Dueling Deace II: Same-sex marriage harms children?

Continuing my discussion with Steve Deace from his WHO 1040 program, “Deace in the Afternoon.” Deace maintained:

“Every single study shows, from secular studies to any other paradigm you want to look at, children are better off raised between one man and one woman in the bonds of holy matrimony. We are playing fire already with our children given how many are born out of wedlock, how many are born in shacked-up relationships. To further devolve the family is to do great harm to children.”

I’m personally inclined to agree that children are best raised by their biological father and mother in a stable, loving marriage, but I stress this is my inclination, not an empirical position. It’s not logically consistent to conclude, however, that because children are “better off” in one circumstance, that any differing circumstance does them “great harm.” There are numerous degrees of quality between “better” and “harmful,” and it’s entirely possible that two contingencies may be equally better or worse for a child. Is it better for a child to eat chicken or fish? An apple or a carrot? Each has their relative nutritional merit; each offers something somewhat different than the other.

This is not to equate family circumstances to a simple snack choice; it’s merely to illustrate the nuance in defining qualitative differences. Is a child better off raised by a loving, committed, responsible gay couple, or by a married, heterosexual couple with an abusive father and an alcoholic mother? Deace would legally prohibit the first, and give only a 50,000-watt cluck of the tongue to the second.

Despite Deace’s claim to the contrary, there is no monolithic scholarly agreement that children are better off raised between one man and one woman in the bonds of holy matrimony. Neither is there any documented evidence that concludes children raised by same-sex parents are done great harm. It’s a relatively new field of research, but there are a number of studies on the topic. For example:

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

“Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents” by Ellen C. Perrin, MD and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, PEDIATRICS (The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics), Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 341-344

Dr. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at Tufts-New England Medical Center, appearing on the PBS program NOW in April 2006, concluded that “there is no evidence that having gay or lesbian parents is harmful to children in any way.” On the same program, both The Child Welfare League of America and The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute support the rights of gays to adopt. Adam Pertman, the Executive Director of the Adoption Institute, said in a March 2006 statement, "The bottom line for those of us who advocate for children is clear. There's simply no credible research to indicate that children are harmed in any way when they're adopted by gay and lesbian parents, but there's lots of evidence to indicate that they do well in those homes."

In April 2001, two researchers from USC, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, examined 21 different studies on gay parenting. Their results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, indicate that, although the studies had deficits, all 21 of them demonstrated the children of gay parents show no difference in levels of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavior problems, or social performance; they do, however, display higher levels of affection, responsiveness, and concern for younger children and "seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength." Importantly, the children of gay parents are no more likely than the average population to identify themselves as gay, though they may indulge more same-sex experimentation when young.

The American Psychological Association’s official policy states that “research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."

Of course in Deace’s view, all these organizations almost certainly have a liberal bias, are staffed by Godless pagans, are tools of the devil, and can’t be relied upon to provide unbiased information. Only Focus on the Family can do that.

What other restrictions would Deace be willing to impose to prevent “great harm to children.” Would he deny legal marriage to other group/individuals if he deems their abilities/circumstances make them high risk parents? What if a black couple lives in a “high-risk” inner-city community? What if he feels a person with a prosthetic leg isn’t able to respond quickly enough in an emergency? What if a married couple has a child, then divorce because the husband comes out as gay? Should his parental rights be terminated? As a logical corollary, shouldn’t we legislate against procreation by, perhaps even institute forced sterilization for, unfit individuals (which, I assume, is almost anyone who disagrees with Deace)?

Some of the very same arguments Deace offered on his program echo those heard in the 1960s.

“This sort of marriage is not in the best interest of children!”

“God has a plan for marriage and this isn’t it!”

“Allowing this kind of marriage will pave the way for all sorts of moral depravity!”

These comments were observed regarding the interracial marriage of one man and one woman, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving. They had been married only 5 weeks when they were awakened at 2 a.m. by police, and arrested for being married to one another. While jailed they were housed on separate floors. On January 6, 1959, after pleading guilty to the charge against them, they were sentenced to one year in jail, which was suspended providing the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia for 25 years. The trial judge offered this opinion:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

After facing housing discrimination in Washington, D.C., and being unhappy about not living close to their families, Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy forwarded the letter to the American Civil Liberties Union and attorney Bernard S. Cohen took their case. After a nine-year period in lesser courts, their case was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, and was decided unanimously in their favor.

It was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S., and through 1967 at least sixteen states prohibited mixed race couples from marrying. Inter-racial marriage became legal after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia in that year.

Next... a destructive lifestyle?