A response to Dennis Durband’s piece on AmeriConservative.

Several weeks ago, I penned an article titled, “Ray Flynn is Wrong About Same Sex Marriage.”  Flynn, the former mayor of Boston and former Ambassador to the Vatican, is one of the principals who is supporting a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in Massachusetts.  In this article, I challenged Flynn’s assertion that children are best raised in a loving family by a mother and father.  I argued that even with a loving mother and father there is no guarantee that a child will live a healthy, productive life.  Moreover, I questioned Flynn’s assumption that parents of the same sex are inherently incompetent and incapable of raising children.  I stated that I could not support a ban of gay marriage in Massachusetts unless Flynn could demonstrate that same sex parents were inherently inappropriate and incompetent to raise children.

I realize that amongst self described conservatives my position is in the minority.  I did not have any illusions that this position would go without challenge and I was not disappointed.  Enter Dennis Durband.  He has written a rebuttal to my article titled, “Unappointed ‘Counsel’ for Flynn Provides Powerful Case against Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Parenting,” which can be found on his website.   

Before I address the substance of Durband’s article let me praise him for his civility.  He brought his article to my personal attention and he has written a spirited article.  Yet he has done so without rancor.  Given the emotionalism and sensitivity of the subject matter that is not easily done.  I hope I am able to do the same.  I believe that there is enough room in conservative political thought to have a reasonable debate on the intricacies of same-sex marriage.

Durband’s central problem with my argument is that I rely on anecdotal rather than empirical information.  He writes, “It is dangerous to use ‘always’ and ‘never’ words, but there are times when those terms are appropriate.  Advocates of same-sex marriage/parenting/adoption always use anecdotal points to support their claims and never look at the social science research available.”

Well, not quite.   

Earlier this month, Dr. Ellen C. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Medford, Massachusetts (just outside Boston), presented a paper concerning children raised in heterosexual and same-sex households at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition in Washington, D.C.  Her paper analyzed 15 studies conducted over the past quarter century.  These studies examined social stigma, self-esteem, sexual orientation and gender identity.  Dr. Perrin concluded that there is little difference between children who grow up in heterosexual households and those who grow up in same-sex households.  Dr. Perrin remarked, “Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents’ children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex.  They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school.”

Durband is therefore incorrect to assert that advocates who support same-sex marriage never look at the social science research available.  In retrospect, Durband ought to have followed his own advice with the use of the word never.

Now in fairness to Durband one can certainly question the validity of Dr. Perrin’s study and the studies on which her findings were based.  Durband cites a number of different studies that support his assertion that children are not well served by same-sex parents.   Indeed, Durband cites several studies from the Family Research Council (FRC).  One of these studies, titled “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk” by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey, was released in October 2001.   

Dr. Dailey, a Senior Fellow with the FRC’s Center for Marriage and Family Studies, acknowledges that there have been studies that have concluded same-sex parenting to have a positive impact on children.  However, he questions sample size, self-presentation bias and a lack of random sampling.  With respect to a lack of random sampling, Dr. Dailey observes that the subjects were in the same geographical area, were Caucasian and were upper middle class and thus not representative of that broader same-sex population.  These are legitimate criticisms with respect to the methodology employed by those who have conducted studies concluding that same-sex parenting is good for children.

However, Dr. Dailey damages his own objectivity when he writes that these studies are “driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth.  In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  I am not discounting Dr. Dailey’s assertion that studies in support of same-sex marriage and parenting are driven in part by politics.  Any study whose objective, methodology and conclusions are driven by politics should be viewed with scrutiny and skepticism.  But let’s be clear.  Dr. Dailey represents an organization which is hostile to the notion of homosexuality, never mind same-sex marriage and parenting.   To suggest that Dr. Dailey and by extension the FRC do not have their own agenda and are only seeking “an objective search for truth” is simply disingenuous.   

Dr. Dailey wrote another paper for the FRC that Durband did not cite titled, “Homosexuality and Children: The Impact for Future Generations.”   The following passage comes off as more of a polemic than it does an objective search for the truth:

The Family Research Council believes that the pro-homosexual movement does have a significant impact on children — and that the impact is clearly harmful.

At the very least, children are being subjected to pro-homosexual brainwashing designed to mold the attitudes of the next generation — in defiance of the moral and religious values of society and of their own parents, if necessary.  Furthermore, by placing children under the influence of homosexual teachers, mentors, and even adoptive parents, society not only undermines the traditional family values that promote healthy child development, but it also increases the chances that children will end up adopting the destructive homosexual lifestyle.  

The last sentence is really the crux of the matter.  Dr. Dailey and the FRC fear that America’s children will become gay.  The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines homophobia as an “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.”  If the above passage is not a demonstration of homophobia then nothing is.  Dr. Dailey is perfectly right to challenge the biases of those who conduct studies that conclude gay marriage and parenting is good for children, be it Dr. Perrin or anyone else.  However, in so doing, he fails to acknowledge his own biases and that of his organization.  Or put another way, openly heterosexual researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a negative light.

Durband does cite studies other than the ones originating from the FRC.  One of them was a from a study conducted by Phyllis Bronstein, an Emertia Professor of Psychology at the University of Vermont.  Professor Bronstein conducted the study of 136 fifth grade children and their families in Vermont, both traditional and nontraditional.  She found that boys from nontraditional families had amongst other things a lower self-concept, poorer behavior in the classroom and lower grade point averages.  She also found that girls from nontraditional families tend to be less popular with their peers.

With respect to the unpopularity of girls from nontraditional families, let’s for argument’s sake accept those findings.  Is the lack of popularity from their peers necessarily a reflection of their parents’ caretaking abilities or appropriateness as caretakers?     The unpopularity of girls from nontraditional families amongst their peers might say more about their peers than about the girls themselves.  It does not take much for children to single out a child in disdain.  A child can be ostracized because of physical appearance, a lack of athletic skills or exceptional intellectual ability.   

Let us also consider that the study cited by Durband was published in 1993.  In 2000, Vermont became the first State in the Union to recognize civil unions.  Let’s assume for a moment that the girls were in fact unpopular became they came from nontraditional or same-sex households.  It is possible as we approach 2006 that attitudes have changed to the degree that coming from a nontraditional household does not have the same stigma it once might have.

Durband also raises studies that examine both the stability and the fidelity of same-sex relationships.  For instance, Durband cites a Dutch study that same-sex relationships amongst men in Holland last an average of 18 months and have an average of eight partners a year outside the relationship.  By contrast, two-thirds of heterosexual marriages in the United States last more than a decade.  Well, maybe.  Curiously, Durband omitted the fidelity of married heterosexual couples.  He also did not mention the stability of same-sex relationships in America.  Is it the same as in Holland?  Or isn’t it?  If it isn’t, Durband might very well be comparing apples to tulips.   

While it might be true that same-sex relationships, especially amongst men, might be unstable, it must also be remembered that same-sex marriage has not been with us for an especially long time.  Andrew Sullivan, the openly gay conservative pundit, was amongst the very first to call for gay marriage.  In his 1989 article, “Here Comes the Groom,” which appeared in The New Republic, Sullivan argues that the legalization of gay marriage would act as a bulwark against infidelity and ought to be supported by conservatives:

Legalizing gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same deal society now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal advantages in exchange for a deeper and harder-to-extract-yourself-from commitment to another human being.  Like straight marriage, it would foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence.  Since there’s no reason gays should not be allowed to adopt or be foster parents, it could also help nurture children.  And its introduction would not be some sort of radical break with social custom.  As it has become more acceptable for gay people to acknowledge their loves publicly, more and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and friends.  A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend.  It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure.   Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support it.  Burke could have written a powerful case for it.

More than sixteen years have passed since Sullivan wrote those words.  While a few conservatives have warmed to the idea, a majority remained opposed.  Sullivan expressed his exasperation with conservatives on his blog on October 27, 2005, while commenting on Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s book, It Takes a Family:

I just read Rick Santorum’s book about conservatism and the “common good.”  It’s better than I expected and has many pages devoted to excluding gay couples from civil marriage.  But again: I could find no practical, constructive suggestion from Santorum on what he believes should be our civil policy towards gay couples.  Should they be deterred from settling down?  Should they be encouraged to make faithful commitments?  Should their households, when they include offspring, be legally protected?  Silence.  Nada. Zip.  The “common good” does not include gay people or their kids.  For much of the social right, homosexuals simply do not exist.  Our reality is so threatening to them that they cannot even begin to construct a viable social policy towards us.  And that’s why they’re losing this debate.  In many ways, they haven’t even joined in.

Not only do many conservatives not want gay marriage but many still view homosexuality as an illness or sexual disorder that can be cured.  The mission of organizations such as Exodus International and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is to free people from homosexuality through a combination of rehabilitation and religion.  It is not unusual to see advertisements from such organizations in respected conservative magazines such as Commentary (to which, incidentally, I am a subscriber).  If a critical mass of conservatives believe that homosexuality is a tendency that can be withered away, it is not a sign that they are inclined to support same-sex marriage anytime in the foreseeable future.

After Durband completes his overview of the studies he has read, he advises me to take into consideration the story of one Dawn Stefanowicz.  The American Family Association Journal published Ms. Stefanowicz’s speech before a marriage rally that took place on Parliament Hill in Ottawa this past April. Stefanowicz recounts her life growing up in Toronto raised by her father and his various male lovers.  She said that she was neglected by her father, as he would leave for days at a time with his male lovers and when he was present he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs.   Stefanowicz stated that she was also sexually molested, although she is not clear if the molestation was done by her father or by his lovers or a combination of both.  Her father died of AIDS in 1991.

There is no question that Stefanowicz had a troubled childhood.    A troubled childhood, however, is not sufficient grounds under which to bar same-sex couples from rearing children.  May I remind Mr. Durband that I once worked at a child abuse hotline.    I wrote reports concerning children who suffered physical and sexual abuse, as well as neglect, from their parents and caretakers.  Many of these children had to be removed from their homes for their own protection.  Nearly all the reports I took concerned families that had caretakers who were heterosexual.  But I would never entertain the idea that heterosexual couples are inherently unable to raise children.  To do so would be fallacious.  It is equally fallacious to conclude that because Stefanowicz was abused in a same-sex household that all children in a same-sex household would be treated in an equally cruel manner.

Durband concludes by arguing, “redefining marriage not only devalues it and also diminishes the rights of children and robs them of their full potential.  Children have a fundamental right to a mother and a father.  When children are robbed of these rights, there are negative social consequences for communities of taxpayers.”

Is Durband suggesting that a child who grows up in a same-sex household cannot be an outstanding student, an excellent athlete or a model citizen?  If children have a fundamental right to a mother and father, is Durband suggesting that the State rip a child from the arms of a newly widowed parent in too much grief and pain to contemplate remarriage?  I would like to think that this is not the case, yet his statements suggest that such is the case.

I do appreciate Durband’s efforts to enlighten me with regard to the information that suggests that children ought not to be raised by same-sex couples.  However, this information ultimately serves the agenda of the individual and/or organization undertaking the study and not the child.  This is true on both sides of the question and why I avoided it when I wrote about Ray Flynn. ¼br /> ¼br /> Anecdotal information might not always be reliable.  My personal judgment is certainly not always objective.  Then again neither is Durband’s judgment.  Nor Dr. Dailey.  Nor Dr. Perrin.  Nor Stefanowicz.  Nor Ray Flynn.  Nor anyone else.  Yet our judgment is something we must exercise everyday of our lives for better or for worse.  It is something we must from time to time reserve but cannot withhold indefinitely.  Sometimes it is all we have to guide us.

I concluded my article on Ray Flynn by asking if Flynn had ever met a child raised by a same-sex couple and if he had, would he tell that child that he or she would be better off being raised by someone else.  I pose the same questions to Dennis Durband.  Do you personally know of a child that has been raised by a same-sex couple?  If you do know such a child, would you tell that child that he or she would be better off being raised by someone else?

Let me pose two more questions to Durband.  I hope that he will take them in the spirit in which they are intended.  If you were to tell a child raised by a same-sex couple that he or she would be better off being raised by someone else, what good would come of it?  How does that act in the best interest of the child?