October 30, 2006
Does a parent’s sexual orientation affect her child’s development? And if so, how?
These are the questions posed by Prof. Charlotte Patterson in her article in the newest issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, a highly respected academic journal published by the Association for Psychological Science.
Papers in Current Directions are intended to be “concise reviews spanning all of scientific psychology and its applications” that are “written by leading experts in terms that are accessible outside of the realm of research subspecialties.”
Consistent with these criteria, Dr. Patterson’s article doesn’t report new data. Rather, it reviews previously published research and synthesizes the findings for other professionals.
Noting that most studies have focused on lesbian mothers rather than gay fathers, Dr. Patterson highlights two eras in contemporary research on sexual minority families.
In early studies — conducted mainly during the 1970s and 1980s — researchers examined children who were born to a married mother and father but were subsequently raised by their lesbian mother after a divorce or separation. They found few significant differences between the children with a lesbian mother and children whose divorced mothers were heterosexual.
Because these children began life in the context of a heterosexual marriage, however, the question of how their early experiences might have affected their long-term development remained open. What would be the outcome for, say, infants adopted by same-sex couples or children conceived by same-sex couples through donor insemination?
More recent research has addressed this issue by studying children raised from birth in families headed by a same-sex couple. For these studies, children and parents have been recruited through a variety of strategies. Some researchers have located participants through friendship networks and word of mouth, while others have sampled specific groups that included both heterosexual and lesbian parents (e.g., sperm bank clients). Still others have used probability samples that are representative of the entire population.
Regardless of how participants were recruited, all of the studies converge on similar conclusions. In Dr. Patterson’s words,
“Does parental sexual orientation have an important impact on child or adolescent development? Results of recent research provide no evidence that it does. In fact, the findings suggest that parental sexual orientation is less important than the qualities of family relationships. More important to youth than the gender of their parent’s partner is the quality of daily interaction and the strength of relationships with the parents they have.“
Thus, if you want to know which children are most likely to be developing in a healthy way, don’t focus on their parents’ sexual orientation. Instead, find the children who have warm and affectionate relationships with their parents.
Dr. Patterson’s article, “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents,” appears in the October 2006 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science.
In addition to her many scholarly publications on this topic, Dr. Patterson has also written a summary of research findings on lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children that is available on the website of the American Psychological Association.
October 25, 2006
Earlier today, the New Jersey Supreme Court released its long-awaited ruling on the Garden State’s marriage laws.
The 7-member court unanimously decided that same-sex couples must be granted the same rights and responsibilities as different-sex married couples. The justices split, however, on how to remedy current inequities.
A 4-justice majority ruled that while same-sex couples have a right to all the statutory benefits and privileges conferred on heterosexual married couples, they do not have a constitutionally protected right to marry.
A 3-justice minority, led by retiring Chief Justice Poritz, dissented, arguing that anything less than marriage equality confers second-class status on same-sex couples.
On a personal note, I was honored that Chief Justice Poritz cited my 2006 American Psychologist article in a passage on pages 16-17 of her concurrence/dissent:
“Although the State has not made the argument, I note that the Appellate Division, and various amici curiae, have claimed the ‘promotion of procreation and creating the optimal environment for raising children as justifications for the limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex.’ …. That claim retains little viability today. Recent social science studies inform us that ‘same-sex couples increasingly form the core of families in which children are conceived, born, and raised.’ Gregory N. [sic] Herek, Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: A Social Science Perspective, 61 Am. Psychol. 607, 611 (2006). It is not surprising, given that data, that the State does not advance a ‘promotion of procreation’ position to support limiting marriage to heterosexuals. Further, ‘[e]mpirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment,’ id. at 613, suggesting that the ‘optimal environment’ position is equally weak. Without such arguments, the State is left with the ‘but that is the way it has always been’ circular reasoning….”
It will be an important step forward if other judicial and legislative bodies will similarly consider the relevant social science research, and will reject unfounded myths and stereotypes when making their decisions about sexual minority families.
The New Jersey legislature now has 6 months to grant de facto equality to same-sex couples but is not obligated to achieve this end by changing the marriage statutes. They are free to create a parallel structure along the lines of Vermont’s civil unions.
The unanimous finding that same-sex couples must be granted equal rights and opportunities certainly represents a significant victory for sexual minorities, especially in light of recent setbacks from state courts in New York and Washington. As I noted in my October 24 post, civil unions and domestic partnerships represent an important step toward eliminating social inequalities based on sexual orientation and are vastly superior to nonrecognition of same-sex committed relationships.
Nevertheless, the fact that the New Jersey court fell one vote short of granting same-sex couples the right to marry must temper any victory celebrations. To the extent that New Jersey represented one of the most likely venues for a Massachusetts-style pro-marriage ruling, the Court’s decision to require a more modest remedy raises questions about the prospects for marriage cases now in the Maryland, Iowa, Connecticut, and California courts.
October 24, 2006
To summarize my posts of October 22 and October 23, legal recognition of same-sex couples will benefit the partners in a variety of ways. It is likely to increase their financial security and reduce the stress they experience when facing life’s traumatic events. As a consequence, the members of the couple are likely to be physically and psychologically healthier. To the extent that legal recognition enhances the well-being of parents, it will also benefit their children.
But can’t the problems and inequities experienced by same-sex couples be adequately addressed through arrangements other than marriage? Civil unions and second-parent adoptions, it might be argued, could conceivably grant all the rights and privileges now conferred by marriage without actually designating the couple as “married.”
This argument is problematic for at least three reasons.
First, marriage is recognized across borders. By contrast, same-sex couples in civil unions can’t be certain they will be treated as a couple or family outside their home state. If they face a medical emergency when they’re away from home, for example, the consequences can be nightmarish. Their mobility is thus restricted or, if they leave their home state, they are subjected to heightened uncertainty, anxiety, and stress, compared to heterosexual married couples.
It’s true that within the US, this concern about mobility currently affects married same-sex couples from Massachusetts as much as domestic partners from other states. Interstate recognition, however, is likely to come sooner for marriage than for civil unions. This is because the states already have laws on the books dealing with marriage. Thus, they’ll be able to assimilate same-sex spouses to their existing legal structures more easily than domestic partners.
Second, while marriage has profound effects on the lives of spouses, the extent to which civil unions and domestic partnerships have a comparable impact isn’t certain. Many studies have shown that heterosexual cohabiting couples don’t enjoy the same health advantages as their married counterparts. Similarly, although forming a domestic partnership or civil union probably increases a couple’s feelings of love and commitment, those institutions may not confer the same social and psychological benefits as marriage.
We don’t yet have research data to directly address this question. However, the unique status of marriage in US society is evidenced by the very fact that so much controversy surrounds the question of granting marriage rights to same-sex couples, as well as by the desire of so many lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals to marry a same-sex partner. (In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll of sexual minority adults, 74% said they would someday like to legally marry someone of the same sex.)
A third reason why civil unions and domestic partnerships aren’t equivalent to marriage is that these separate-but-ostensibly-equal institutions perpetuate and may even compound the stigma historically associated with homosexuality.
Social science research has shown that same-sex committed relationships don’t differ from heterosexual committed relationships in their essential psychological qualities, their capacity for long-term commitment, and the context they provide for rearing healthy and well-adjusted children. Once these facts are acknowledged, the rationale for according same-sex partners a different legal status from heterosexual spouses must ultimately focus on the former’s sexual orientation.
Indeed, sexual orientation is inherently about relationships, whether they are enduring, transient, or merely desired. The intimate personal connections that people form to meet their deeply felt needs for love, family, and intimacy lie at its heart.
Denying same-sex couples the label of marriage — even if they receive all other rights and privileges conferred on spouses — arguably devalues and delegitimizes those relationships. It conveys a judgment by society that committed intimate relationships with people of the same sex are inferior to heterosexual relationships, and that same-sex partners are less deserving of society’s recognition than heterosexual couples. It perpetuates power differentials whereby heterosexuals have greater access than sexual minorities to the many resources and benefits bestowed by the institution of marriage.
These elements — discrediting, denigration, powerlessness — are the crux of stigma.
Sexual stigma has many negative consequences for sexual minorities, including social ostracism, discrimination, and violence. Because of it, lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals often feel compelled to conceal their sexual orientation, which can have negative effects on their psychological and physical health. This concealment also reinforces sexual prejudice among heterosexuals. As I’ve discussed in previous posts, antigay attitudes are significantly less common among heterosexuals with a close friend or family member who is gay or lesbian.
Thus, by denying same-sex couples the right to marry legally, the State compounds and perpetuates the stigma attached to homosexuality. This stigma has negative consequences for all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, regardless of their relationship status or desire to marry.
I don’t intend to malign civil unions and domestic partnerships, nor do I dispute their value. They represent an important step toward eliminating social inequalities based on sexual orientation and are vastly superior to nonrecognition of same-sex committed relationships. At a purely pragmatic level, more states are likely to enact laws recognizing domestic partnerships or civil unions than to permit marriages between same-sex couples, at least for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, civil unions and domestic partnerships can’t be equated with marriage.
To summarize these three posts on marriage equality and health, marriage bestows many social and psychological benefits and protections on spouses and their children. As a consequence of being denied the right to marry, same-sex couples are more likely than different-sex couples to experience stress and thus are at greater risk for psychological and physical illness. Although data aren’t yet available to directly measure how the government’s nonrecognition affects same-sex couples, it is reasonable to conclude that being denied the right to marry has negative consequences for their well-being and ultimately creates challenges and obstacles to the success of their relationships that are not faced by heterosexual couples.
Thus, marriage equality isn’t simply a moral issue or a justice issue. It’s also a health issue.
For a more detailed discussion of these and related issues, see my 2006 paper, Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: A Social Science Perspective, published in the American Psychologist, vol. 61, pp. 607-621.
October 23, 2006
In my previous post, I summarized research findings on the health benefits of marriage. The data show that marriage bestows many benefits and protections with important implications for physical and mental health.
What are the health consequences for same-sex couples of being denied the right to marry?
Empirical data aren’t yet available to directly assess how governmental nonrecognition affects same-sex couples. But it is reasonable to conclude that their differential treatment, vis-a-vis married heterosexuals, creates special challenges and obstacles with ultimately negative consequences for their well-being. Without legal recognition, partners in same-sex couples lack both the practical benefits of marriage and the buffers marriage provides against the psychological and social consequences of traumatic events.
For example, their financial situation is likely to be less stable than that of married couples because they don’t enjoy the many economic protections of marriage in areas such as taxation and property rights. Even when gay and lesbian employees don’t fear dismissal or harassment because of their sexual orientation, they nevertheless receive fewer job-related benefits than their married coworkers. Family leave policies, health insurance, and pension plans, for example, typically include an employee’s spouse but not a same-sex partner. And when benefits such as health insurance coverage are extended to a same-sex partner, they are taxed as income; this is typically not the case for benefits to heterosexual spouses.
Because same-sex couples lack the protections that marriage provides when a spouse dies, they must incur the considerable expense of creating legal protections for the surviving partner through wills, trusts, and contracts for joint ownership of property. And these measures don’t always protect the partner. A will can be contested by the decedent’s biological relatives, for example and, unlike a spouse, the surviving partner is likely to incur a substantial tax burden when taking sole legal possession of a home that the couple jointly owned.
The consequences of having one’s intimate relationship unacknowledged by the law are not only financial. For example, a member of a same-sex couple may be excluded from her or his partner’s medical care. She or he may be denied as basic a right as access to the partner in a hospital setting restricted to “immediate family” members, such as an emergency room or intensive care unit. When a member of a same-sex couple dies, her or his surviving partner may experience a similar negation of their relationship. She or he may not even be able to make funeral arrangements.
Such experiences of what is sometimes called disenfranchised grief may compound the considerable psychological distress experienced by the surviving partner, with potentially long-term mental health consequences.
Examples of other areas in which same-sex couples are disadvantaged relative to married couples include immigration (foreign nationals cannot secure residence or citizenship through their relationship with a US citizen of the same sex) and private communication (members of same-sex couples can be called to testify against their partner in legal proceedings).
As a consequence of these and the many other forms of differential treatment to which they are subjected, same-sex couples are exposed to more stress than married couples, especially when they encounter life’s inevitable difficulties and challenges. Because experiencing stress increases one’s likelihood of mental and physical illness, their lack of legal protection places members of same-sex couples at greater risk for health problems compared to married couples.
But is complete marriage equality necessary to alleviate these disparities? Can’t the problems and inequities experienced by same-sex couples be adequately addressed through arrangements such as civil unions and second-parent adoptions?
I’ll address that question in the final post to this series.
For a more detailed discussion of these and related issues, see my 2006 paper, Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: A Social Science Perspective, published in the American Psychologist, vol. 61, pp. 607-621.
October 22, 2006
When a federal employee dies, the government denies pension benefits to his or her legal spouse under only two circumstances: (1) if the spouse has been convicted of murdering the employee, or (2) if the spouse is of the same sex as the employee.
Consistent with that second criterion, the US government has denied pension benefits to Dean Hara, the husband of former Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA).
Studds, who died October 14 at the age of 69, married Hara in 2004 after their home state legalized marriages between same-sex partners.
Hara’s experience highlights how Americans in committed same-sex relationships — even relationships that are recognized at the state level — are denied equal access to the rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. The US General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving federal benefits, rights, and privileges ranging from Social Security survivors’ benefits to affordable housing programs. State governments grant still more benefits.
The denial of these benefits isn’t only a matter of fairness and justice. It’s also a matter of health.
The health advantages of marriage have been documented in dozens of studies. Happily married men and women are generally more healthy — both physically and psychologically — than their unmarried counterparts. This difference doesn’t result simply from being in a long-term intimate relationship. All other things being equal, heterosexuals in cohabiting couples don’t have the same levels of health and well-being as their married counterparts.
Why are happily married couples generally better off?
One reason is the tangible resources and protections accorded to spouses by society. The federal pension benefit for surviving spouses is a good example. Like other benefits deriving from tax laws, employee benefits, and entitlement programs, it gives married couples greater economic and financial security than the unmarried. Such security contributes to mental and physical health.
Another factor that affects the well-being of married individuals is the greater emotional and social support they receive from their family and friends, compared to the unmarried. Marital relationships differ from nonmarital intimate relationships, in part, by requiring a lifelong commitment that is publicly affirmed, typically in the presence of family members, friends, and civil or religious authorities. Social support and integration are central to the institution of marriage, and the various rituals associated with marriage can be understood as cementing the couple’s ties to the larger community. This public aspect of marriage increases each partner’s sense of security that the relationship will endure, and fosters help from others during hard times.
In addition to their greater financial stability and social support, spouses have special rights and privileges not accorded to other adult, nonbiological relationships. In this way, marriage provides buffers against the psychological stress associated with extremely traumatic life events. For example, a spouse can make health decisions for an incapacitated partner, including decisions about whether to take heroic measures to prolong the partner’s life. Such capabilities can contribute to a sense of mastery or personal control, which is associated with better health among spousal caregivers.
Similarly, a surviving spouse typically receives social support and sympathy from others, can make decisions about funeral and burial arrangements, and has automatic rights to inheritance, death benefits, and bereavement leave. These factors can somewhat mitigate the considerable stress of losing a partner and reduce its negative health consequences.
Married couples’ legal status also enables them to exercise control over other types of stressful situations, or to avoid them entirely. For example:
- A married person facing legal action can nonetheless communicate freely with her or his spouse because the law creates marital privileges against being compelled to testify against one’s wife or husband.
- Under normal circumstances, a noncitizen spouse will not be deported or forced to leave the country, and special considerations given to some noncitizens (e.g., employment status, asylum) may extend to their spouse.
- Because marriage is recognized across state and national borders, husbands and wives know that their relationship and, when applicable, their parental status, will be considered valid outside their home state.
Finally, although they haven’t been well documented in scientific research, marriage offers intangible benefits that extend beyond the material necessities of life. Sociologists have characterized marriage as “a social arrangement that creates for the individual the sort of order in which he can experience his life as making sense” and have suggested that “in our society the role that most frequently provides a strong positive sense of identity, self-worth, and mastery is marriage.”
In summary, marriage bestows many benefits and protectections that have important implications for physical and mental health.
What are the health consequences for same-sex couples of being denied the right to marry? I’ll address this question in a later post.
By the way, in contrast to Dean Hara’s experience, former members of Congress who are serving jail terms for felony convictions remain eligible for federal pension benefits.
For a more detailed discussion, see my 2006 paper, Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: A Social Science Perspective, published in the American Psychologist, vol. 61, pp. 607-621.
October 18, 2006
Want an insight into recent attempts by the Christian Right to link homosexuality with child molestation? Just remember New York’s “gay” penguins.
In 2004, news circulated around the world that penguins in the Central Park Zoo had formed long-term same-sex pairs. Reports soon surfaced of “gay” penguins in other zoos as well.
One of the most memorable accounts of the phenomenon was created by Samantha Bee for Comedy Central’s Daily Show. She accompanied antigay activist Paul Cameron to the Zoo’s penguin exhibit and got his take on the birds.
(Cameron is a gold mine of material for The Daily Show. Last month, Samantha Bee’s real-life husband, Jason Jones, interviewed him for a piece about the US military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.)
Cameron declared the notion of gay and lesbian penguins “silly” and told Bee “There is no such thing as gay penguins.”
But in other contexts Cameron has argued that a single homosexual act makes someone gay. When interviewed recently by the San Francisco Chronicle, for example, he asserted that a man who thinks of himself as straight, is married with children, and has sex with women is nevertheless gay if he sexually abuses a young boy.
“If a fellow molests a boy, why would anyone consider him heterosexual even if he has a girlfriend or a wife?” Cameron asked.
Cameron isn’t alone in promoting such ideas. As I discussed in a previous post, the Family Research Council and other Christian Right groups are all in accord on this. Never mind that many pedophiles and child molesters aren’t even capable of relationships with adults and that their sexual attractions are directed solely at children. If they molest boys, they’re gay, according to Cameron and the FRC.
But if Cameron et al. count men who have sex with little boys as gay, surely they must also count men who’ve had consensual sex with other adult men. This may be more than 14% of US men, according to recent research I described in my September 29 post. Using the criteria Cameron applied to child molesters, they’re “gay.” And if we count adults with any same-sex attraction at all, the studies suggest 1 in 6 (or more) are gay.
Yet, Cameron, the FRC, and their fellow travelers staunchly maintain that only a small segment of the population — between 1 and 3 percent — is homosexual.
So let’s review the Christian Right’s rules for counting the gay population.
When the topic is molestation, male + male = gay. And female + female = lesbian. Always.
But when the goal is to minimize the size of the sexual minority population, most men and women with same-sex attractions are not counted as gay.
When it comes to the penguins, the male + male = gay equation leads to the conclusion that being gay is natural. That’s inconvenient for Cameron. Therefore, the penguins aren’t gay.
In Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty said, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
Cameron and his Christian Right compatriots have taken a page from Humpty Dumpty’s playbook. “Gay” means what they say it means. And they choose whatever meaning best serves their agenda of stigmatizing sexual minorities and making them invisible.
Maybe Cameron will eventually find some penguins that molest their young. Now those would be birds he could call gay.
October 17, 2006
Are hate crimes against sexual minorities still a problem?
Throughout the 1990s, each annual release of the FBI’s hate crime statistics was accompanied by news stories about that year’s disturbing increase in antigay violence and victimization. The rising tide of crimes based on the victim’s sexual orientation was repeatedly cited as proof that more funds were needed for victim services, and that law enforcement agencies should devote more resources to preventing and prosecuting antigay attacks.
Sure enough, the number of officially documented antigay crimes increased each year: from 425 incidents in 1991, to 767 in 1992, to 860 in 1993. With few exceptions, the count continued to climb annually until 2001, when it peaked at 1,393 incidents.
Then it began to decline: to 1,244 (in 2002), to 1,239 (in 2003), to 1,197 (in 2004).
Yesterday, the FBI released the latest data, which show another decrease. In 2005, 1,017 antigay crime incidents were reported by local law enforcement authorities.
So are antigay hate crimes still a problem?
The answer is yes, for several reasons.
First, the FBI statistics understate the true extent of hate crime. As I explained in a previous post, at least half of antigay crimes aren’t reported to the police. Victims don’t report for a variety of reasons: They anticipate further harassment by the police, they fear discrimination if their sexual orientation is publicly revealed, or they simply don’t expect the police to catch the perpetrators.
Second, in addition to the physical trauma that hate crimes inflict, they have a more negative impact on victims than do “routine” crimes. As shown in a 1999 study, gay and lesbian victims of violent hate crimes suffer more serious and longer-lasting psychological effects than gay men and lesbians who are victims of violence that isn’t based on their sexual orientation.
Third, antigay hate crimes are attacks against an entire community and, as such, are a kind of terrorism. They convey the message that anyone can be targeted for violence if they’re perceived to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Thus, the impact of a hate crime extends far beyond the victim and her or his immediate circle of family and friends. Such crimes increase the feelings of vulnerability and danger experienced by the whole sexual minority community.
Let’s hope the hate crime count continues to fall in the coming years. But let’s not trap ourselves in a numbers game. Even if they decline in frequency, hate crimes against sexual minority victims are still a serious problem.
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »