search text   Advanced Search

Post-publication Peer Reviews to:

SPECIAL ARTICLES: James G. Pawelski, Ellen C. Perrin, Jane M. Foy, Carole E. Allen, James E. Crawford, Mark Del Monte, Miriam Kaufman, Jonathan D. Klein, Karen Smith, Sarah Springer, J. Lane Tanner, and Dennis L. Vickers The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children Pediatrics 2006; 118: 349-364 [Full text] [PDF]

P3Rs: Submit a response to this article

P³Rs published:

Laws against same-gender unions put children at risk

Julia A McMillan   (23 August 2006)

Reassurance through "heterosexist" sense of normalcy

Paul E. Price   (20 September 2006)

Back to basics

Ernest C Luther   (2 November 2006)

Laws against same-gender unions put children at risk 23 August 2006
Julia A McMillan, Pediatrician Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Send letter to journal: Re: Laws against same-gender unions put children at risk jmcmill{at}jhmi.edu Julia A McMillan	August 20, 2006 Jerold F. Lucey, Editor Pediatrics University of Vermont College of Medicine 89 Beaumont Avenue Given Building Room D 201 Burlington, VT 05405-0068 Dear Dr. Lucey: I’m writing to thank the authors of “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children”1 for their comprehensive review of the status of judicial action and state and federal legislation regarding same-sex domestic partnerships and the impact of those actions on children. Their comprehensive review demonstrates that legislation prohibiting civil unions and restricting civil recognition of legal status for same-sex domestic partnerships and second-parent adoption has the effect of weakening families. These laws are intended to protect the concept and the institution of marriage between men and women, but their impact is to pit protection of that concept against the legal, financial, and psychosocial welfare of the children born to, or adopted by, same-sex partners who love them and want to assume responsibility for their welfare. The AAP’s Task Force on the Family of which I was a member, acknowledged that, “effective parenting can and does occur within families of all types and configuration; but after considerable research the Task Force concluded that, “The evidence is overwhelming that, in general, children do best when they are living with two mutually committed parents who respect and support each other, who have adequate social and financial resources, and who both are actively engaged in their upbringing.” 2 Pawelski and his co-authors list some of the 1138 ways, as identified by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, partners of the same gender are prevented from providing their families with the legal, social, and financial protections that married heterosexual couples take for granted. The authors of this review provide ample evidence for continued support by the American Academy of Pediatrics for the parents (biological or other) of all children, including the millions of children being raised by committed partner parents who are of the same gender. Julia A. McMillan, M.D. Professor of Pediatrics Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine CMSC 2-124 Johns Hopkins Hospital 600 N. Wolfe Street Baltimore, MD 21287-3224 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. Pediatr 2006;118:349 2) American Academy of Pediatrics, Report of the Task Force on the Family. Pediatr 2003;111:1541 Conflict of Interest: None declared
Reassurance through "heterosexist" sense of normalcy 20 September 2006
Paul E. Price, attorney Admitted to practice in Minnesota, member of the Minnesota State Bar Association Send letter to journal: Re: Reassurance through "heterosexist" sense of normalcy paulprice2027{at}msn.com Paul E. Price	Thank you for the clear and precise statements of the current legal situation and best available current scientific research. However, it is necessary to start to change the notion that if there were evidence suggesting an increased likeliness of children of "glbt" households identifying as "glbt" individuals, there would be something disturbing in this data. This applies equally as well if there were evidence showing that children with gender confusion are indicators of something askew. This undeclared assumption was also shown when it was reported that children with raised scores on “masculinity” and “femininity” who are not of the presumed, congruent gender, perhaps reassuringly demonstrated “normal” levels of “masculinity” and “femininity” congruent to their gender. These are artifacts of heterosexism. The adjustment difficulties these children may face are because of the dysfunctional gender notions of our society, deeply inculcated in all of us, barring issues of child abuse which should answer to the justice system. Paul E. Price Conflict of Interest: None declared
Back to basics 2 November 2006
Ernest C Luther, Father of 3 and husband N/A Send letter to journal: Re: Back to basics ecluther{at}nycap.rr.com Ernest C Luther	I've read the other responses to the article in reference and neither response adds anything but personal support. In short, they were saying 'we agree'. I hope somewhere in the Pediatrics journal and/or the AAP website there is an indication that regardless of whether a person wishes to support same-sex unions the absolute best environment for a child to be raised is with it's biological opposite sex parents in marriage. Of course the majority of current laws can be said to harm children who are living with homosexual adults. The country has never dealt with the current cultural thinking that such a thing is acceptable individually or especially in unions. The article could have easily argued that laws allowing divorce are harmful. Much research has been done showing the tremendous detrimental effects such separation has on children financially and psychologically. Easy divorce laws allow people to walk away from their responsibilities instead of working through the trials of life. Marriage has historically meant much more than two people living together for convenience or financial ease. Marriage has been held as a binding commitment that cannot be broken. This mode of thinking is worlds apart from how many couples (same-sex or otherwise) view marriage or partnerships today. Children understand the differences in these kinds of commitments. Far from assisting children those who took the time to write the artical and those who would support it do a far greater injustice. By not acknowledging anywhere what is truly beneficial to all children, the support of traditional marriage. Advocating against hedonism, consumerism, and rampant individualism within our culture is of greater importance. When biological parents (primarily) get back to realizing that having children is a greater responsibility than 'having their career' or 'living their life' then children will truly benefit. Conflict of Interest: Failure to acknowledge the preferred state of family.

	Home | My Pediatrics | Journal Information | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscriptions & Services | Contact Us Click here for faster international access © 2008 American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved.