9.
[xvi] Kyle D. Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child (New York: The Free Press, 2000), p. 16.
[xvii] A good recent summary is Paul C. Vitz, The Importance of Fathers: Evidence and Theory from Social Science (Arlington,VA: Institute for the Psychological Sciences, June 2010); online at:
[xviii] Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14(3), 2004, p. 388.
[xix] Bruce J. Ellis, John E. Bates, Kenneth A. Dodge, David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, Gregory S. Pettit, Lianne Woodward, “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?” Child Development Vol. 74, Issue 3, May 2003; abstract online at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8624.00569/abstract.
[xx] Susan Golombok, Fiona Tasker, Clare Murray, “Children Raised in Fatherless Families from Infancy: Family Relationships and the Socioemotional Development of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers,” Journal of Child Psychologyc and Psychiatry Vol. 38, Issue 7 (October 1997); abstract online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01596.x/abstract.
[xxi] “Obama’s Speech on Fatherhood,”June 15, 2008; online at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_speech_on_fatherhood.html
[xxii] Human Rights Campaign, Donor Agreement; online at:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Search_the_Law_Database&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=18669
[xxiii] Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval D. Glenn, and Karen Clark, My Daddy’s Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation (New York: Institute for American Values, 2010) p. 9.
[xxiv] Ibid., Table 2, p. 110.
[xxv] Joyce A. Martin, Brady E. Hamilton, Paul D. Sutton, Stephanie J. Ventura, T. J. Mathews, Sharon Kirmeyer, and Michelle J. K. Osterman, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, “Births: Final Data for 2007,” National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 58, No. 24, August, 2010, Table 11. Rankings calculated by the author.
[xxvi] Human Rights Campaign, “Marriage Equality and Other Relationship Recognition Laws,” April 2, 2010; online at: http://www.hrc.org/documents/Relationship_Recognition_Laws_Map.pdf
[xxvii] “An Act Relating to Civil Unions,” H. 847, adoptedApril 26, 2000. Online at:
[xxviii] Martin et al., op. cit.
[xxix] The Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Belgium, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, and Argentina. See Dan Fastenberg, “A Brief History of International Gay Marriage,” Time, July 22, 2010; http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2005678,00.html
[xxx] “Country Comparison: Birth Rate,” The World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency); online at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html; and “Country Comparison: Total Fertility Rate,” The World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency); online at:
[xxxi] Note, for example, that in 2007, the last year for which final birth rate and fertility rate data are available, only one state (Massachusetts) had legalized same-sex “marriage.”
[xxxii] The most well-known representative being Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (New York: Ballantine Books, 1968).
[xxxiii] Jonathan Grant and Stijn Hoorens, “Consequences of a Graying World,” The Christian Science Monitor, June 29, 2007; online at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0629/p09s02-coop.html; see also Jonathan Grant, Stijn Hoorens, Juja Sivadasan, Mirjam van het Loo, Julie DaVanzo, Lauren Hale, Shawna Gibson, William Butz, Low Fertility and Population Ageing: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Options (Santa Monica, Calif.: TheRAND Corporation, 2004).
On March 26 and 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases challenging the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, they will consider the constitutionality of the definition as enshrined in the California state constitution by voters in that state when they adopted “Proposition 8” in 2008 (effectively reversing the decision of the California Supreme Court to impose same-sex “marriage” earlier that year). In Windsor v. United States, they will consider the constitutionality of the same definition of marriage being adopted for all purposes under federal law through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
In anticipation of those oral arguments, I am running a series of blog posts with questions and answers related to the issue. Today, I look at the suggestion that support for redefining marriage is growing because more people have a loved one—a colleague, friend, or relative—who is openly homosexual. This was recently in the news because of the announcement by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) that he will now support marriage redefinition because his college-age son has said he is gay.
Here, we reprint an op-ed that I wrote last year with Regina Griggs of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays.
How Can I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage When Someone I Love Is Gay?
Regina Griggs and Peter Sprigg
The Christian Post
Monday, November 5, 2012
Voters in 32 out of the 32 states where it has appeared on the ballot have upheld marriage as the union of a woman and a man. Advocates of same-sex marriage are holding out hope that their long losing streak will end on Election Day in Minnesota, Washington, Maryland or Maine.
Increasingly, advocates of same-sex marriage are abandoning legalistic arguments about “equality” and “civil rights,” and appealing to emotion and personal relationships instead. “We (gays and lesbians) are your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers, your classmates and your relatives,” the argument goes. “If you respect and care about us, how can you deny us what we want?” (namely, to have their same-sex relationships affirmed by the state through marriage licenses).
Polls suggest this approach is having an effect. People who know someone who self-identifies as “gay” or “lesbian” are more likely to support the redefinition of marriage than people who do not.
Is this connection a logical one? We argue it is not. How a person feels about their personal relationship with a gay friend, acquaintance, or relative should not dictate their position on the public policy issue of whether to change the definition of marriage.
We are both affiliated with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), which spreads the truth that it is possible for sexual orientation to change, and defends the civil rights of ex-gays. Note, however, that the title of our organization includes the phrase, “and Gays.” Many of those who look to PFOX for support are parents and/or friends of people who still self-identify as “gay” and engage in homosexual relationships. This is true of us personally as well. One of us (Regina) has an adult child who is openly gay. Peter and his wife have relatives and family friends who are gay as well.
It is a myth that disapproval of homosexual conduct equals “hate” toward homosexuals. If you are a parent, ask yourself – have you ever disagreed with your child? Have you ever disapproved of the behavioral choices she or he has made? The answer is surely “yes.” Those experiences are not inconsistent with sincere love, and can actually be a manifestation of it.
I (Regina) continue to have a warm and loving relationship with my child and gay friends despite the fact that we disagree about whether homosexual relationships should be called “marriages.”
My wife and I (Peter) had guests at our wedding who were divorced and who had children outside of wedlock. I do not approve of those actions any more than I do of homosexual conduct, but that does not interfere with my love for those people.
The myth that disapproval equals rejection stems from the myth that “being gay” is an intrinsic and immutable identity. Yet the decades-long search for a genetic or biological determinant of homosexuality has been a dismal failure.
This is not to say, however, that people “choose to be gay.” Sexual orientation is an umbrella term for a person’s sexual attractions, behavior and self-identification. People do not “choose” to experience homosexual attractions – but they do choose their behavior and self-identification.
Some people with same-sex attractions (SSA) choose to abstain from homosexual sex. Others seek professional help to change their sexual orientation, and many have succeeded. For a loved one to encourage those responses, rather than to affirm homosexual behavior, is just as loving as a parent or friend trying to encourage other choices they believe are in the person’s best interest. Legalization of same-sex marriage would place an official stamp of approval on homosexual relationships, so any person who thinks that such homosexual attractions are changeable and that homosexual behavior is unhealthy will logically oppose this redefinition of marriage – no matter how much they may love a gay person.
However, opposition to the redefinition of marriage need not even rest on disapproval of homosexuality itself. The fundamental reason why marriage is treated as a public institution – and the reason it has always been defined as a male-female union – is the recognition that there is a unique role of heterosexual unions in reproducing the human race, and to keep the mother and father who create a child together to raise that child. Men and women are complementary in a way two persons of the same sex can never be. One need not consider homosexual relationships to be inferior in order to recognize that heterosexual ones are unique in their potential for natural procreation and the well-being of a child. While some same-sex couples raise children, such households are – by design – either motherless or fatherless. This is why even some openly gay people, like Maryland political activist Doug Mainwaring, oppose same-sex marriage.
We at PFOX urge everyone to love their gay friends and relatives unconditionally, and never to cut them out of your life just because they are gay. But personal relationships should not dictate the definition of our most fundamental social institution.
On March 26 and 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases challenging the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, they will consider the constitutionality of the definition as enshrined in the California state constitution by voters in that state when they adopted “Proposition 8” in 2008 (effectively reversing the decision of the California Supreme Court to impose same-sex “marriage” earlier that year). In Windsor v. United States, they will consider the constitutionality of the same definition of marriage being adopted for all purposes under federal law through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
In anticipation of those oral arguments, I am running a series of blog posts with questions and answers related to the issue. Today, we look at the claim that we should redefine marriage to protect the children already being raised by same-sex couples.
Q—How normal is “the new normal” (children being raised by homosexual couples)?
This week there was a flurry of news coverage of a new “Policy Statement” (that’s what it was, by its own labeling—it wasn’t a “study”) from theAmericanAcademy of Pediatrics, which endorsed the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
The impression which advocates for marriage redefinition seek to create in the public’s mind is that children of homosexual parents are essentially in exactly the same position as children of heterosexual parents, and children raised by same-sex couples are in the same position as children raised by married opposite-sex couples, except regarding the gender of the parents.
Yet some data reported in the AAP’s own Policy Statement tend to undermine that message. Consider this quote:
“The US 2010 Census reported that 646,464 households included 2 adults of the same gender. These same-gender couples are raising ~115,000 children aged ≤18 years and are living in essentially all counties of theUnited States. When these children are combined with single gay and lesbian parents who are raising children, almost 2 million children are being raised by gay and lesbian parents in the United States.”
If the estimate of 2 million children with “gay and lesbian parents” is correct, then comparing it with the figure of 115,000 being raised by same-sex couples indicates that only 1 in every 17 children of “gay” parents actually lives with a same-sex couple. Thus, the model of “gay parenting” held up by homosexual activists in the marriage debate—that of children being raised in a stable household by a loving and committed same-sex couple—is extraordinarily rare in the real world, even as a fraction of the already small minority of children who have a homosexual parent.
Last summer, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus published a groundbreaking study of homosexual parents in the journal, Social Science Research. It showed that children of homosexuals suffered disadvantages in numerous areas—both when compared with children raised in an intact biological family, and when compared with other, less stable (but heterosexual) parenting situations. (I summarized its findings and responded to critiques of it in a series of blog posts.)
One of the chief criticisms of his work (and really, one of the only criticisms of any substance) was that many of the 236 subjects he identified—young adults whose parent had a homosexual relationship while they were growing up—had never actually lived with the parent and the parent’s same-sex partner. Therefore, it was argued, the Regnerus findings could not be considered relevant to debates about children being raised by same-sex couples.
The reason for the paucity of children raised by same-sex couples in the Regnerus study was simple—they could hardly be found in a representative, population-based sample. The data-gathering group hired for Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study screened 15,000 young adults—and found only two who had been raised by a same-sex couple from birth to age 18. In both cases, the couple was a lesbian one—they found no one who had been raised by a homosexual male couple from birth.
In other words, what some liberal activists (and Hollywood) like to refer to as “the new normal”—kids being raised by homosexual couples from birth—is not normal at all, even for kids with a parent who has homosexual relationships.
While the ideal—the “new normal”—of the family revisionists is not normal, what about the “old normal?” Advocates for maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of a woman and a man uphold an ideal also—the married couple household in which a child is raised by a mom and dad (and in particular the natural family, wherein a child is born to and raised by his or her own biological mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage).
Revisionists, however, scoff at this ideal, relegating it to the outdated, “Ozzie and Harriett,” “Father Knows Best” world of 1950’s sitcoms. When you consider the high rates of cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births, and divorce, along with singles adopting and “gay parents,” the old-fashioned nuclear family hardly exists any more—or does it?
The answer to that question can also be found in the AAP Policy Statement, which reports, “In 2010, married adults were raising 65.3% of all children in this country.” Even if the Census Bureau (source of this figure) defied the federal Defense of Marriage Act and chose to include some of the 646,464 same-sex couples in this number, it is still clear that the overwhelming majority of these 48 million married couples are of the opposite-sex.
To summarize, only 1 in every 17 children of “gay” parents is living with a same-sex couple. So the “new normal” isn’t normal.
On the other hand, nearly 2 out of every 3 children of heterosexual parents are living with a married couple. The number of children being raised by a married heterosexual couple is more than 400 (four hundred) times higher than the number being raised by a same-sex couple.
The “old normal” is still the norm.
The media has jumped on a new “Policy Statement” issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) which endorses the redefinition of marriage, arguing, “Scientific evidence affirms that children … receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders.”
This is a highly misleading claim, especially in light of the research published last year by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus—the most methodologically-sound research on the subject ever done, using a large and representative population-based sample—which showed children whose parents had a homosexual relationship suffered numerous disadvantages compared with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.
In any case, it is unclear whether the “Policy Statement” accurate represents the views of any more pediatricians than the two lead authors and the six members of the AAP’s “Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health.” It is certain that they do not speak for all pediatricians—as indicated by the press release below, issued today by an alternative group, the American College of Pediatricians:
Traditional Marriage Still the Best for Children
American College of Pediatricians
Gainesville, Florida – March 21, 2013 – “The American College of Pediatricians reaffirms that the intact, functional family consisting of a married (female) mother and (male) father provides the best opportunity for children. The College, therefore, disputes the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) claim that supporting same-sex unions promotes the “well-being of children.” In its newly released statement, “Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian,” the AAP ignores important research on risks to children in favor of the wants of adults.
“The College does not support the alteration of this time-honored and proven standard to conform to pressures from “politically correct” groups. No one concerned with the well-being of children can reasonably ignore the evidence for maintaining the current standard, nor can they or we ignore the equally strong evidence that harm to children can result if the current standards are rejected,” says Den Trumbull, MD, President of the American College of Pediatricians. “The AAP ignores generations of evidence of health risks to children in advocating for the legality and legitimacy of same-sex marriage and child-rearing.”
A woman who has built her career on extravagant self-debasement continues to find ways to demean and coarsen herself.
A few days ago, Madonna appeared at the GLAAD awards dressed in a Cub Scout uniform. With a Scoutmaster’s hat affixed to the back of her head, cowboy-style, she virtually purred with self-satisfaction at yet another few moments on the glistening stage of pop culture.
It should be clear that she was wearing a Cub Scout, not a Boy Scout, uniform. The former is worn by little boys who, by the way, wear caps, not broad-rimmed tan hats. Am I the only person troubled that a woman whose entire career has been premised on the continuous, ever-more graphic sexualization of herself would wear a child’s outfit to make a point about homosexuality? To objectify oneself is certainly an option in our society, however dehumanizing it might be. But is it really necessary to bring children into such an endeavor?
The uniform was, of course, secondary to the singer’s “look at me!” purpose. That she peppered her comments with obscenity and, in her remarks, reduced Scouting to such things as pitching a tent and building a fire says a great deal. Although these and many other practical skills are important to Scouting, building character is the chief goal of the BSA. Sadly, this is an objective concerning which Madonna seems both ignorant and unconcerned.
Rather than anger, Christians should feel pity for an entertainer desperately seeking public affirmation, but avoiding discovery of what it means to live as a person made in the image and likeness of God.
