Procreation, Family Relations, and the Need
to Revive A Child-Centered Society
by
Lynn D. Wardle
Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT
Paper presented to
The American Academy of Fertility Care
Professionals - Annual Meeting
Salt Lake City, UT July 11, 2012
Outline
I. Introduction
II. Indicators of the waning of child-centeredness
in our society
III. The Status and Trend of Laws re: marital families
IV. Does It Matter? Why?
V. Conclusion: We Must Speak Up for the Marital
Family for the Sake of our Children
Thesis: The most chied-friendly, child-supportive
family environment is the marital family (Mom &
Dad)
I. Introduction:
Lest We Take Ourselves Too Seriously
N.D. yoga teacher Nadine Schweigert marries herself, exchanging rings with her “inner groom”
II. Trends Toward The Disintegration
of a Child-Centered Society
“It was the best of times it was the worst of times, it was
the age of wisdom it was the age of foolishness, it was the
epoch of belief it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the
season of light it was the season of darkness, it was the
spring of hope it was the winter of despair, we had
everything before us we had nothing before us . . . .”
-Charles Dickens,
A Tale of Two Cities (1859).]
Percentage of Couples Cohabiting Without Marriage
http://familyfacts.org/charts/110/one-in-10-couples-living-together-isunmarried (seen 11 March 2011), citing U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Survey, 2010.
The Annual Marriage Rate has Fallen Dramatically
Number of Marriages per 1000 Women age 15+
http://familyfacts.org/charts/105/the-annual-marriage-rate-has-declined-significantly-in-the-past-generation (seen 11 March 2011), citing Statistical Abstract of the
United States, National Vital Statistics Reports, and The Heritage Foundation, 2010.
Pew (2011): Marriage Has Dropped In Importance for Young Adults in US
Wendy Want & Paul Taylor, For Millennials, Parenthood Trumps Marriage, Pew Research Center, available at
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1920/millennials-value-parenthood-over-marriage (seen 14 March 2011).
There is “a growing ‘marriage gap’ between moderately
and highly educated America[ns].
Among the affluent, marriage is stable and may even be
getting stronger. Among the poor, marriage continues to
be fragile and weak. But the most consequential
marriage trend of our time concerns the broad center of
our society, where marriage, the iconic middle-class
institution, is foundering.
“The United States is increasingly a separate and unequal
nation when it comes to the institution of marriage.
Marriage is in danger of becoming a luxury good.
Recent lifestyle patterns have “reduced the child
centeredness of [the United States]… Similar patterns
exist in most western European nations.
Wilcox & Marquardt, State of Marriage 2010
Source: W. Bradford Wilcox & Elizabeth Marquardt, The State of Our Union; Marriage
in America 2010 (2010)at p. 21.
Number of divorces per 1,000 married women (age 15+)
http://familyfacts.org/charts/120/the-divorce-rate-is-declining-but-still-high
U.S. CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK 1940-2008
Year
All Races
Number
Rate/1000 live
births
White Number
Rate/1000 live
births
Non-White
Number
Rate/1000 live
births
1940
89,500
38
40,300
19.5
49,200
168.3
1950
141,600
40
53,500
17.5
88,100
179.6
1960
224,300
53
82,500
22.9
141,800
215.8
1970
398,700
107
175,100
56.6
223,600
349.3
1980
665,747
184
320,063
110.4
345,684
484.5
1990
1,165,400
266
647,400
169
472,700 bl
667 bl
2000
1,347,000
332
866,000
271
427,000 bl
685 bl
2005
1,527,000
369
--
317
--
693 bl
2007
1,714,600
397
--
--
--
--
2008
-
410
Birth Rate for Unmarried Nearly Rate for Married Women
The gap between married and unmarried birth rates has narrowed, The Heritage Foundation, 2011, at
http://familyfacts.org/charts/213/the-gap-between-married-and-unmarried-birth-rates-has-narrowed .
Fig. 1. Percentage of US Children born out of marriage
Source: http://familyfacts.org/charts/205/more-than-four-in-10-children-are-born-tounwed-mothers (citing U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Health Statistics, 2010.)
American children under eighteen years-old living with a single parent
One in four children lives in a single-parent home, The Heritage Foundation, 2011, at
http://familyfacts.org/charts/135/one-in-four-children-lives-in-a-single-parent-home .
• Due to divorce and child-bearing out of
wedlock, barely half (only 52%) of 14-year-old
girls whose parents are poorly-educated live
with both their mother and father, and only
58% of girls of moderately-educated parents;
while 81% of such girls whose parents are
highly-educated live with both of their
parents.
--Wilcox & Marquardt
REDUCTION OF CHILDBEARING:
Due to low fertility rates, a “demographic winter” is descending upon Europe. British
historian Niall Ferguson calls this imminent demographic change “the greatest
sustained reduction in European population since the Black Death of the 14th
Century.”
Births are below replacement level (2.1 births per couple) in over 70 nations. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports that none of
the nations of Europe can maintain their population (necessary for economic
sustainability) through births, that only France, (with a birth rate of 1.8) has the
possibility to do so. In fifteen European nations the rate of fertility is 1.3 or below, -(a birthrate of 1.4 or 1.5 means that the population will decrease by one-third each
generation).
The United Nations Report on World Populating Ageing 1950-2050 notes: “[T]he
average total fertility rate in the more developed regions [of the world] has dropped
from an already low level of 2.8 children per woman in 1950-1955 to an extremely low
level of 1.5 children per woman in 2000-2005. Presently, the total fertility rate is
below the replacement level in practically all industrialized countries. In 19 of those
countries, the rate is under 1.3 children per woman.”
Elective Abortion (On-Demand)
Abortions: 1972-2008 (AGI data)*
Year
Number
Abortions
Abortion
Rate/
1000
Women
1972
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
587,000
1,034,000
1,554,000
1,589,000
1,609,000
1,359,400
1,313,000
1,206,200
1,212,400
(+)
-21.7
29.3
28.0
27.4
22.5
21.3
19.4
16.0 (cdc)
Abortion
% Abortion
Ratio/ 100
Repeaters
Pregnancies (woman’s
2d or more
abortion)
--24.9
15.2 (1974)
30.0
33%
29.8
41%
28.0
45%
25.9
47%
24.5
48%
22.4
47%
23.4 (+)
44.4% (cdc; 42 of
52 sts + DC & NYC)
Public Attitudes
Source: Lydia Saad, “Americans Still Split Along ‘Pro-Choice,’ ‘Pro-Life’ Lines” Gallup, May 23, 2011 at
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx
From William C. Duncan, paper presented at BYU Law School, January 2012.
Abortion and Family Structure
Never Married and not
Cohabiting
Formerly Married and Not
Cohabiting
Cohabiting
Currently Married
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Source: Lawrence B. Finer & Mia R. Zolna, “Unintended Pregnancy in the United
States: Incidence and Disparities, 2006” 84 Contraception 478 (2011) at
http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(11)00472-0/abstract
(graphic: David Schmidt, Live Action at__)
(From William C. Duncan, paper presented at BYU Law School, January 2012.)
Legalation of SSM
A.
The Legal Status of Same-Sex Unions in the USA and Globally
1 July 2012
Legal Allowance of Same-Sex Unions in the USA (50 states + DC): *
Same-Sex Marriage Legal: Six (6) USA States (+ DC) (+2 of 564 U.S. Indian tribes)
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York (and the District
of Columbia) (+Washington (June 12) & Maryland (2013) if no ballot veto; formerly CA (5
mos).
Same-Sex Unions Equivalent to Marriage Recognized in Ten (10) US States:
California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington,* Illinois, Hawaii, Delaware,
Maryland,* & RI (IL, HI DE & RI in 2011; WA & MD SSM laws passed but may be blocked
before effective)
Same-Sex Unions Registry & Specific, Limited Benefits in Three (3) US Jurisdictions:
Colorado, Maine, and Wisconsin.
Compare Status of Same-Sex Relationships Nationwide, Lambda Legal, August 19, 2011, available at
http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/articles/nationwide-status-same-sex-relationships.html (last viewed 20 August 2011).
*Compare Status of Same-Sex Relationships Nationwide, Lambda Legal, August 19, 2011, available at
http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/articles/nationwide-status-same-sex-relationships.html (last viewed 20 August 2011).
B. Legal Rejection of Same-Sex Unions in the USA:
Same-Sex Marriage Prohibited by State Constitutional Amendment in Thirty-one (31) States
(62%):
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Kentucky, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Carolina (2012), North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. (+ Maine “People’s Veto” vote overturned
legislation legalizing SSM in ME before the law took effect) (SMA passed in May 2012 in NC (61%)
& will be on ballot in in 2012 MN &??; good chance for measures to allow voters to vote on SMAs
in WY, IN, & IA; & to repeal SSM in NH)
Same-Sex Civil Unions Equivalent to Marriage Recognition Prohibited by State Constitutional
Amendment in Twenty (20) States (40%):
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Same-Sex Marriage Barred by Constitution, Statute or Appellate Decision in Forty-two (42)
States (All but states with same-sex marriage and New Mexico and Rhode Island)
In all 32 states in which same-sex marriage has been on the ballot the people (including Maine
where in 2009 a “people’s veto” of the legislature’s approval of same-sex marriage was rejected
by the “people’s veto”) have decisively rejected same-sex marriage. The total vote rejecting
same-sex marriage in votes on the 31 state marriage amendments combined is over 60%.
Three Types of State Marriage Amendments
Ten SMAs Protect Status of Marriage:
AK, AZ, CA, CO, MS, MO, MN, NV, OR, TN
E.g., “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only
between one man and one woman.” Alaska Const., Art. I, sec. 25 (1998)
Twenty SMAs Protect Substance of Marriage (Forbid Giving Equivalent Substance to
DPs or CUs):
AL, AR, FL, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MI, NB, NC, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT,
VI, WI
E.g., “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a
marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” Utah
Const., Art. I, sec. 29 (2004)
One SMA Protects Government Structure to define marr (Legisl. Can Ban SSM): HI
“The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex
couples.” Haw. Const., Art. I, sec. 23 (1998)
(Overall voter approval rates for state marriage amendment is 60%+)
The Legal Status of Same-Sex Unions in the Globally
Legal Status – 1 July 2012
A.
Legal Allowance of Same-Sex Unions Globally (of 193 Nations / UN):
Same-Sex Marriage Permitted in Ten (10) Nations :
The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, and
Argentina , and Denmark (SSM allowed in sub-jurisdictions of some other nations
(e.g., the USA, Mexico (City); by specific-case court decisions in some nations
(BRZ); some nations recognize but do not allow SSM; some allow both SSM and
other unions.)
Same-Sex Unions Equivalent to Marriage Allowed in Sixteen (16) Other Nations:
Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, South Africa, Slovenia, Andorra,
Brazil, Switzerland, UK, Uruguay, New Zealand, Austria, Ireland, Liechtenstein (and
some sub-jurisdictions in other nations such as Australia, the USA, etc.)
Same-Sex Partnerships (Formal but Not Equal to Marriage) Legally Recognized in
At Least Six (6) Nations: Australia, Columbia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary,
Israel.
B. Global rejection of SSM
At Least Forty-five (45) of 193 Sovereign Nations (24%) Have Constitutional
Provisions Explicitly or Implicitly Defining Marriage as Union of Man and Woman
Constitutions of Armenia (art. 32), Azerbaijan (art. 34), Belarus (art. 32), Bolivia (art.
63), Brazil (art. 226), Bulgaria (art. 46), Burkina Faso (art. 23), Burundi (art. 29),
Cambodia (art. 45), Cameroon (art. 16), China (art. 49), Columbia (art. 42), Cuba (art.
43), Democratic Republic of Congo (art. 40), Ecuador (art. 38), Eritrea (art. 22),
Ethiopia (art. 34), Gambia (art. 27), Honduras (art. 112), Hungary (art. M,
Constitution/Basic Law of Hungary (25 April 2011) (effective Jan. 2012); Japan (art.
24), Latvia (art. 110 - Dec. 2005), Lithuania (art. 31), Malawi (art. 22), Moldova (art.
48), Mongolia (art. 16), Montenegro (art. 71), Namibia (art. 14), Nicaragua (art. 72),
Panama (art. 58), Paraguay (arts. 49, 51, 52), Peru (art. 5), Poland (art. 18), Romania
(art. 44), Rwanda (art. 26), Serbia (art. 62), Seychelles (art. 32), Spain (art. 32,
disregarded or overturned by legislation),* Sudan (art. 15), Suriname (art. 35),
Swaziland Constitution (art. 27), Tajiksistan (art. 33), Turkmenistan (art. 25), Uganda
(art. 31), Ukraine (ark. 51), Venezuela (art. 77), Vietnam (art. 64). See also Hong Kong
Bill of Rights of 1991 (art. 19); Somalia (art. 2.7, draft Consti.); 12 of these imply (“men
and women”). (* = inconsistent with Spanish law allowing same-sex marriage);
Examples: Article 110, Constitution of Latvia: “The State shall protect and support
marriage—a union between a man and a woman,…” Article 42, Constitution of
Columbia: the family “is formed . . . by the free decision of a man and woman to
contract matrimony . . . .” Article 24, Constitution of Japan: “Marriage shall be based
only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual
cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis. . . .”
Global (US) Progress of Same-Sex Marriage, and Marriage Equivalent Civil Unions or
Partnerships, 1985-2012.
Number of 193 Sovereign Nations
(& States) That Allow Same-Sex
Civil Unions
YEAR
Number of 193 Sovereign
Nations (& States) That
Allow Same-Sex Marriage
1985
0
0
1990
0
1
1995
0
3
2000
0
6 (1)
2005
3
(1)
13 (3)
2007
5
(1)
15 (6)
2009Au
7 (6)
13 (5)
2012 July
10 (6 + DC & 2/564 tribes)
5 % (12%) (00.4%)
16 (10)
8%
(20%)
Adoption by Same-Sex Partners: USA 50 state survey
Allows Homosexual Singles to Adopt? (All 50 states + DC)
Yes: All 50 states allow qualified homosexual singles to adopt
Allows Same-Sex Couples to Jointly Petition to Adopt? (15 states Yes or Probably; 22
states no or probably)
Yes: 12 states (AL, CA, CO, D.C., IN, ME, MA, NV, NH, NJ, NY, OR, VT)
Probably Yes: 3 states (CT, IL, WA)
Uncertain: 14 states (FL, ID, IA, MD, MN, MO, NE, NM, ND, PA, RI, TX, VA, WY
Probably No: 17 States (AL, AK, AZ, AR, DE, GA, HI, KS, KY, LA, MT, OK, SC, SD, TN,
WV, WI)
No: 5 states (UT, OH, NC, MS, MI)
Same-Sex Second Parent Adoptions? (12 states Yes or Probably; 19 states no or
probably)
Yes: 11 States (CA, CT, DE, D.C., IN, MA, NV, NJ, NY, PA, VT)
Probably Yes: 1 State (IL)
Uncertain: 20 states (AK, CO, FL, GA, HI, ID, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MO, NM,
ND, OR, RI, VA, WA)
Probably No: 13 states (AL, AZ, AR, MS, MS, MT, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, WV, WY)
No: 6 states (KY, NE, NC, OH, UT, WI)
Updated by Travis Robertson, Research Assistant, July 9, 2012
Global Status of Legality of Adoption by Gay and Lesbians Couples &
Partners
October 2009
*Adoption of at least some children by at least some same-sex couples or partners is allowed
by specific legislation or a currently binding appellate court ruling in less than ten percent of
the 193 sovereign nations belonging to the United Nations.
Some Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples & Partners Allowed:* 15 nations
Andorra, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,* Finland,* Germany,* Iceland,
Israel,* Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United
Kingdom, Uruguay.
*Only step-children (children of their registered partners), not
other children, may be adopted.
Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples & Partners OK in some province:* 3 nations
Australia, Brazil, and the United States.
Adoption by Same-Sex Couples & Partners Prohibited, Likely Prohibited, or Not
Allowed: One-hundred seventy-four (174) nations. Constitutionally Prohibited: 5+
nations Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala
NB: Adoptions by single gay or lesbian individuals are legally potentially permitted:
50+ nations (potentially) E.B. v. France (Applica. No. 43546/02) __ Eur. Ct. H.R. __ (22 Jan.
2008).
Potentially all European nations (signatories of Eu Conv. Hu. Rts) might be obliged
to permit adoption by single gay/lesbian if all any single adults to adopt.
May 2012:
Of 19
European
nations
(data avail):
18 OK gay
single;
8 OK gay
cpls;
13 OK 2dP
The distinction between adoptions by single gay or lesbian adults and
by same-sex partners or couples has been approved by the
European Court of Human Rights interpreting provisions of the
European Convention on Human Rights. In E.B. v. France
– Court (Applica. No. 43546/02) __ Eur. Ct. H.R. __ (22 Jan. 2009)
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&docu
mentId=827961&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&
table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (last seen 16
October 2009).
• “The present case does not concern adoption by a couple or by the
same-sex partner of a biological parent, but solely adoption by a
single person.”
• “French legislation expressly grants single persons the right to apply
for authorisation to adopt and establishes a procedure to that end.”
1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, ratified by 74
nations (US), in effect in 72 (US).
• Articles 4, 11, 12, 14, 15 & 17 State or Origin & Receiving State may
each veto; full disclosure
• Article 24 – Ordre Public (Public Policy) Exception to Other
Contracting States Having to recognize LGAdoptions
• Legislative History (Official Report) corroborates
• HCIA intended to be “neutral” and neither require nor forbid
LGAd, but leave it up to each state (Origin and Receiving) to
determine and enforce its own policy
CONCLUSION: Hague Adoption Convention neither requires nor
prohibits inter-national recognition of gay/lesbian adoptions, but
leaves that to the policies of the sending and receiving states.
The courts have been influenced by legal literature discussing adoption by
gays and lesbians that is profoundly biased and distorted.
My 1997 survey of the legal literature published between 1990 and 1996 (six
years inclusive) found a total of 90 articles, notes, comments, and essays
published on the topic of homosexual parenting, of which forty-five (45)
favored or supported same-sex partner or couple adoption, the rest were
“neutral,” while none (0) clearly opposed.
In 2009 My RAs reviewed 126 Law Review Articles, Comments, Notes and
Essays Discussing Same-sex Couple or Partner Adoption (Published January 1,
2008 through August 1, 2009) (Joseph Shapiro & Thomas Alvord, Oct. 2009)
84 support same-sex adoption
2 oppose same-sex adoption
40 are neutral toward same-sex adoption
There is much more publishing about gay adoption: 0/year (1970s), to
15/year (1990s) to 80 /year (2008-09), and most of it supports LG Adopts
Concerns about Lesbian and Gay Adoptions
There are serious limitations upon the use of social science to govern policy re:
whether couples should be allowed to adopt (and, if so, who, when, under what
circumstances, etc.). Such evidence alone is not dispositive for at least four reasons.
• 1) Non-Conclusive Nature of Social Science: “Given the nuances of scientific
methodology and conflicting views, courts-which can only consider the limited
evidence on the record before them-are ill equipped to determine which view of
science is the right one.” Ramsey & Kelly: “Research does not . . . provide the
answer to a policy question, because a policy choice is a normative decision.” In
family policy formulation: “research cannot replace the normative aspects of
decision making.”
2) Methodological flaws, especially by courts: Ramsey: Judges lack skills . . . .
Marks recent (June 2012) Social Science Review report on flaws in the studies relied on
in APA court brief
Flaws/limitations, cont’d:
3) Too easily manipulated, subjective: Judicial invocation of
science is like judicial invocation of legislative history, which
Judge Harold Leventhal’s famously described as like “looking
over a crowd and picking out your friends.”
4) Normative Judgment Must Be Added Separately: The factual
data must be assessed by normative standards, value
determinations, that – like all fundamental human rights
issues and questions of good and evil. Professors Ramsey &
Kelly warn: “[J]udges need to keep in mind that social science
cannot provide complete answers to the difficult questions
they confront every day. There are basic tensions between
social science knowledge and judicial decision-making.”
5) Recent research noting differences in outcome defies the
conventional wisdom of “no difference” for children of gay or
lesbian parents.
While There Are Studies on Both Sides, There is Abundant Social Science Research to
Support Preference in Adoption for Married Mom-Dad Couples
1) Advantages of Married over Unmarried Heterosexual Parenting:
The social science research finding substantial disadvantages for children raised by
cohabiting parents or a parent and his/her adult partner is simply overwhelming.
Princeton Professor Sara McLanahan’s massive, multi-year longitudinal study of
“fragile families”
Unmarried fathers are twice as likely as married fathers to have problems with drug
use, three times as likely to be violent, and nearly seven times as likely to have been
incarcerated in the past. Again, although cohabiting fathers look better than
noncoresident fathers on some indicators, the major gap is between married and
unmarried fathers
[D]espite their high hopes for a future together, only a small proportion of unmarried
parents (22 percent) ever follow through on their plans, and even fewer (16 percent)
are still married by the time of the five-year interview
[A]n important feature of fragile families [is] high partnership instability. We estimate
that by the time of the child's third birthday, two-thirds of unmarried mothers have
experienced at least one partnership change, more than a third have experienced at
least two changes, and nearly 20 percent have experienced three or more changes.
“The theoretical arguments for the benefits of marriage are supported by a large body
of empirical research, including research on parents' economic and social resources as
well as research on outcomes for children and young adults.”
Concerns About Same-Sex Partners Adopting:
(1) concern for the best interests of children,
(1) NOT Let adult political/personal agenda’s determine
adoption policy/decisions
(2) concern for the institutional integrity of the legal institution of
adoption, tarnishing the “gold standard” of adoptive parenting.
Adoption not typical adversary proceeding but largely ex parte, easily manipulated
(International adoption frauds by friently social workers)
(3) concerns about inappropriate judicial policy-making, and
(4) concern about the failure to carefully consider alternatives
solutions (e.g., adopt as aunt/uncle, not 2d parent)
Most Current Social Science “No Difference” Studies Are Immature, Defective, and Biased
1.
Methodologically flawed, biased, unreliable
Stacey & Biblarz (strong advocate of same-sex parter parenting) admits
Lerner & Nagai (none of 47 studies reliable methodology)
Stephen Nock (all flawed, unreliable)
Dr. George Rekers (studies lacking, need long-term body of data)
(June 2012) Study in Social Science Research by L.S.U. Prof. Loren Mark
2.
Even biased studies suggest potential harm (homo-erotic
identification, attraction, premature sexualization, promiscuity)
(June 2012) Study in Social Science Research by U. Tex Prof. Mark Regnerus
3.
Ignore/Defy all theories of child development
4. Fail to ask the hard questions (effect on relationships, sex, etc.)
a.
Expect lesbigay parents to do many things as well as mom-dad parents such as
provide food, clothing, adequate education, etc. So wash-out in adoption, not issue
b.
Need to learn about effect on sexual behaviors, interests, of children –
premature or delayed sexual behavior, risky sexual behaviors, sexual self-identification,
fidelity, promiscuity, effect on relationships are different with parents, siblings,
grandparents, future spouses, children.
Narratives of the Inner Lives of Children Give Cause for Concern
Narratives of children raised in lesbigay homes identify 8 concerns:
1.
Stability and changing sexual partners
Premature sexualization environment and experience (molesting
taboo)
3.
Alcohol & drug use
4.
Domestic violence
5.
Ignoring needs
6.
Silence and intimidation
7.
Disease, death and separation
8.
Impact on sexual behavior and relations
Mark Regnerus, How Different are the Adult Children …,41 Social Sci. Res. 752 (June 2012)
An Emerging Problem – Unintended Consequence – of
the Hague Adoption Convention
The Hague Convention was intended to facilitate and promote
adoptions for parentless children in need of families. However,
“in practice, this does not always occur.” (Selman 2012) The
facts show that the well-intentioned Hague Adoption
Convention actually depresses intercountry adoption. The
increased centralized regulation creates costs and delays that
have reduced inter-country adoptions. That needs to be fixed
immediately.
UNICEF estimates about 100 million street children exist in the world
today. About forty million are in Latin America, twenty-five to thirty
million in Asia, and ten million in Africa
It is said that in Bogota, Colombia, 200,000 abandoned street
children roam the streets
A 2002 UNICEF, UNAIDS study reported that in 2001 there were 108
million orphans (including 13 million AIDS orphans) living in 88 lessdeveloped nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the
Caribbean, and that by 2010 there would be 107 million orphans
(including 25 million AIDS orphans), in those nations
The United Nations estimates that approximately 50,000 human
beings die every day as a result of poor shelter, water, or sanitation,
and parentless children are especially vulnerable to these ravages
International adoption is one important component in protecting
the welfare of children. While it operates one-child-at-a-time, it
makes a huge difference for each of those children, and through
those children an even greater impact in the future
the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, generally known as
“the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption
As of March 31, 2012, ninety (90) nations had signed, ratified, or
acceded to this Hague Convention, and the HCIA had entered into
force in all but three of those nations (in 87 nations)
Dr. Selman’s most recent report finds that “in 1998 there were
just under 32,000 [international] adoptions; by 2004 this
number had risen to over 45,000; by 2009 the world total had
fallen to under 30,000 – less than in 1998 – and the decline
continued in 2010 . . . .” Clearly the trend was of international
adoptions increasing through the 1990s, the decade in which
the Hague Adoption Convention was adopted and decreasing
after it was adopted.
The United States completed the formal ratification procedures of
the Hague Adoption Convention in December, 2007, and the Hague
Adoption Convention was put into effect on April 1, 2008, in the
United States
Table 1
Intercountry Adoptions in the USA from All Foreign Countries
Combined, 1999-2011
Year:
Number:
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
15,719
18,857
19,647
21,467
21,654
22,991
+
+
+
+
+
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total 1999 – 2011
22,734
20,680
19,608
17,456
12,744
11,058
9,319
(-)
(-)
(-)
(-) *FIRST YEAR US FULLY FOLLOWS HAGUE CONVEN
(-)
(-)
(-)
233,934
About 2/3 = females
About 40% under 1 year old, about 35% 1-2 years old, about 25% = 3-17 years old.
Source: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Intercountry Adoption, Year 2011 Annual Report, available at http://adoption.state.gov/about_us/statistics.php (seen 6 April 2012).
Similar trends in reduction of inter-country adoptions have
occurred around the world, not just in the United States
“The global number of intercountry adoption peaked in 2004 after a
steady rise in annual numbers from the early 1990s. Since then,
annual numbers have decreased to the point that by 2008 the total
was lower than it had been in 2001 (see Figure 1), and by 2009 it
was lower than it was in 1998 (see Table 2).” -- “Global numbers [of
intercountry adoptions] fell by 35 percent between 2004 and 2009.”
– Selman (2012)
Figure: Trends in Intercountry Adoption to 23 Receiving States, 2001-2010
Peter Selman, Global Trends in Intercountry Adoption: 2001-2010, National Council for
Adoption, Adoption Advocate, No. 44, February 2012. (Figure 1 & Tables 2-4 herein)
Table: Intercountry Adoptions to 23 Receiving Countries, 1998 to 2010, by Rank in 2004
PEAK YEARS ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD
The impact of the Hague Adoption
Convention has been to substantially reduce
the number of intercountry adoptions in the
USA and globally
III.
Why and How The Growing Crisis of
Disintegrating Families Matters
• Family non-formation and fragmentation nearly always
harm children.
• Sara McLanahan of Princeton University, a leading
authority on fragile families, writes that “[b]oys raised
outside of intact marriages are two to three times
more likely to commit a crime leading to incarceration
by the time they are in their early thirties, even after
controlling for race, family background, neighborhood
quality, and cognitive ability.
• Separation and divorce are even “more strongly
associated with delinquency than are single-parent
households per se. . .
– Children who grow up in intact, married families
are significantly more likely to graduate from high
school, finish college, become gainfully employed,
and enjoy a stable family life themselves,
compared to their peers who grow up in nonintact
families.
– As Baroness Deech recently declared in a debate
in the House of Lords: “It is marriage that makes
all the difference .
• LONGEVITY PROJECT: “parental divorce during
childhood emerged as the single strongest
predictor of early death in adulthood. The grown
children of divorced parents died almost five
years earlier, on average, than children from
intact families.”
• Children of divorce experience higher rates of bad
things (higher rates of poverty, juvenile
delinquency, incarceration, and child abuse, more
physical and mental illness, higher incidence of
drug and alcohol use, earlier/more sexualization,
cohabitation, nonmarital pregnancy, CBOW, and
their own divorce, lower education, etc.
The Public Costs of the Disintegration of Marital Families
$112 Billion per years state and federal (very conservative
estimate) in US
$100 Billion per year for 14 federal programs
Social costs of Juvenile crime/ delinquency much higher
Does It Really Matter for a Child to Grow Up Without a Mom & Dad (DualGender Ps)?
My father left my family when I was 2 years old, and I knew him mainly from
the letters he wrote and the stories my family told. And while I was lucky
to have two wonderful grandparents who poured everything they had into
helping my mother raise my sister and me. I still felt the weight of his
absence throughout my childhood.
As an adult, working as a community organizer and later as a legislator, I
would often walk through the streets of Chicago’s South Side and see boys
marked by that same absence—boys without supervision or direction or
anyone to help them as they struggled to grow into men. I identified with
their frustration and disengagement—with their sense of having been let
down.
In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its
absence—both in my life and in the lives of others. I came to understand
that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his
children is one that no government can fill. We can do everything possible
to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it
will never be enough to fully make up the difference. -- Barack Obama
-Barack Obama, We Need Fathers to Step Up, Parade Magazine, June 21,
2009, pp.4-5 (emphasis added).
The Impact of Legalizing SSM on ChildCenteredness in Society
The Critical Importance of the Concept of Marriage:
Marriage Is the Substructure for Free Societies
Both Plato and Aristotle prescribed a set of laws
governing the ideal ages, qualities, and duties of husband
and wife to each other and to their children “to ensure
that marital couples would remain bonded together for
the sake of their children.”
Aristotle: Marriage is “the foundation of the republic and
the prototype of friendship.”
Cicero described marriage as creating “the first bond” of
society and as “the foundation of civil government, the
nursery, as it were, of the state.”
“[M]arriage generates ‘social capital’ – interfamily and
intergenerational bonds that embed married couples and
their children within larger social networks and direct
their efforts to the good of all.”
The Founders Saw Connections Between Family, Virtue and Republican Government
Howard Chandler Christie, Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States
Connecticut Oliver Ellsworth* William Samuel Johnson Roger Sherman Delaware Richard Bassett Gunning Bedford, Jr. Jacob Broom John Dickinson George Read Georgia Abraham Baldwin William Few William
Houstoun* William Pierce* Maryland Daniel Carroll Luther Martin* James McHenry John Francis Mercer* Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry* Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King Caleb
Strong* New Hampshire Nicholas Gilman John Langdon New Jersey David Brearley Jonathan Dayton William Houston* William Livingston William Paterson New York Alexander Hamilton John Lansing, Jr.*
Robert Yates* North Carolina William Blount William Richardson Davie* Alexander Martin* Richard Dobbs Spaight Hugh Williamson Pennsylvania George Clymer Thomas Fitzsimons Benjamin Franklin Jared
Ingersoll Thomas Mifflin Gouverneur Morris Robert Morris James Wilson South Carolina Pierce Butler Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Charles Pinckney John Rutledge Virginia John Blair James Madison George
Mason* James McClurg* Edmund Randolph* George Washington George Wythe* Rhode Island –None
Virtue & Our Constitutional
Government
“The idea of virtue was central to the political thought of the founders of the
American republic. Every body of thought they encountered, every intellectual
tradition they consulted, every major theory of republican government by which they
were influenced emphasized the importance of personal and public virtue. It was
understood by the founders to be the precondition for republican government, the
base upon which the structure of government would be built.”
-Richard Vetterli & Gary Bryner, In Search of the Republic 1 (1996) (emphasis added)
And Virtue was expected to be taught, nurtured and fostered in marital families!
Edmund Burke
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportions to their disposition to
put moral chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their love of
justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and
sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in
proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the councils of the wise
and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist
unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite be placed
somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be
without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of
intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
--Edmund Burke, A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791) in The
Works of Edmund Burke, vol. 4, pp. 51-52 (1866).
Benjamin Franklin
In the constitutional convention of 1787, he voiced his concern
that although the new government would likely ‘be well
administered for a course of years’, it would ‘end in
Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the
people shall have become so corrupted as to need despotic
Government, being incapable of any other.’
On another occasion Franklin declared that: “Only a virtuous
people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt
and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
George Washington
Washington declared, “Free suffrage of the people can be assured only
‘so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.’”
-The Papers of George Washington, Letter of Feb. 7, 1788.
“[T]he foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and
immutable principles of private morality”
-Inaugural Address of 1789
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . Reason and
experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can
prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
-Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796)
James Madison
Madison told the Virginia ratifying convention :
“To suppose that any form of government will secure
liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people,
is a chimerical idea.”
-The Writings of James Madison 223
(Gaillard Hunt ed., 1904)
Samuel Adams
Samuel Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee that whether or not
American was to be able to enjoy its hard worn “independence
and freedom . . . depends on her virtue.”
-Vetterli & Bryner, supra
Adams further admonished in a letter to James Warren (Nov. 4,
1775): “He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is,
or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is
seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country,
who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his
private connections. . . .”
-Vetterli & Bryner, supra
John Adams
“Statesmen by dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality
alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. . . The
only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into
our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and
the forms of Government, but they will obtain a lasting Liberty.”
-Letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions
unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break
the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution
was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other.”
-Letter from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia
of Massachusetts (1798) in 9 Life and Works of John Adams 229 (1954) (emphasis added)
John Adams: “The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families . . . . How
is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or
Religion if, from their earliest Infancey, they learn their Mothers live in Habitual Infidelity
to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?”
Patrick Henry
“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a
people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.
A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public
conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free
government, or the blessings of liberty, can be
preserved to any people but by a firm adherence
to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and
virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to
fundamental principles.”
Source: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/patrick+henry.
George Mason
“George Mason argued that republican government was based
on an affection ‘for altars and firesides.’ Only good men
could be free; men learned how to be good in a variety of
local institutions—by the firesides as well as at the altar. . . .
Individuals learned virtue in their families, churches, and
schools.”
Thomas Jefferson
“It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour . . . degeneracy in
these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution.”
-Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XIX (1787)
Benjamin Rush
“Without virtue there can be no liberty.”
“No free government can stand without virtue in
the people, and a lofty spirit of patriotism.”
Source: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/patrick+henry.
Francis Grund
An Austrian social commentator and contemporary of Alexis de
Tocqueville wrote:
“The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but can only
suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be
utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the
domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their
high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a
single letter in the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their
government.”
-Francis J. Grund, The Americans, in the Moral, Social, and Political
Relations 171 (1837)
“Republican Marriage” Was the Main Source of Virtue
In the prevailing political theory of the founding era, the family was
considered one of the essential pillars of republican virtue, and it not only
needed to be nurtured, but also protected from the tyranny of the
government. For instance, Montesquieu suggested “that marriage and the
form of government were mirrors of each other. Accepting Montesquieu’s
perspective, American revolutionaries and their descendants understood
marriage and the family to be schools of republican virtue.” Mary Lyndon
Shanley, Review Essay, 27 Law & Soc. Inq. 923, 926 (2002)
The American Founders saw “marriage as a training ground of citizenly virtue.”
Likewise, “it served as a ‘school of affection’ where citizens would learn to care about
others.”
One founding era writer noted that “by marriage ‘man feels a growing attachment to
human nature, and love of his country.’”
-Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows, A History of Marriage and the Nation 18-20 (2000)
Republican Mothers
The Republican Mother’s life was dedicated to the service of civic virtue: she educated her sons for it,
she condemned and corrected her husband’s lapses from it. If . . . the stability of the nation rested on
the persistence of virtue among its citizens, then the creation of virtuous citizens was dependent on
the presence of wives and mothers who were well informed, “properly methodical,” and free of
“invidious and rancorous passions.” . . . To that end the theorists created a mother who had a political
purpose and argued that her domestic behavior had a direct political function in the Republic.” (LINDA
K. KERBER, WOMEN OF THE REPUBLIC (1980).
These common ideas about family “had a dramatic ‘republicanizing’ effect” in society in the Founding
era. One consequence was unprecedented equality and respect for the roles of women in American
society. Historian Jan Lewis reports that “Revolutionary-era writers held up the loving partnership of
man and wife in opposition to patriarchal dominion as the republican model for social and political
relationships.” (Jan Lewis, The Republican Wife . . . 44 Wm & Mary Q. 689 (1987))
Michael Grossberg agrees:
By charging homes with the vital responsibility of molding the private virtue necessary for
republicanism to flourish, the new nation greatly enhanced the importance of women’s family
duties. . . . At times, according to historian Mary Beth Norton, “it even seemed as though
republican theorists believed that the fate of the republic rested squarely, perhaps solely, on the
shoulders of its womenfolk.” (MICHAEL GROSSBERG, GOVERNING THE HEARTH: LAW & THE FAMILY IN
NINETEENTH CENTURY AMERICA 7-8 (1985).
Foundations and Infrastructure Matter:
When Marriage and Marital Families
Disintegrate, Society and Individuals (Especially
Children) Suffer.
-Marriage is the foundation and the
substructure of society.
-Family is the core infrastructure of society.
-Marital families create crucial social capital.
-We derive our “root paradigms” from our
families. Marriage undergirds strong families
which are the first school rooms of democracy
(or of anarchy, hierarchy, brutality, or greed)
Redefining Marriage Transforms the Meaning and Moral
Expectations of Marriage.
The “transformative power of inclusion” is enormous
Including same-sex couples as “married” will transform the meaning and morality of
marriage.
NYTimes Report of the “Big Secret” in California SSMs (half had agreements to allow extramarital sexual relations)
For example, a study by Dutch AIDs researchers, published in 2003 in the journal AIDS,
reported on the number of partners among Amsterdam’s homosexual population. They
found:
- Gay men with steady partners had 8 other sex partners (“casual partners”) per year,
on average.
- The average duration of committed relationships among gay steady partners was 1.5
years.
Kirk and Madsen reported in their that “the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given
enough time, approaches 100%. . . .
American researchers Bell and Weinberg reported that 43 percent of white male
homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand
or more sex partners. A recent study of 2,583 older sexually active gay men “modal
range for number of sexual partners ever . . . was 101-500”
“As the family goes, so goes the nation, and so
goes the world in which we live.” -- Pope John Paul II
“[M]arriage and the family are rooted in the most
intimate core of truth about man and his destiny.” Pope
Benedict XVI
“When the home is destroyed, the nation goes to
pieces.” – President Spencer W. Kimball.
“A nation will rise no higher than the strength of
its homes. If you want to reform a nation, you begin
with families . . . .” President Gordon B. Hinckley.
“ ‘I believe in the home as the foundation of
society, as the cornerstone of the nation…. I cannot
conceive of a great people without great, good homes. .
. . ’” President (Elder)Thomas S. Monson,
(CAN, May 11, 2006)
Ensign 1997 November (quoting
Stephen L. Richards).
The late LDS Apostle Elder Neal A. Maxwell warned:
“As parenting declines, the need for policing increases.
There will always be a shortage of police if there is a
shortage of effective parents! Likewise, there will not be
enough prisons if there are not enough good homes. . . .
“. . . How can we value the family without valuing
parenting? And how can we value parenting if we do not
value marriage? . . . .”
(Neal A. Maxwell, Ensign, May 1994, at 89-90).
Speak Up and Speak Out:
Abortion Rate 1973-2008
Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States”
August 2011 at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Conclusion: Stand Up and Speak Up for What is Right
Abortion is still a policy issue because pro-life voices have not been silent.
Elie Wiezel: “I swore never to be silent . . . . We must take sides.
Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor.”
Pres. Hinckley told the students at BYU in 1996:
“You are good. But it is not enough just to be good. You must be
good for something. You must contribute good to the world. The world
must be a better place for your presence. And the good that is in you must
be spread to others. …
“In this world so filled with problems, so constantly threatened by
dark and evil challenges, you can and must rise above mediocrity, above
indifference. You can become involved and speak with a strong voice for
that which is right” -Gordon B. Hinckley, Brigham Young University
Devotional, Marriott Center, 17 Sept. 1996.
In his book Standing for Something, he wrote:
What we desperately need today on all fronts . . . are leaders, men
and women who are willing to stand for something. We need people . . .
who are willing to stand up for decency, truth, integrity, morality, and law
and order . . . even when it is unpopular to do so – perhaps especially
when it is unpopular to do so. (Hinckley, Standing at 167).
The “Power of One” Speaking Up
Pope Benedict XVI: “[Y]our concrete testimony - is very important,
especially when you affirm the inviolability of human life from conception
until natural death, the singular and irreplaceable value of the family
founded upon matrimony and the need for legislation which supports
families in the task of giving birth to children and educating them. Dear
families, be courageous!” 7 June 2011, Catholic Online.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan says the most effective thing that young
Catholics can now do to defend marriage is “to model happy, faithful, lifegiving marriage. That’s the best thing we can do.” [H]e also stressed that
young Catholics will have to be prepared to “never to shy away from the
prophetic part of speaking the truth” in “letting people know that the
defense of traditional marriage is not just some weird, superstitious,
medieval Catholic cause.” Instead, it “is at the heart of what makes it for
the common good - namely providing the healthiest, most wholesome
environment for children.” -NOM, August 2011
“The power of one” also includes the power of being one with others,
of being united with other persons who share your values, your
principles
Cardinal George at BYU in February 2010 Forum talk
commended Catholic-Mormon solidarity in defense of marriage
Prof. FitzGibbon: “Shoulder to shoulder, that's where we ought to be.”
“We cannot effect a turnaround in a day or a month or a year. But
with enough effort, we can begin a turnaround within a generation,
and accomplish wonders within two generations – a period of time
that is not very long in the history of humanity.”
(Hinckley, Standing at 145, 167)
Table 1. Unmarried Cohabitants in USA, 1970-2010
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
2006
2010
Unm’d P Hhlds
523,000
1,589,000
3,668,000
5,500,000
6,017,462
7,500,000
% Hhlds
0.8%
2.0%
3.1%
4.3%
5.4%
10.1%
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994 at 56 & 58; id. 1996 at Table 61 & 62;
id. 2000 at tables 57 & 60; id., 2009, Table 62; Rose M. Kreider, Increase in Oppositive-sex
Cohabiting Couples from 2009 to 2010 in the Annual Social and Economic Supplement
(ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS) (Sept. 15, 2010), available at
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/Inc-Opp-sex-2009-to-2010.pdf (last
visited Apr. 30, 2011).
In 2010, Professor Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth
Marquardat showed that over half (53%) of poorlyeducated persons agreed that “marriage has not
worked out well for most people they know,” and
nearly half (43%) of moderately educated also
agreed.
They also found that marital satisfaction generally
has fallen. Between 1970 and 2000, the percentage
of least- educated married Americans who reported
that they were “very happy” in marriage fell from
59% to 52%, and among the moderately-educated it
fell from 68% to 57%.
Percent of Married Adults, Age 15+