PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 5 November 2006, pp. 2261b-2264 (doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2310)
LETTER TO THE EDITOR |
The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children: In Reply
Den A. Trumbull, MDPediatric Healthcare
Montgomery, AL 36106
Joseph R. Zanga, MD, FAAP
Brody School of Medicine
Greenville, NC 27834
Leah M. Willson, MD, FAAP
Hutchinson Medical Center
Hutchinson, MN 55350-5000
Vicki Tucci, Esq
Executive Director
American College of Pediatricians
Lantana, FL 33465-3532
To the Editor.—
With its release of the July Pediatrics article "Effects of Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) officially endorses and advocates for the elevation of civil unions and domestic partnerships to the same legal status of traditional, heterosexual marriage in America.1 The AAP defends this unprecedented move with underwhelming demographics and general statements of benefits for children in these settings. We find this position untenable and, if implemented, detrimental to children and the family at large.
The recent AAP article presents the demographics of homosexual households as compelling evidence for changing federal marriage law. Citing the 2000 US Census and without revealing percentage figures, the authors note a significant increase in the absolute number of same-sex households compared with the 1990 census. However, in a technical note the Census Bureau urged caution in this comparison stating that "[d]ata on unmarried partners from the 1990 census (which were based on data from the sample form) are not comparable with data from Census 2000 because of changes in the editing procedures."2(p1, footnote 2) Furthermore, the Census Bureau noted that this census count could be an overestimate given the low occurrence of homosexual households in the population.3
Actually, homosexual households comprised <1% of all households in the 2000 census, and most did not contain children. Specifically, only one third of female same-sex households and approximately one fifth of male same-sex households contained children under 18 years old.4 Furthermore, the vast majority of these children are from previous heterosexual relationships, and although no data are given, many of the homosexual parents are sharing joint custody with the child's other biological parent. Therefore, the number of children living full-time in a home with homosexual partners will be even smaller than the 0.2% to 0.04% of total households indicated in the census. These percentages hardly represent "an established and growing part of the diverse structure of families in the United States"5 as proclaimed in the AAP report.
Children do not derive their psychosocial and emotional well-being from legal rights granted to them by the state. Rather, a child's well-being is optimally nurtured within a stable family setting with parents who are loving, affirming, protective, directive, and committed to one another. It is true that the state can augment such a setting, but well-being must first begin within the home. Therefore, the authors are gravely misguided in claiming that "[c]hildren's wellbeing relies in large part on a complex blend of their own legal rights and the rights derived, under law, from their parents."6
The evidence of favorable outcomes from homosexual parenting used in this article is the same faulty research cited in the AAP's 2002 same-sex adoption policy statement.7 The studies suffer critical flaws such as nonlongitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.8 Within the earlier policy statement was the acknowledgment that "[t]he small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve."9(p343) With no such caution, Pawelski et al proclaim, "There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. ... These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents."10 It is appalling that a professional medical organization could so recklessly champion "evidence" when none exists. In fact, child-rearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in homes with 2 heterosexual parents.11–13
In fact, children reared in homosexual households experience and are exposed to greater health risks than those in heterosexual married households.14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages, with the average homosexual relationship lasting only 2 to 3 years.15–18 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation.19(p213),20,21,22(p7),23(p174,179) Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.24 These findings are in direct contradiction to the claims of the AAP.
Noticeably missing from the review is any focused research regarding the effects of marriage law on children, which is the purported topic of the article. Also omitted is any mention of the legal and social service benefits currently afforded the child under the care of a single parent or within a step household. In fact, legal rights and social assistance are currently available to children in nonintact homes without giving household partners full marital rights and privileges. Rather than addressing this fact, the authors defend their opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment by listing 41 benefits that the homosexual household would lose if the amendment was enacted. Realistically, at least 20 of the benefits could still be obtained by execution of legal documents such as power of attorney or designation of beneficiary, and a minimum of 10 would primarily benefit only the adults.
Most of the parental rights desired by same-sex marriage proponents are premised more on biological linkage than legal marital status. Professor Teresa Collett of the St Thomas School of Law explains, "A stepparent is not entitled to be considered a ‘parent’ after the dissolution of the marriage to the biological parent. A presumption of parentage based on marriage is limited to husbands only. Offspring of the husband born to a woman other than his wife are not presumed to be the children of the wife because there is no biological linkage. Similarly, a child cannot be biological offspring of both same-sex partners. In contemporary society, an increasing number of caregivers are biologically unrelated to the child—stepparents, childcare providers, teachers, etc. A child's relationship with any of these people can be formative and often benefits from stability, but the state does not impose continuing obligations of care or support on these individuals as a general rule. Absent radical restructuring of the law pertaining to support of biologically related children, recognition of same-sex unions creates no legal benefit to children."25 As such, civil marriages would benefit the adults, not the children.
Heterosexual marriage is a unique and natural institution from which new life arises and within which new life naturally flourishes. Historians have noted that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization and, as such, is the "seedbed" of society.26 Society will always depend on heterosexual marriage to provide for future generations. The child receives protection and nurturance by the natural affection and attachment of the biological mother and father. Civil unions of homosexual caregivers cannot possess this natural chemistry for the child. The heterosexual marriage is a legal and social commitment of unique importance to the child and society and, therefore, is deserving of exceptional privilege and protection. It is dangerously shortsighted to experiment with diluting this distinction.
Studies have consistently shown that family structure does matter, with children from traditional, intact families (2 heterosexual, married parents and biological children) faring better than those reared in nonintact families (single, step, or cohabiting parents).27 The beneficial effects include better behavior, higher literacy, higher grades, lower truancy, lower depression/anxiety, better physical health, lower antisocial behavior, lower adolescent substance abuse, closer attachment to parents, lower adolescent sexual activity, and closer monitoring of the child by parents of intact families. Research indicates that most children in nonintact families are at an educational and social disadvantage compared with children in intact families.
With little or no legal benefit to children and the clear possibility of imposed health risks, it would seem the AAP agenda to grant legal marriage status to homosexual couples is primarily about privileges for homosexual adults. Advocating for such a bold, historic change in family law without indisputable evidence of benefit to the child places children in a dangerous position as subjects within an adult, politically motivated experiment. Do we really want to place children in a sort of adoptive vivisection experiment and argue that this practice is really for their benefit?
To grant legal marriage rights to domestic partnerships or any combination of adults other than the heterosexual couple would begin a slippery slide toward complete dissolution of marriage. The unintended consequences to society may be profound. If 2 homosexual adults are deemed as worthy to care for a child as the biological parents, then what about a marriage of 3 or 4 adults? What about granting married status to an adult and a child? As peculiar as these possibilities may seem, modern-day groups have championed their realization.28 Heterosexual marriage must be socially encouraged and legally advocated to propagate its occurrence.
The purpose of the AAP article is summarized in its concluding quote of an American Psychiatric Association policy statement that supports "the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities." We are opposed this position because of its absence of evidence-based research and potential negative consequences on children. Granting legal marital status to homosexual civil unions would be a tragic miscalculation that would bring irreparable damage to society, the family, and the child.
REFERENCES
1. Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM, et al. The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children.
Pediatrics. 2006;118
:349
–364
2. US Census Bureau. Married-couple and unmarried-partner households: 2000—Census 2000 special reports. Available at: www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2006
3. "Estimating numbers and characteristics of population groups with low probabilities of occurrence may be affected by even small reporting errors or incorrect optical reading of some questionnaires during data processing. The analysis of the number of same-sex couples and their characteristics may be susceptible to these problems if such errors were made in the relationship and sex items. For instance, if an error was made by the household respondent for the item ‘What is this person's sex?’ an opposite-sex married-couple household could have been erroneously processed as a same-sex married-couple household. In this instance, the household would have most likely been reclassified as a same-sex unmarried-partner household." Ibid, p 1, footnote 2
7. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents.
Pediatrics. 2002;109
:339
–340
8. Lerner R, Nagai AK. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting. Washington, DC: Marriage Law Project; 2001
9. Perrin EC; American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents.
Pediatrics. 2002;109
:341
–344
11. Hilton JM, Devall EL. Comparison of parenting and children's behavior in single-mother, single-father, and intact families. J Divorce & Remarriage. 1998;29 :23 –54[CrossRef]
12. Thomson E, Hanson TL, McLanahan SS. Family structure and child well-being: economic resources vs parental behaviors. Soc Forces. 1994;73 :221 –242[CrossRef][Web of Science]
13. Popenoe D. Life Without Father. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996:144, 146
14. American College of Pediatricians. Homosexual parenting: is it time for change? 2004. Available at: www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?cat=10005&art=50&BISKIT=3835427889&CONTEXT=art. Accessed September 12, 2006
15. McWhirter DP, Mattison AM. The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1984:252, 253
16. Saghir M, Robins E. Male and Female Homosexuality. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1973:225
17. Peplau LA, Amaro H. Understanding lesbian relationships. In: Weinrich J, Paul W, eds. Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1982:233–248
18. Pollak M. Male homosexuality. In: Aries P, Bejin A, eds. Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times. Forster A, trans-ed. New York, NY: B. Blackwell; 1985:40–61. Cited by: Nicolosi J. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc; 1991:124, 125
19. Tasker F, Golombok S. Adults raised as children in lesbian families. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1995;65 :203 –215[Web of Science][Medline]
20. Bailey JM, Bobrow D, Wolfe M, Mikach S. Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Dev Psychol. 1995;31 :124 –129[CrossRef][Web of Science]
22. Tasker F, Golombok S. Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Dev Psychol. 1996;32 :3 –11[CrossRef][Web of Science]
23. Stacey J, Biblarz TJ. (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? Am Soc Rev. 2001;66 :159 –183[CrossRef]
24. Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Beautrais AL. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people?
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56
:876
–880
25. Collett TS. Benefits, nonmarital status, and the homosexual agenda. Widener J Pub Law. 2002;11 :395 –397
26. Vico GB (1668–1744). Quoted by: Dailey TJ. The slippery slope of same-sex marriage [brochure]. Washington, DC: Family Research Council; 2004
27. Schneider B, Atteberry A, Owens A. Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes. Birmingham, AL: Alabama Policy Institute; 2005:1–42. Available at: www.alabamapolicyinstitute.org/PDFs/currentfamilystructure.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2006
28. Dailey TJ. The slippery slope of same-sex marriage [brochure]. Washington, DC: Family Research Council; 2004
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2006 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
