TOO HIGH A PRICE
THE CASE AGAINST
RESTRICTING GAY PARENTING
ACLU LESBIAN & GAY RIGHTS PROJECT
INTRODUCTION BY ROSIE O’DONNELL
TOO HIGH A PRICE: The Case
Against Restricting Gay Parenting
In some places, gay men and lesbians cannot be parents.
They can’t adopt kids, aren’t legally recognized as par-
ents of children they raise, or are denied custody of their
own kids.
This book makes the comprehensive case against
restricting gay parenting.
Beginning with the story of Florida’s gay adoption ban –
a case study in all the things that are wrong with par-
enting restrictions – it broadens to cover the national
landscape on gay parenting. The book describes the con-
sensus among child welfare experts that restricting gay
parenting is bad for kids, summarizes the scientific stud-
ies confirming that the children of lesbians and gay men
are as happy and well adjusted as anyone, and explains
why limits on gay parenting violate the Constitution. The
book also provides a point-by-point refutation of the
arguments for keeping gay people from being parents.
“I don’t believe there’s a real debate to be had over
whether gay people can be good parents – the only
debate is whether to put bias before children’s future.
This books lays out the reasons that restricting gay par-
enting is bad for children and bad for all of us. It’s our
job to take this information and use it.”
– Rosie O’Donnell, in her moving introduction
TOO HIGH A PRICE: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting ACLU
TOO HIGH A PRICE:
The Case Against Restricting
Gay Parenting
By the ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project
Written by
Eric Ferrero, Joshua Freker, and Travis Foster
With
Matt Coles, Leslie Cooper, and James Esseks
Research assistance from
Cynthia Golembeski and Beth George
Copyright © 2005 by American Civil Liberties Union
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
Design by Sara Glover
“Too High A Price” was produced by the Lesbian & Gay Rights
Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU is a
nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with over 350,000
members. The ACLU is dedicated to fighting for civil liberties and
civil rights. The ACLU’s Lesbian & Gay Rights Project works for fair
and equal treatment for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, people with HIV,
and transgendered people. This means even-handed treatment by the
government, protection from discrimination in jobs, schools, housing,
and public accommodations, and equal rights for lesbian and gay
couples and families. The ACLU’s first national lesbian and gay rights
case was filed in 1940, and the ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project
was founded in 1986. Gifts to the Project are tax deductible, and
shared evenly with the ACLU affiliate in your home state.
Lesbian & Gay Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 549-2627
Too High A Price:
The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Table of Contents
Introduction by Rosie O’Donnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i
CHAPTER 1
A Case Study: Florida’s Gay Adoption Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Doug & Oscar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Wayne Smith & Dan Skahen, and Brenda & Greg Bradley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
The Loftons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
“Save Our Children” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Fighting to overturn the ban in court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Social science contradicts the ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
No child-welfare basis for the ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
CHAPTER 2
The Bigger Picture: Gay Parenting Across the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Gay parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Gay parenting and the legal landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Adoption by gay individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Adoption by gay couples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Second-parent adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Custody and visitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Foster parenting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
CHAPTER 3
The Public Policy Case: There Is No Child-Welfare Basis
for Restricting Gay Parenting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
The growing consensus among health and children’s advocates . . . . . . . . . .23
Statements from mainstream groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Case-by-case determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Restrictions that may be appropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
By the numbers: child welfare and gay parenting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
CHAPTER FOUR
The Social Science Case: Gay Parents and Their Kids
Are Just as Happy and Healthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Which studies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
What do the studies look for? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Who do they study? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
What do the studies say about the kids? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
What do the studies say about gay parents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Do gay parents make gay kids? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
A conversation with Professor Judith Stacey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
The summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
CHAPTER FIVE
The Legal Case: Restrictions on Gay Parenting are Illegal . . . . . . . . . . .97
Restrictions on gay adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
Refusal to recognize gay parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
CHAPTER SIX
Debunking the Myths: Arguments Against Gay Families,
and Why They’re Wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Kids need a married mom and dad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Kids need a mother and a father to have proper
male and female role models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
Gay people cannot provide stable homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Gay parents molest their children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
The studies claiming gay people can be good parents
are flawed and prove nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Introduction
Why It Matters
by Rosie O’Donnell
I
saw it on the news. In a tiny one-bedroom apartment in Little Havana, Florida,
a 5-year-old girl was brutally raped by a 14-year-old boy. The rapist was a
“friend of the family.” The child’s mother slept through the whole incident in the
next room, six feet away. The child had been beaten, her teeth broken, her body
ripped. The reporter did not give the child’s name, did not show her face, yet she
haunted me. I thought of her daily, knowing there was a reason she resonated
within me, one I could not yet see.
A month later, my 2-year-old daughter got sick. I called a doctor, who came to
the house. He was kind and chatty and full of bad jokes. We spoke as we waited
for her medicine to take effect. He told me he worked out of Children’s Hospital,
where, I remembered, this young girl was being treated. I asked him if he knew
of her. He said he did, and she was in bad shape. I asked him if I could visit her.
He wasn’t sure, but said he would try to arrange it.
He did. I was allowed to meet her, two weeks later, at the Gladstone Center for
sexually abused girls. I agreed to visit the girls as a group, without showing any
special interest in this one child. I still did not know her name.
The night before my visit, I saw the handcuffed mother being led into court.
Heavy, angry, detached, and scary. The news anchor said she was not cooperat-
ing with the police. I hated her.
The morning arrived; I felt sick. I had been to places like Gladstone before. This
time felt different.
The Gladstone Center is difficult to find. It is completely hidden behind a church,
off a main road, with only a small wooden sign whispering the way. I walked
Introduction: Why It Matters, by Rosie O’Donnell i
down the pebble-filled driveway toward the one-story cement block building.
Tiny, colored wild flowers fought their way through the gray-green tangle of
weeds; a burst of blue, the hue of hope. I found myself at a large sign, “All vis-
itors must check in at the office.” So I did.
I introduced myself to the staff, awkwardly. I wanted to thank them, but did not.
I was briefed, then escorted to the therapy room. Twenty girls, ages 5 to 17, were
sitting in a circle. They were in the middle of a therapy session, playing a
“game.” One girl stood in the front of the group, trying to conjure upon her face
the emotion written on the cards in the therapist’s hand. Happy, concerned, shy,
sad, angry. Therapists determined to reconnect the cut wires inside the hearts and
heads of these kids, to pull them back from the abyss.
I was introduced. Some girls were excited to see me, others totally disinterested.
They all had questions.
“Was you in the Flinstone movie?”
“You live in a mansion?”
“Why are you here?”
I took a breath.
I told them I was there because I was one of them. I wanted them to know they
had value, that there were many adults like me, who once were kids like them. I
told them to believe in themselves. To know there were more good people than
bad. That there were grown-ups willing to fight for them, to protect them, to love
them. I waited for a response. They asked if I knew Ricky Martin.
During the “Q and A,” I spotted her, the girl from the news story. No one point-
ed her out, I just knew. She was hard to miss. Lanky, beautiful, and obviously
suffering. With her round face, light skin, brown hair and eyes, she bounced in
and out of the room, on and off of chairs and laps. She was busy; she paid no
attention to me. For most of my stay, she was out of the room.
ii Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
My visit was winding down. I took a Polaroid with each girl, and gave them a
Beanie Baby. As I started to leave, she walked back in the room.
The Beanie Babies caught her eye. Every kid had one. She asked, in Spanish, if
there was one for her. There was. She chose, cuddled it, and looked up at me.
After a moment, she asked if I wanted to see her room. I glanced at the therapist,
looking for approval. She nodded.
The baby/child put her tiny hand in mine and led me down the hall. The last room
was hers, old wood bunk beds with pastel sheets, a small dresser, and a desk. She
put the Beanie Baby I gave her beside two of her own. Her doctor gave her those,
she told me proudly.
The one who stitched her up, I thought.
One Beanie Baby was a dog. The other a bear with closed eyes and folded paws.
She told me the bear’s mommy was dead, and the bear was very sad. Yes, I told
her, the bear must be sad. She gave me a nonchalant nod and started to rearrange
her animals.
I gave her the extra Beanie Babies.
We were leaving. I asked if I could take a picture of us for me to keep. She
said yes and we posed together. She started to walk away. I did not want her
to go. I said in bad high-school Spanish, “I have a gift for you.” She looked
confused, holding the Beanie Babies up for me to see – to remind me, I had
already given her something. I reached into my pocket and handed her a small
white stone, the kind you get at nature stores, polished and inscribed. On this
one, one word, “Love.”
“Quando tu mira es, entiendes te quierro” – when you see this, know I love you.
The therapist watched from the doorway.
She looked at the stone, smiled, hugged me, and walked toward the door. She
stopped and, with a longing backward glance, asked my name. It had been a
while since anyone asked my name.
Introduction: Why It Matters, by Rosie O’Donnell iii
“Roseann,” I told her. She nodded and pointed to her chest. “Amanda,” she said.
I nodded. She walked away.
I signed up for my foster care license that afternoon. I completed the course four
months later. I became a foster parent. I have fostered one young girl, who had
been in nearly a dozen homes before mine, none for more than two months. She
has grown with love and consistency into a healthy almost-5-year-old. She will
soon be adopted by friends of mine. I am not legally able to adopt this child,
because I am gay.
I’m sharing my story because in the state of Florida, gay people are automatically
disqualified from adopting, even the foster children they have raised. And it’s not
just Florida. In the last two years, a dozen states have considered restricting gay
parenting in some way.
Yet in these states and across the country, there are thousands of children in fos-
ter care who are waiting to be adopted today. They need adults who can provide
guidance and support and stability. They need someone who will listen to them
and talk to them. They need someone who will be with them, sitting quietly or
cheering on the sidelines. They need someone to help them grow up. They need
good parents. Limiting the pool of qualified adoptive parents won’t help them.
Maybe you can.
Read this book. Read about the Lofton family in Florida and other families who
are affected by laws, policies, or rulings that prevent gay people from being par-
ents. Read about the kids who are deprived of loving, supportive homes as a
result. And then decide to do something about it.
If you work in child welfare – as an advocate, a case-worker, a placement spe-
cialist, or an agency staffer – redouble your commitment not to let anything come
before children’s needs. If you are among the many policy makers confronted
with efforts to restrict gay parenting, learn the facts first. And if you are not
directly involved in these issues, involve yourself directly. Talk to your friends,
family, and colleagues about the children and families who are affected by
restrictions on gay parenting. When laws or policies are being considered that
would restrict gay parenting, make your voice heard.
iv Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
We can all do something. I don’t believe there’s a real debate to be had over
whether gay people can be good parents – the only debate is whether to put bias
before children’s future. This book lays out the reasons that restricting gay par-
enting is bad for kids and bad for all of us. It’s our job to take this information
and use it.
There are thousands of kids out there like Amanda, who desperately need stable,
loving homes. There are also thousands of kids out there like Bert, who as you’ll
read in this book, are already being raised by lesbians and gay men. And there
are also thousands of kids out there like my nearly-5-year-old foster daughter,
whose lives are deeply disrupted by bans on gay adoption. When we fight restric-
tions on lesbian and gay parenting, we’re fighting for all of them.
Introduction: Why It Matters, by Rosie O’Donnell v
Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
I
n 1977, Florida’s legislature passed a law prohibiting all gay people from
adopting kids.
In 2002, that law threatened to separate an 11-year-old boy from the only family
he’s ever known.
This is not just the story of one family, one state, or one law. It’s the story of what
happens when a decision is made to broadly restrict gay people from being par-
ents. Florida’s across-the-board ban on gay adoption encompasses all aspects of
the case against restricting gay parenting – it is a law born of bigotry, denying
adults and children basic constitutional rights and jeopardizing the stability of
their families, devoid of any basis in social science, directly contradicting public
policy on child welfare. This is both a case study and a cautionary tale – a story
for anyone who isn’t sure whether restricting gay parenting might be a good idea.
DOUG & OSCAR
“When Oscar’s biological dad asked me to take his son, he didn’t
ask whether I was gay. He wanted to know if Oscar would have a
stable home where he would always be wanted and loved. That was
in 1995, one week before Christmas. Oscar was 3 years old... When
he asked me to take Oscar, I agreed right away. I had thought about
starting a family before, but that day my family found me... I’m a
plaintiff in this case because I want to adopt Oscar. My son has had
enough uncertainty in his life, and he deserves better... People who
favor keeping Florida’s gay adoption ban argue that children need
1
A Case Study
Florida’s Gay
Adoption Ban
both a mother and a father. I can’t say what every child needs, but I
do know what Oscar needs: attention, love, guidance, and support.
That’s what he gets from me.”
That’s Doug Houghton, writing about his son Oscar and his struggle to adopt
him, in an emotional newspaper column that millions of Americans read on
Father’s Day 2001 – Doug’s fifth Father’s Day as Oscar’s “guardian.”
Doug worked in the children’s clinic of a hospital in Miami in the early 1990s
when he first met Oscar’s family. At that time, Oscar was just a little baby, and
his family brought him in regularly because of health problems. When he was
barely one year old, his mother, who is now dead, lost custody of him because
she was neglecting him. By the time he was 3, he had been shuffled in and out
of several different homes and was now living with his biological dad, who had
just become homeless again. And so in 1995, just a few days before Christmas,
Oscar’s dad showed up at the hospital and asked Doug to take the boy. It took
him about 30 seconds to say yes.
Doug became Oscar’s legal guardian the next year, but he cannot adopt him
because of Florida’s gay adoption ban. He knows that Oscar felt unwanted and
abandoned for years, and he has tried to calm Oscar’s fear that somehow he’ll be
left alone again. Permanent adoption is the only way to truly show Oscar that he
won’t be abandoned. A home study in 2000 was overwhelmingly favorable, but
the evaluator noted that there was no need to move further because by law Doug
cannot adopt Oscar.
But that doesn’t mean Doug isn’t Oscar’s father. Doug has navigated Oscar
through various health problems and helped him conquer a learning disability.
Day to day, Oscar helps out in the kitchen, and before bed he and Doug always
read together. All of the teachers and administrators at Oscar’s school know
Doug on a first-name basis and are in touch with him regularly. When the home
study evaluator and Doug showed up at school as Oscar was leaving his music
class, they surprised him. “He was delighted and appeared proud to see his
father,” she wrote. “We chatted for a few minutes, and it was obvious the love,
respect, and close bond that father and son share.”
2Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
WAYNE SMITH & DAN SKAHEN, AND
BRENDA & GREG BRADLEY
“Brenda and Greg, my sister and brother-in-law, asked us if we
would adopt their children if something happened to them. The tim-
ing was remarkable because it happens that we were having con-
versations about maybe becoming parents, and that’s why they
brought it up, I think. I had to tell them there was a law against it.
Here they were offering us this sacred trust, and the state of Florida
is saying no.”
That’s Wayne Smith, talking about not being able to give his sister and her hus-
band the peace of mind so many parents want – knowing that their kids will be
cared for by a close, trusted family member if they were to die unexpectedly.
While Wayne and his partner of nearly a decade, Dan Skahen, continue fighting
for their niece and nephew, they’re also foster parents for temporary and longer-
term placements.
In the last couple of years, Wayne and Dan have taken more than 10 kids into
their Key West home. Some have been with them for just a couple of weeks, one
has been with them more than a year. They range from infants to a 15-year-old.
“It’s the toughest thing I’ve ever done,” Dan says. “You need to become a quasi-
psychologist.” But Wayne and Dan don’t pause for a moment when asked
whether they would adopt one of the 10 kids they’ve cared for – they’d adopt any
of them.
For six years, Wayne and Dan have been talking about having kids. Since becom-
ing foster parents, they’re more convinced than ever that there are thousands of
kids who need good homes, and not enough people willing to take them. They
never gave a second thought to lying on the Florida adoption application that
asks whether the prospective parent is gay. But they did think seriously about
leaving their home and moving to New Jersey, where gay people – and gay cou-
ples jointly – can adopt children. Instead, they decided to stay and provide at
least temporary homes to kids badly in need. They decided to fight a discrimina-
tory law that leaves these kids without permanent homes.
Chapter 1: A Case Study 3
THE LOFTONS
“I have been his parent in every way. For example, every day I
wake him up in the morning and help him get dressed and ready
to go to school; I help him with his homework when he comes
home from school; we have a family dinner every night, cooked
by Roger ... I teach him manners, respect and other values that I
consider important. I make sure he is safe. He calls me ‘Dad.’ ... I
love [him] deeply and want to protect him. But I cannot protect
him unless I can adopt him.”
That’s Steven Lofton, talking in a court affidavit about his relationship with 10-
year-old Bert, whom Lofton and his partner of 18 years, Roger Croteau, have
raised since he was just two months old. Even though Bert has never known
another family, the state of Florida has begun taking steps to find someone else
to adopt him. Lofton and Croteau are gay, so they are prohibited by law from
adopting Bert.
At first glance, it’s impossible to believe that the Loftons are affected by
Florida’s ban on gay adoption. Steve and Roger live on a quiet street in Portland,
Oregon, with their five kids. Frank and Tracy are both 14, and Bert is 10. The
three of them have been with Steve and Roger since they were infants. They all
moved from Florida to Oregon three years ago to be closer to Steve’s elderly par-
ents. Under a standard agreement made prior to the family moving, the three kids
remain under the laws and supervision of Florida’s foster care system. The
younger kids, Wayne and Ernie, are 5 and 8. They are foster kids through the
Oregon system and have been part of the family for three years.
Steve and Roger – “Dad and Rodge” to the kids – don’t refer to themselves as
“taking in” kids, and they never say the kids “joined the family.” They talk
warmly about when each of the kids “came home.”
Frank was first. He was just a baby when he came home. His mother had been a
patient in the AIDS ward at the Miami hospital where Steve and Roger were both
nurses. As she slipped closer to death, she asked them to take her baby boy after
she was gone. Already, social workers had asked Steve and Roger if they would
think about being foster parents to HIV-infected children who were impossible
4Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
to place because of stigma and fear of AIDS at that point in the epidemic. When
they were preparing to take Frank, social workers asked Steve to quit his job to
care for the baby’s medical needs full time. Within weeks Steve and Roger’s
lives were forever changed, with a little baby in the house – and, although they
didn’t know it yet, more on the way.
Within weeks, Tracy came home. It was the day of her first birthday,
September 30, 1988. She, too, had HIV and was born with drugs in her system.
The babies were very close in age, and bonded almost immediately. Gradually,
they began sleeping more at night, which they couldn’t do for several months
because they were so used to the bright lights that are always on in neo-natal
sections of hospitals.
Before long, Frank and Tracy had another baby to play with, when another little
girl came home. To the state of Florida, she was always known as “Baby Girl
Doe.” But to the Loftons, she was Ginger. She was born severely drug-addicted,
with HIV, and was quite sick from the start. For months, Steve and Roger would
wake up every couple of hours at night to suction fluid from her chest, so she
could continue breathing.
Bert came home in 1992. He was just nine weeks old. Like the others, he was
born with HIV and with drugs in his system. Bert’s mother died, and in 1994 he
became free for adoption. State caseworkers, seeing how he and the other kids
were thriving, asked Steve to adopt him. He filled out an application, which was
rejected because he refused to answer the section on the form that asks whether
he’s gay.
That same year, Ginger died at home. She was 6 years old. Frank and Tracy were
about the same age, and had loved Ginger like the sister she was. She had been
very sick for quite a long time, but her death still devastated the entire family.
Steve and Roger had been told that since all the kids had HIV, they needed to be
made comfortable until they died. But instead of turning their home into a hos-
pice, they treated the medical needs like just another fact of life and devoted
themselves to raising the kids like any other family, filling their lives with love,
fun, and learning.
Chapter 1: A Case Study 5
In 1998, the Children’s Home Society, one of the leading kids’ social service
agencies in Miami (and the group that placed foster kids with Steve and Roger),
created an award for outstanding foster parent of the year. They didn’t just give
the first award to Steve and Roger – they named it the “Lofton-Croteau Award.”
The following year, after the family moved to Oregon, the kids’ new pediatrician
quickly noticed Steve and Roger’s parenting skills and the kids’ development. He
asked if they would consider taking in two brothers with AIDS whom the state
couldn’t place with anyone else. Within weeks, Wayne and Ernie, now ages 8 and
5, came home. They are rambunctious and inquisitive, and gradually fit right in
with the other kids, who often help look after them.
In Portland, the kids swim, they take weekend trips to the beach or to their grand-
parents’ house, they’re in different school clubs like chess and drama, and they
spend a lot of time doing homework and school projects. They aren’t allowed to
watch TV, but they do have movie night once a weekend when they rent videos.
Steve and Roger are highly active in the PTA and often chaperone field trips or
other school events.
On June 21, 2001, Bert’s caseworker called Steve and told him she was looking
for someone else to adopt Bert. As is sometimes the case with children who test
positive for HIV at birth, he now tests negative, which makes him “adoptable.”
The caseworker asked Steve if he or Roger knew anyone who might be interest-
ed. Evidently, Bert’s file was next in the stack of kids who had been in foster care
too long and would need to be moved into permanent adoptive homes. The
Loftons had been plaintiffs for two years in an ongoing ACLU federal lawsuit
challenging Florida’s gay adoption ban. Steve’s lawyers at the ACLU immedi-
ately asked for the state’s assurance that Bert would not be removed from his
family until the lawsuit was resolved. The state refused, saying only that Bert
wouldn’t be removed until someone else was found to adopt him.
“SAVE OUR CHILDREN”
The law that threatens to take Bert from the only family he’s ever known also
keeps thousands of other kids from ever making it into stable, loving homes. The
law dates back to 1977 and stems from some of the most notorious homophobia
6Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
in U.S. history. If Anita Bryant has a lasting legacy, it’s question II G on Florida’s
adoption application. Prospective parents are asked to check either “yes” or “no”
to the statement, “I am a homosexual.” Next to the question is a citation to the
state law and a quote from the statute, “No person eligible to adopt under this
statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.”
Anita Bryant, a singer and former Miss Oklahoma who served as a spokeswoman
for Florida Orange Juice, had launched an anti-gay campaign earlier that year,
called “Save Our Children.” Backed by right-wing fundamentalists in Florida
and around the country, her specific goal was to put Dade County’s recently-
passed gay rights law on the ballot for a repeal. But her campaign was well-coor-
dinated with efforts in the state legislature that would help draw attention to gay-
related issues and build momentum for legislation like the proposed ban on gay
adoption, which was making its way through the legislature.
The high-profile Dade County campaign reached a fever pitch by late spring,
just as the gay adoption ban was reaching legislative committees. Week after
week, full-page ads in Florida newspapers ran with enormous headlines that
screamed, “There Is No ‘Human Right’ To Corrupt Our Children.” Arguing that
lesbians and gay men cannot reproduce biologically, Bryant said, “They can
only recruit children, and this is what they want to do. Some of the stories I can
tell you about child recruitment would turn your stomach.” Bryant traveled the
state and beyond, warning audiences in sometimes graphic language that gay
people were committed to molesting children. She combined political speeches
with singing engagements to draw in mainstream crowds – and sometimes com-
bined her politics with her music with a popular rendition of “The Battle Hymn
of the Republic.”
When the gay adoption ban reached the Senate floor early that summer, only a
handful of Senators voted against it – and only one, Sen. Donald Chamberlin of
Clearwater, spoke out against it, saying that in adoption “all other concerns
should yield to the concern for the child. But the heart of this bill is not the sub-
ject matter of adoptions – it is discrimination.” Another Senator who sought to
delay a vote was actually shouted down by his colleagues.
The law banning gay adoption passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature on
June 1, 1977. On June 7, after months of heated debate that drew national atten-
Chapter 1: A Case Study 7
tion, Dade County voters repealed the local gay rights law. Three days later, the
governor signed into law the gay adoption ban that remains on the books today.
After the adoption ban passed, its main sponsor, Sen. Curtis Peterson of
Lakeland, rejoiced – and reminded everyone that it was just a part of the broad-
er campaign against lesbians and gay men that Bryant and others were waging.
“The problem in Florida has been that homosexuals are surfacing to such an
extent that they’re beginning to aggravate the ordinary folks, who have a few
rights of their own,” he said. “We’re trying to send them a message, telling them:
‘We’re really tired of you. We wish you’d go back into the closet.’”
FIGHTING TO OVERTURN THE BAN IN COURT
Since 1990, three separate lawsuits asked state courts to overturn the law ban-
ning gay adoption, none successfully. In the most recent state court case, which
upheld the law in 1997, a Broward County Circuit Judge refused to rule the law
unconstitutional, saying, “If the state legislature chooses to allow children to lan-
guish in foster care ... instead of opening the doors to homosexual households, it
has that authority.”
The same week that decision was issued, the ACLU began preparing to take the
law into federal court. Representing Lofton, Houghton, Smith, and Skahen, the
ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging the adoption ban in 1999 – the first
time a federal court has ever been asked whether it is constitutional to broadly
ban gay adoption. Working jointly with the ACLU on the case, Florida’s Children
First Project represents children who were denied permanent, loving homes
because of the adoption ban.
The lawsuit says that Florida’s gay adoption ban violates the constitutional rights
of children who need homes and gay people who want to adopt. Specifically, the
case charges first that the law treats them unequally, because gay people are the
only people who are not considered as individuals when they seek to adopt and
are instead absolutely barred. The case also charges that the law violates the
integrity of families in which kids are raised over the long term by gay foster par-
ents. Those kids and their parents deserve to be treated as families, the case says,
but Florida law treats them as strangers.
8Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
The state responds by saying that the unequal treatment is justified because it is
the state’s way to express its disapproval of gay people. As a backup, the state
also says that it would be possible for it to think that it would be better for kids
to be raised by a married mother and father (the state doesn’t actually say that it
believes this, just that it could). Finally, the state says that families with gay fos-
ter parents won’t really be hurt by the adoption ban, because the state won’t inter-
fere with these families.
The ACLU says that one thing the U.S. Constitution does not allow states to do
is pass laws not to achieve some concrete goal, but to express “disapproval” or
“dislike” for some of the people who live in the state. For over 100 years, the
ACLU points out, states have been claiming that it is OK to discriminate –
against interracial couples, against women, against the disabled, against Asians
and African Americans – to express disapproval. It was wrong then, the ACLU
argues, and it is wrong now.
The ACLU also points out that the state says it does everything it can to get mar-
ried couples to adopt, and still falls far short of the number of parents it needs.
The state then recruits single heterosexuals to adopt. But even after all that, thou-
sands of kids eligible for adoption wind up in foster care. Given all that, the
ACLU says, no one in their right mind could think that keeping lesbians and gay
men out of the pool of prospective parents gets more kids into homes with mar-
ried parents. No one, the ACLU says, could think the ban would create more
married couples willing and able to adopt.
Apart from all that, the record in the case makes it clear that no one believes that
married couples make better parents than gay people simply because they’re
married – not the state officials responsible for child welfare, nor private child
welfare organizations, nor reputable experts. The key to finding suitable parents,
they say, is to examine each applicant individually, and not to make gross
assumptions about anyone.
Finally, the ACLU says, it is impossible to take seriously the state’s claim that it
won’t interfere with foster families. All the while it keeps saying that in court, it
keeps sending Steve Lofton letters reminding him that the state is actively look-
ing for someone to adopt Bert.
Chapter 1: A Case Study 9
The case was set to go to trial in late 2001, but a federal judge granted the state’s
motion to throw the case out. The ACLU took the case to a federal appeals court
in 2002.
SOCIAL SCIENCE CONTRADICTS THE BAN
In a feeble attempt to provide evidence to support the ban, the state retained
psychologist George Rekers as an expert witness. One of the founders of the
ultra-conservative Family Research Council and an ordained minister,
Rekers bases his opinions on his religious beliefs, not science. He has even
said that it would be “futile and foolish” to “search for truth about homosex-
uality in psychology and psychiatry while ignoring God.” Rekers has pub-
lished a number of books expressing his religious beliefs condemning homo-
sexuality. A quote from his book, Growing Up Straight, provides insight into
how his religious beliefs influence his opinions: “The clear teaching of
Scripture, uncontradicted by psychological research, is that homosexual
actions are sinful.”
Rekers is also a practitioner of a type of therapy that is widely rejected by
mainstream mental health professionals that seeks to “cure” homosexuality. In
addition, Rekers has spent much of his time as a therapist trying to change boys
who do not conform to stereotypical notions of appropriate gender behavior. In
offering guidance for “treating” boys who are “feminine,” Rekers has advocat-
ed that parents should ignore boys whenever they exhibit “feminine” behavior
and pay attention to them only when they act “masculine.” He has suggested
that such “treatment” can prevent homosexuality and what he considers to be
other gender abnormalities. George Rekers has also voiced some outrageous
characterizations of gay people, e.g. that gay activists “recruit youth” and seek
to legalize pedophilia.
Why did Florida choose someone with such controversial views? The main-
stream view in the field of psychology is that children of gay parents are as
well adjusted as children of heterosexual parents. In fact, the existing body of
scientific research, published in respected journals in the fields of child psy-
chology and child development, has found nothing to show that being raised
by gay parents harms children or that gay people are unsuitable parents.
10 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Florida uses a fringe figure to defend its law because no mainstream social
scientist would defend it. (For more details about what these studies say, see
Chapter Four.)
NO CHILD-WELFARE BASIS FOR THE BAN
When the last legal challenge to Florida’s gay adoption ban ended in 1997,
there were about 1,900 kids in foster care statewide waiting to be adopted.
When U.S. District Court Judge James King dismissed the latest case in 2001,
there were more than 3,400 kids in Florida’s foster care system waiting to be
adopted. Yet the state continues to claim that the ban is based, at least in part,
on children’s interests.
In legal papers, the state of Florida repeatedly insists that the ban on gay adop-
tion is warranted because children are better off in homes with a mother and a
father who are married. But of those kids who are lucky enough to be adopted
out of foster care, fully 25% statewide – and 40% in Miami-Dade County – are
placed with single parents.
In sworn depositions for the case, the state’s leading official overseeing adoption
policy was asked, “Do you know of any child-welfare reason at all for excluding
gay people from adopting children?” The official, Carol Hutchison, answered,
“No.” She was then asked if she believes children’s best interests would be
served if lesbians and gay men were allowed to adopt. “As I previously stated, I
think it’s contraindicated to rule out such a large population of people who quite
possibly could meet the needs [of] awaiting children,” she said.
In 2002, several of the nation’s largest, oldest, and most respected children’s
groups filed a brief in the case at the federal appeals court, asking that the law be
overturned. The sweeping gay adoption ban, they said, “not only has no child
welfare basis whatsoever, but it also affirmatively hurts children awaiting adop-
tion by depriving them of the opportunity to be adopted by lesbians and gay men
who are willing to provide them with loving families.” The groups went on to
address restrictions on gay parenting in general, saying, “No child welfare basis
exists for categorically excluding lesbians and gay men from adopting children.
Chapter 1: A Case Study 11
Social science research unanimously demonstrates that lesbians and gay men can
be and are good parents, and being raised by lesbian or gay parents is not harm-
ful to children.”
But the state of Florida continued, undaunted, in its fight to defend the law. More
than 3,400 children waited for permanent homes while the state continued using
its child welfare system to make a political statement about lesbians and gay
men. And, in the process, Florida itself made the strongest case of all against
restricting gay parenting.
12 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
F
lorida has the strongest and most sweeping anti-gay parenting law in the
country, but it is not the only place where lesbian and gay parents face dis-
crimination. Every year a handful of states legislatures consider passing their
own bans on gay adoption. Some judges use sexual orientation to take children
away from their parents or to restrict parents’ visitation, often insisting that the
parents choose between their children and their partners. These are just some of
the more visible ways that lesbian and gay parents are vulnerable to restrictions
on their families. While not every state has horrible laws or hostile court rulings,
gay parents also face problems at the local level – where most child custody and
placement decisions are made. It is widely reported that in some parts of the
country, as a matter of practice, social service agencies will not approve adoption
applications from lesbians and gay men. Despite these obstacles, it’s not all bad
news. A growing number of states have made strides in rejecting discrimination
against gay parents, and this trend will undoubtedly continue.
Making the case against restricting gay parenting isn’t just critical to children and
parents in Florida, it’s critical to children and families everywhere. This chapter of
“Too High A Price” covers the prevalence of gay parenting, the different ways in
which lesbians and gay men become parents, and how the law treats gay parenting.
GAY PARENTS
It is difficult to know exactly how many gay parents are raising children in the
U.S., primarily because it’s difficult – if not impossible – to know the exact pop-
ulation of lesbian and gay people. The government census does not ask people
to check a box for sexual orientation, and even if there were such an option, it’s
2
The Bigger Picture
Gay Parenting
Across the Country
likely that many people would refuse to answer a question because they would
see it as too intrusive. Estimates on the number of gay parents rely on much-
debated guesses at what percentage of the entire population is lesbian, gay, or
bisexual. Some human sexuality studies have found that 10% of people are gay.
Other studies of sexuality have deduced smaller figures of lesbian and gay peo-
ple – at 3 to 4% of the population – only counting those identifying themselves
as gay. The percentage depends on how researchers define “gay.” The smaller
percentages seem to be more realistic, because they use a narrow definition of
gay that requires self-identification, not just behavior or attraction.
Since it’s difficult to know how many gay people there are generally, it’s difficult
to know how many are raising children. Numerous social scientists have devel-
oped estimates using one well known population study (National Health and
Social Life Survey, E.O. Lauman, 1995) that range anywhere from 1 to 9 million
children being raised by gay parents – meaning that somewhere between 1 to 12%
of all children are being raised by a gay parent. The lower figures represent the
more narrow definition of who is gay. (“Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by
Same-Sex Parents,” American Academy of Pediatrics, February 2002)
While those estimates do not rely on any kind of official count of gay people,
increasingly there is more official information about gay people and families with
gay parents. The U.S. Census Bureau has a way for families headed by same-sex
couples to identify themselves as same-sex “unmarried partners.” The 2000
Census found that there are at least 601,209 gay and lesbian families (so far, infor-
mation has not been released about how many of these families have children)
(Gay and Lesbian Families in the United States: Same-Sex Unmarried Partner
Households, Human Rights Campaign, August 22, 2001). However, it is highly
likely that there are many more same-sex couples, both because the census ques-
tion requires people to identify themselves as gay and because it’s likely not all
couples were aware they could use the “unmarried partner” classification.
In the fall of 2000, a Kaiser Family Foundation national study of 405 randomly
selected, self-identified lesbians, gays, and bisexuals found that 8% of the par-
ticipants were parents or legal guardians of a child under 18 who lived in their
home. While this study does not necessarily offer solid evidence on how many
gay parents there are, it suggests that around 8% of gay people are parents.
The Kaiser survey also measured the extent to which gay people would like to
14 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
become parents. Among those who weren’t parents at the time of the survey,
almost half (49%) said they would like to have children of their own some day.
This at least suggests the possibility of a gay “baby boom” in the near future. For
entire generations of lesbians and gay men, parenting did not seem to be an
option. Now that it is becoming a real option, more and more people are likely
to become parents.
Finally, we also know that gay and lesbian families live in communities across
the country. The 2000 Census found that same-sex couples live in 99.3 %of all
counties in the United States (Gay and Lesbian Families in the United States:
Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Households, Human Rights Campaign, August
22, 2001). Some of these folks doubtless are parents. As more gay people are
able to live their lives openly and truthfully, it’s inevitable that more will
become parents.
It’s also inevitable that these families are becoming part of the already diverse
array of family life in the United States. The 2000 U.S. Census found that fewer
than 24% of homes were composed of a husband, wife, and children under age
18 (“Census 2000: The New Demographics: Advertisers are Cautious as
Household Makeup Shifts,” Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2001). The Census
also found there are a total of 5.5 million unmarried partner households – 4.9 mil-
lion of which are unmarried, heterosexual couples. In addition, there are 4 mil-
lion households in the United States with multigenerational, extended families –
this is nearly 4% of all American households (“Multigenerational Households
Number 4 Million,” U.S. Census Bureau, Sept. 7, 2001).
GAY PARENTING AND THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Decisions about who gets to be a parent (adoption) and who gets to stay a parent
(custody) are made by family court judges at the local level. Some states have
formal rules about whether gay people can parent, and whether sexual orienta-
tion is a factor to consider in either adoption or custody decisions. The family
court judges are supposed to follow those rules (which they usually do, though
there are exceptions). Those formal rules generally come about in one of two
ways. First, the state legislature can pass a law setting out the rule. Second,
someone who is unhappy with a decision made by a trial court judge can appeal.
Chapter 2: The Bigger Picture 15
The appeal will result in a written decision from the appeals court, which trial
court judges in either part or all of the state must follow.
Most states do not have formal rules about any aspect of gay parenting. In those
states, family court judges have great leeway, and can decide for themselves how
sexual orientation should be taken into account in making parenting decisions,
and if it should be taken into account at all. So a judge in Walton County,
Georgia, can refuse to approve an adoption by a lesbian even though another
judge in a county just 50 miles away might have approved 20 of them.
Challenges to the decisions of these local judges are difficult, for two reasons.
First, as a practical matter, the decisions of trial judges can be overturned only if
the judge based the decision on an incorrect legal rule (either a statute or an ear-
lier decision from an appeals court). It’s difficult to win an appeal if the only
claim is that the local judge got the facts wrong. Second, trial judges frequently
give little explanation of why they reached their decisions, and even if sexual ori-
entation was a factor, they don’t always say that.
The relatively small number of formal rules and the great leeway that family
court judges have make it difficult to generalize about the rules on lesbian and
gay families. And even states that have some formal rules don’t generally have
rules covering all of the major issues. However, it is possible to use the rules a
state has established on one question to make some predictions about how things
will work in another area. But don’t mistake these predictions for rules. The
fact that Utah, for example, bans adoption by unmarried couples does not neces-
sarily mean that no trial court judge in Utah will approve an adoption by the part-
ner of a gay person who is already a parent. The leeway that trial court judges
have can work for or against gay people who want to parent. Moreover, the land-
scape changes at the local level as judges retire and as society’s views about gay
parenting mature.
An overview of each area of gay parenting, rules we knew about when this was
published, and some tentative predictions follow.
16 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
ADOPTION BY GAY INDIVIDUALS
Florida is the only state with a law that specifically forbids adoptions by any gay,
lesbian, or bisexual person. This doesn’t mean other states are safe. Every year,
legislators in other states try to pass similar bans. So far in 2002, an adoption
ban was introduced in the South Carolina legislature. Activists were pushing leg-
islators to introduce such bans in Georgia, South Dakota, and Texas. Over the
past three years, anti-gay adoption bans were considered and defeated in
Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. These bills keep coming back,
and there is no guarantee that they will always be defeated.
Only one state – Ohio – has specifically said that single lesbians and gay men are
not barred from adopting. And trial judges are likely to be open to adoptions by
single gay men and lesbians in states which allow adoptions by gay couples or
by the partners of gay parents. They include California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. Local
authorities in many of these states may still give preferences to married couples,
or even to single heterosexuals.
States that ban adoption by lesbian and gay couples – Mississippi and Utah – are
more likely to be hostile to adoption by gay singles. In addition, some state
courts have displayed severe hostility toward lesbian and gay parents in other
contexts, even quite recently. They include Alabama, North Carolina, and
Virginia. Even in these states, there may be local judges and social workers who
will approve adoptions by gay people, but they are likely to be difficult to find.
ADOPTION BY GAY COUPLES
It’s generally easier for a gay individual to adopt a child than it is for a couple to
adopt a child together. For many gay couples, one partner adopts the child and
then the other partner asks a court if he or she can also adopt the child through a
second legal procedure. This is one way to use what is known as second-parent
or co-parent adoption (see below). If it’s possible, it makes much more sense –
and costs less money – to avoid the two steps. Joint adoption allows both par-
ents to have a legally recognized relationship to their child in just one step.
Chapter 2: The Bigger Picture 17
It’s particularly difficult to know where joint adoptions for same-sex couples
have been approved, because this is a newer trend in gay parenting, and there is
no uniform way of tracking these adoptions. Four states – California,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont – and Washington, D.C. explicitly per-
mit joint adoption by lesbian and gay couples. Mississippi is the only state in the
country that specifically bars all lesbian and gay couples from adopting – though
Utah’s ban on unmarried couples effectively bans all gay couples. As recently as
1999, the U.S. Congress considered legislation that would have banned gay cou-
ples from adopting in Washington, D.C.
Many states have laws or policies that discourage adoption by unmarried cou-
ples, and these laws are frequently used to discriminate against gay couples. And
of course, states that are generally hostile to gay parents are likely to be difficult
places for gay people to adopt jointly. Those would include Alabama, North
Carolina, Virginia, etc. On the other hand, in some states joint adoption by les-
bian and gay couples is, at least in certain parts of the state, almost routine even
though there is no court decision or statute specifically allowing it. For exam-
ple, Oregon falls into this category.
Vermont and California recently passed state laws that establish legal recognition
for same-sex couples that greatly benefit their entire families (joint adoption was
legal in California before the new law passed). In Vermont, this was accom-
plished through the establishment of civil unions and in California through a
statewide domestic partner system. Both states offer many – or all, in the case
of Vermont – of the benefits and responsibilities available under state law that are
available to heterosexual couples through marriage. These states are much more
likely to recognize not only same-sex couples but also their families.
SECOND-PARENT ADOPTION
If a gay couple is raising a child conceived through donor insemination, only
the biological parent has a legally recognized tie to the couples’ child. The
same is true if one partner adopts a child. Even if the non-biological or non-
adoptive parent raises the child for years, the non-biological parent is often
seen as nothing more than a stranger to the child in the eyes of the law.
18 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Second-parent or co-parent adoption is the best means of ensuring legal pro-
tection of both parents’ relationships with their child.
With a second-parent adoption, the partner of the existing parent also adopts the
child without ending the legal relationship with the first parent, thereby provid-
ing the child with two legal parents rather than one. This is a procedure similar
to that typically used by heterosexual step-parents.
As with other areas of gay parenting, it is difficult to have a comprehensive por-
trait of which states recognize second parent adoptions. These adoptions, like
other adoptions, are approved by local family court judges. In some states, how-
ever, the issue has been appealed to higher courts. In some of these states,
appeals courts have refused to recognize second-parent adoptions, making it dif-
ficult for anyone in the state to obtain one. These include Ohio, Colorado,
Pennsylvania (though this bad decision was appealed to the state’s high court and
a decision was pending as of spring 2002), and Wisconsin.
Seven states – California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
New York, Vermont – and Washington D.C. have established statewide recog-
nition of second-parent adoption. Judges in at least 20 other states have award-
ed second-parent adoptions. A few of these states, like Washington or Alaska,
have been known to approve numerous second-parent adoptions, and it’s gen-
erally believed gay people have a much better chance of adopting their part-
ners’ children in these states.
CUSTODY AND VISITATION
Many, if not most, of the children being raised by lesbians and gay men were con-
ceived during their parents’ previous heterosexual relationships. When these gay
parents come out of the closet and separate from their spouses, their ability to sus-
tain their relationships with their kids often depends on the views of individual
family court judges. In some of the worst instances of anti-gay discrimination,
judges have taken kids away from gay parents solely because of the parents’ sexu-
al orientation. It is hard to square these rulings with any notion of family integri-
ty. It’s one thing to be banned from ever adopting children in the first place, but
it’s another thing altogether for a judge to split apart an existing family.
Chapter 2: The Bigger Picture 19
20 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Despite some particular examples of homophobia, the national landscape for
child custody is less bleak than it once was. Most states that have considered the
question have ruled that sexual orientation alone cannot be used against a parent
in determining child custody issues. This does not mean anti-gay discrimination
doesn’t happen in these states; it means that judges cannot discriminate as open-
ly as they once could. Custody decisions are supposedly governed by a “best
interests of the child” standard, and it’s not difficult for a judge to hide his or her
prejudice with a standard that general and open-ended.
In stark contrast to the majority of states that do not permit blatant discrimina-
tion in custody decisions, a handful of states fully endorse taking children away
from parents who love them and are equipped to raise them well. High courts in
Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia have affirmed lower court
rulings that denied custody based solely on sexual orientation. In February 2002,
the state supreme court of Alabama reinstated a family court’s ruling that award-
ed custody to a heterosexual father. Though the ruling was based on a process
technicality, the court’s chief justice took the opportunity to proclaim that homo-
sexuality alone makes a person unfit to be a parent because it is “abhorrent,
immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature
and of nature’s God” (Ex parte H.H., 2002 Ala. LEXIS 44, February 15, 2002).
Judges also have a great deal of power to tell parents when, where, and under
what conditions they can spend time with their children. Some judges have ruled
that gay parents can only have custody or visitation with their children so long
as they agree to force their new partners to move out of their home, or at the least
make their partners leave the home whenever the children are present. In
Georgia, Jean Ann Vawter got divorced from her husband in 1994 and was grant-
ed sole custody of their children. Vawter later met a woman, fell in love, and had
a commitment ceremony in 1996. The two women got a house and lived togeth-
er with Vawter’s children. Even though the ex-husband had known about the
women’s relationship since 1996, he went back to the family court in 1999 and
asked that his ex-wife be incarcerated in the Walton County jail for exposing the
couple’s children to a “meretricious relationship.” The judge did not put Jean
Vawter in jail, but he did order her to immediately take her children and move
away from her partner, because he found their relationship to be “unwholesome.”
The Georgia Supreme Court refused to take Vawter’s appeal.
Judges have also forbid overnight visits by same-sex partners, all involvement
with gay political/social activities, and contact with other gay people in general.
Fortunately, a number of state appeals courts have recently reversed these kinds
of restrictions. Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Washington have said that such restrictions can only be used
if there is proven harm to the children.
In contrast, higher courts in Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, and Virginia have
upheld discriminatory restrictions in visitation.
FOSTER PARENTING
It is not known how many lesbians and gay men are foster parents, and as with
adoption, decisions about who gets to become a foster parent are made at a local
level on a case-by-case basis. Two states – Nebraska and Arkansas – ban gay
foster parents through statewide policies. (The ACLU is challenging the
Arkansas policy.) In the past few years, Arkansas, Indiana, and South Carolina
have considered but so far rejected legislation that would ban gay foster parents
as a matter of state law.
Chapter 2: The Bigger Picture 21
T
he child’s best interests.” It’s what everyone – on all sides of the issue – talks
about when discussing whether lesbians and gay men should be parents. It’s
also a classic Rorschach Test, where the meaning is all in the eye of the behold-
er. A proud grandmother knows with all her heart that her granddaughter’s needs
couldn’t possibly be met better by anyone but her own daughter, who is a lesbian.
Yet a conservative legislator is equally convinced that gay people simply cannot
be appropriate role models, and so he is certain that it is never in children’s best
interests to be raised by gay people. Fortunately, assessing children’s interests
isn’t that subjective.
When the American Academy of Pediatrics passed a policy in 2002 supporting
second-parent adoption by lesbian and gay parents’ same-sex partners, it wasn’t
a lone voice. The nation’s pediatricians joined a chorus of mainstream health and
child welfare groups standing solidly against blanket restrictions on lesbian and
gay parenting. These groups aren’t driven by political beliefs, but by widely
accepted standards that guide how to assess and deliver what children need.
What they need, in short, is love, protection, stability, and guidance. They need
the true focus of the child-placement process to be on them – and that’s what the
prevailing public policy in this area does.
Ask mainstream children’s groups about adoption, foster care, and other parent-
ing, and it’s unlikely they’ll jump right into talking about lesbian and gay par-
ents. Instead, they’ll talk about the crisis in this country’s child welfare system.
They’ll talk about the 568,000 kids in foster care, many of whom are essentially
3
The Public Policy Case
There Is No Child-
Welfare Basis
for Restricting Gay
Parenting
warehoused and shuffled from one home to another until they turn 18 and “age
out” of the system. They’ll talk about the 117,000 of those kids who are ready to
be adopted – but are still waiting because nobody wants them. They’ll talk about
how it’s getting worse instead of better – and has been for decades. They’ll talk
about the kids they see who are abused and neglected, and about the foster homes
that aren’t accountable to anyone, and about the thousands of kids who somehow
get “lost” in the system – made vulnerable by the very safety net that’s supposed
to catch them. And then they’ll ask why we’re even debating whether to limit the
pool of qualified, loving parents.
If ever there was a price that’s too high, it is the toll that restricting gay par-
enting takes on kids. This chapter of “Too High A Price” provides that context.
If a policy or law was being debated that would limit the sources of natural gas
– when there’s already a shortage – nobody would take action without con-
sulting the professionals who handle those resources daily, understand the cur-
rent supply, and deal with the consequences of the shortage. Our nations’ chil-
dren certainly deserve no less – and those advocating on their behalf have
strong and clear feelings on foster care and adoption generally, and gay par-
enting in particular.
THE GROWING CONSENSUS AMONG HEALTH
AND CHILDREN’S ADVOCATES
Major mainstream health and children’s groups began weighing in on lesbian and
gay parenting in the 1970s to urge that prospective parents not be screened out
because of their sexual orientation. In the last couple of decades, this consensus
has steadily grown as these groups have become more aware of families headed
by gay people – and more aware that anti-gay bigotry still interferes with the
ability of children to be placed in healthy, stable, supportive homes.
The groups that have come forward with definitive statements on lesbian and gay
parenting are not taking “gay rights” positions. They are urging policy makers and
practitioners to keep the focus on children’s needs and interests when making these
critical decisions. In the same vein, the growing mainstream consensus on lesbian
and gay parenting is not just a reflection of changing attitudes about gay people –
it’s a reflection of the changing reality in the country’s child welfare system.
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 23
More than 2,000 years ago, adoption developed as a mechanism for adults to
meet their own needs, primarily in producing heirs or providing a political link
between two families. Well into the 1900s, adoption was almost exclusively a
service for wealthy white couples who were unable to have children biological-
ly. Only in the last few decades has adoption become more focused on meeting
the needs of children. This increasingly became the case in the 1970s, when the
number of white infants available for adoption began to decrease sharply just as
the number of other children waiting in foster care began to increase.
As a direct result of this disturbing trend, child welfare agencies have changed
their policies to make adoption and foster care available to a much wider range
of adults. Policies – and even laws – were changed to allow adoption or foster
parenting by minority families, older people, families who already have chil-
dren, lower-income families, single people, and individuals with physical dis-
abilities. “At one time or another, the inclusion of each of these groups has
caused controversy. Many well-intended individuals vigorously opposed
including each new group as potential adopters and voiced concern that stan-
dards were being lowered in a way that could forever damage the field of adop-
tion,” according to the Child Welfare League of America, the nation’s oldest
and largest children’s group.
Indeed, this inclusiveness did forever change adoption – by providing homes to
unprecedented numbers of kids who would otherwise be in temporary situations
or institutions. In the 1970s, the number of adoptions nationwide hit its highest
point ever, at 175,000 a year. Nearly 90,000 of those adoptions were by adults
who weren’t related to the kids. But in the 1980s, as a result of a combination of
societal factors, the percentage of kids in foster care who were successfully
placed in adoptive homes plummeted. In 1982, barely a third of the kids in fos-
ter care who were free for adoption were actually adopted – and by the end of
that year 33,000 kids were waiting to be adopted. Ever since, the percentage of
kids in foster care who are free for adoption has stayed the same, while the num-
ber of kids actually placed in adoptive homes has declined. In short: The number
of kids in foster care who are waiting to be adopted has grown steadily.
In that context – with these trends continuing into the 1980s and 1990s – health
and child welfare groups increasingly began taking public stands against lim-
iting the pool of qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation and
24 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
other factors that do not impact parenting abilities. These groups are charged
with focusing on just one thing: what’s best for kids. They’re also the people
who deal most with the consequences of needlessly limiting the pool of quali-
fied parents. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued its directive support-
ing second-parent adoption because its 55,000 members see the very practical
impact of a child’s two same-sex parents not being legally recognized. The
North American Council on Adoptable Children came forward with a policy
opposing anti-gay discrimination in adoption and foster parenting because the
group was founded by adoptive parents and exists to help waiting children find
good homes – which includes homes with gay parents. The list goes on, and the
public stands these groups have taken speak for themselves. These statements
– in the form of official policies or public stances taken in journals, legal briefs
and elsewhere – follow.
STATEMENTS FROM MAINSTREAM GROUPS
Child Welfare League of America
“All applicants [for adoption] should have an equal opportunity to
apply for the adoption of children, and receive fair and equal treat-
ment and consideration of their qualifications as adoptive parents,
under applicable law.
“Applicants should be fairly assessed on their abilities to success-
fully parent a child needing family membership and not on their
appearance, differing lifestyle, or sexual preference.
“Agencies should assess each applicant from the perspective
of what would be in the best interests of the child. Those interests
are paramount.
“Sexual preference should not be the sole criteria on which the suit-
ability of adoptive applicants is based. Consideration should be
given to other personality and maturity factors and on the ability of
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 25
the applicant to meet the specific needs of the individual child. The
needs of the child are the priority consideration in adoption.
“Gay/lesbian adoptive applicants should be assessed the same as
any other adoptive applicant. It should be recognized that sexual
orientation and the capacity to nurture a child are separate issues.
Staff and board training on cultural diversity should include factual
information about gays and lesbians as potential adoptive resources
for children needing families in order to dispel common myths
about gays and lesbians.
“Gay and lesbian applicants should be informed that biological
parents are told about potential adoptive families for their child,
including the sexual orientation of the prospective adoptive par-
ent(s). Some biological parents may choose not to consider gay or
lesbian families, and agencies usually follow the expressed wish-
es of the parent.”
From CWLA’s Standards Regarding Sexual Orientation of Applicants, adopted
in 1988
North American Council on Adoptable Children
“Everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster
care or adoption is entitled to fair and equal consideration regardless
of sexual orientation or differing life style or physical appearance.”
Policy statement adopted March 14, 1998
American Academy of Pediatrics
“Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their
parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all chil-
dren, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The
26 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable
body of professional literature provides evidence that children with
parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the
same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can
children whose parents are heterosexual. When two adults partici-
pate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that
comes with legal recognition.
“Children born or adopted into families headed by partners who are
of the same sex usually have only one biologic or adoptive legal par-
ent. The other partner in a parental role is called the “coparent” or
“second parent.” Because these families and children need the per-
manence and security that are provided by having two fully sanc-
tioned and legally defined parents, the Academy supports the legal
adoption of children by coparents or second parents. Denying legal
parent status through adoption to coparents or second parents pre-
vents these children from enjoying the psychologic and legal securi-
ty that comes from having 2 willing, capable, and loving parents.
“Several states have considered or enacted legislation sanctioning
second-parent adoption by partners of the same sex. In addition,
legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for
gay and lesbian partners, such as the law approving civil unions in
Vermont, can also attend to providing security and permanence for
the children of those partnerships.
“Many states have not yet considered legislative actions to ensure
the security of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. Rather,
adoption has been decided by probate or family courts on a case-by-
case basis. Case precedent is limited. It is important that a broad
ethical mandate exist nationally that will guide the courts in pro-
viding necessary protection for children through coparent adoption.
“Coparent or second-parent adoption protects the child’s right to
maintain continuing relationships with both parents. The legal sanc-
tion provided by coparent adoption accomplishes the following:
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 27
1. Guarantees that the second parent’s custody rights and respon-
sibilities will be protected if the first parent were to die or
become incapacitated. Moreover, second-parent adoption pro-
tects the child’s legal right of relationships with both parents. In
the absence of coparent adoption, members of the family of the
legal parent, should he or she become incapacitated, might suc-
cessfully challenge the surviving coparent’s rights to continue
to parent the child, thus causing the child to lose both parents.
2. Protects the second parent’s rights to custody and visitation if
the couple separates. Likewise, the child’s right to maintain
relationships with both parents after separation, viewed as
important to a positive outcome in separation or divorce of het-
erosexual parents, would be protected for families with gay or
lesbian parents.
3. Establishes the requirement for child support from both parents
in the event of the parents’ separation.
Ensures the child’s eligibility for health benefits from both parents.
Provides legal grounds for either parent to provide consent for med-
ical care and to make education, health care, and other important
decisions on behalf of the child.
Creates the basis for financial security for children in the event of
the death of either parent by ensuring eligibility to all appropriate
entitlements, such as Social Security survivors benefits.
On the basis of the acknowledged desirability that children have
and maintain a continuing relationship with two loving and sup-
portive parents, the Academy recommends that pediatricians do
the following:
•Be familiar with professional literature regarding gay and les-
bian parents and their children.
28 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
• Support the right of every child and family to the financial, psy-
chologic, and legal security that results from having legally
recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the
welfare of their children.
•Advocate for initiatives that establish permanency through
coparent or second-parent adoption for children of same-sex
partners through the judicial system, legislation, and communi-
ty education.”
Policy statement issued February 4, 2002
American Psychiatric Association
“Many gay men and women are parents. For example, estimates of
the numbers of lesbian mothers range from 1 to 5 million with the
number of children ranging from 6 to 14 million. Most gay parents
conceived their children in prior heterosexual marriages. Recently
an increasing number of gay parents have conceived children and
raised them from birth either as single parents or in committed rela-
tionships. Often this is done through alternative insemination,
adoption, or through foster parenting. Numerous studies have
shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy
and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households.
Children raised in gay or lesbian households do not show any
greater incidence of homosexuality or gender identity issues than
other children. Children raised in nontraditional homes with
gay/lesbian parents can encounter some special challenges related
to the ongoing stigma against homosexuality, but most children
surmount these problems.”
Fact Sheet on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 29
American Psychological Association
On the research about lesbian and gay parenting: “The results of existing
research comparing gay and lesbian parents to heterosexual parents and children
of gay or lesbian parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite uniform:
common stereotypes are not supported by the data... In summary, there is no evi-
dence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psycho-
social development among children of gay men and lesbians is compromised in
any respect relevant to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a sin-
gle study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any
significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evi-
dence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian par-
ents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable
children’s psycho-social growth.”
The APA’s resource, Lesbian and Gay Par
enting: A Resource for Psychologists,
1995
On child custody or placement: “The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation
of natural, or prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or pri-
mary variable considered in custody or placement cases.”
Adopted by the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives
on September 2 & 5, 1976
On foster parents: “The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of natural or
prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or primary variable
considered in custody or placement cases.”
Adopted by the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives
on September 2 & 5, 1976
American Psychological Association and National Association of
Social Workers
“[T]here is no empirical support for any presumption that a gay or
lesbian parent’s sexual orientation, or contact with that parent’s
30 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
same-sex partner, is or will be harmful to the children. Thus, any
assumption that restrictions on visitation are in the best interest of
children is contrary to the relevant scientific research. Visitation
decisions should be made on the basis of individualized, fact-based
assessments without regard to sexual orientation.
“Scientific research has consistently found that the sexual orienta-
tion of parents is not a predictive factor as to the parenting ability of
those parents or the psychological and social development of their
children. There is no empirical basis, therefore, to presume that
restricting visitation by a gay or lesbian parent is necessary to pro-
mote the best interests of a child. Two decades of scientific investi-
gation have, in fact, provided considerable evidence for the oppo-
site conclusion: that children who retain regular and unrestricted
contact with a gay or lesbian parent are as healthy psychologically
and socially as children raised by heterosexual parents, and that the
parenting skills of gay fathers and lesbian mothers are comparable
to their heterosexual counterparts. Further, there is evidence that
including the gay or lesbian parent’s partner in the child’s life may
generally have a positive effect.”
Amicus brief in Kimberly Y. Boswell v. Robert G. Bosell, filed Sept. 1998 in the
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Guiding Adoption Principles of
Child Welfare Agencies Nationwide
Public and private child welfare agencies approach their adoption work with
a shared vision and mission, articulated in what is essentially the “industry
standards” in adoption, produced by the nation’s oldest and largest chil-
dren’s group. These 166-page standards are rooted in a statement of core
values, which follows.
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 31
Core Values and Assumptions Underlying Adoption Services
Given the complexity of the broader societal context in which adoption
practice now occurs, it is especially important to reaffirm the fundamental
values that provide a framework for professional adoption services. The
core values listed below form the foundation for the ethical development
and delivery of adoption services.
• All children have a right to receive care, protection, and love.
• The family is the primary means by which children are provided with the
essentials for their well-being.
• The birth family constitutes the preferred means of providing family life for
children.
• When adoption is the plan for a child, the extended family should be sup-
ported as the first option for adoptive placement, if appropriate.
• Adoption as a child welfare service should be focused on meeting the
needs of children to become full and permanent members of families.
• All children are adoptable.
• Siblings should be placed together in adoption unless serious reason
necessitate their separation.
• Adoption is a life long experience that has a unique impact on all the par-
ties involved.
• Adoption should validate and assist children in developing their individual,
cultural, ethnic, and racial identity, and should enhance their self-esteem.
• All adoption services should be based on principles of respect, honesty,
self-determination, informed decision-making, and open communication.
• All applicants for services should be treated in a fair and nondiscriminato-
ry manner.
• Changes in adoption practice, policy, and law demand professional expert-
ise to assist birth families, adoptive families, and adopted individuals.
• The knowledge, skill, and experience of professional social workers should
be used in developing and providing all aspects of adoption services.
• The practice of adoption, currently and in the future, will require collabo-
ration if all parties in an adoption are to be served effectively.
From the Child Welfare League of America’s Standards of Excellence for
Adoption Services (Revised Edition), 2000.
32 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATIONS
None of the mainstream health and children’s groups say that all gay people can
be good parents – just as they wouldn’t say that about all straight people. While
these groups have slightly varying positions on lesbian and gay parenting, they
all agree that child placement and custody decisions should be based on chil-
dren’s specific needs and prospective parents’ ability to meet those needs. The
guiding principle that these decisions should be made case-by-case, in the best
interests of children, came to prominence as adoption moved from being focused
on adults’ needs and toward being a service for meeting the needs of children. A
growing body of public policy guidance provides criteria for determining what’s
best for kids – and then how to provide it.
The Child Welfare League of America’s Standards of Excellence for Adoption
Services “provide a vision of what is best for children and their families” for the
group’s 1,000 private and government-run member agencies that serve 3 million
kids and their families each year. These 166-page standards, which the group
says “are widely used to influence practice throughout North America,” also are
a significant basis for the criteria that the Council on Accreditation of Services
for Families and Children uses to evaluate state and local children’s agencies.
The standards describe in detail how government or private agencies should
assess children’s needs (see box, page 34) and how that assessment should be
used. “When the agency providing adoption services is responsible for selecting
the adoptive family, it should base its selection of a family for a particular child
on a careful review of the information collected in the child assessment and on a
determination of which of the approved and prepared adoptive families could
most likely meet the child’s needs,” the standards explain.
Elsewhere in the standards, the purpose of adoption itself serves as a reminder of
the top priority for these agencies: “In placing children for adoption, the agency’s
main objective should be to ensure the safety and well-being of those children.
The children’s need for protection, nurturing and stability, which are essential to
healthy personal growth and development, should be the primary determinants of
the services provided by the agency.”
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 33
34 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Since the Child Welfare League of America standards were first published in
1938, they have evolved to focus solidly on the needs of children and to explic-
itly steer agencies away from investigating aspects of prospective parents that are
not related to children’s well-being. “In adoption practice, the child is the pri-
mary client, and the best interest of the child is paramount in decisions concern-
ing his or her adoption,” the standards say. “Families are viewed as potential
resources for children needing adoption, rather than as an agency’s primary
clients. The agency’s responsibility has also shifted from investigating families
to educating and preparing them to meet the needs of children placed with them.”
Case-by-case evaluation is also the traditional – and appropriate – approach of
the courts. Family court judges who handle second-parent adoptions, custody
and visitation arrangements after divorce, and foster care placements are signif-
icantly restricted by broad policies or laws that prevent them from recognizing
lesbians and gay men as parents.
When the New Jersey State Assembly was considering legislation that would
prevent biological parents’ same-sex partners from being legally recognized in
their parenting role, ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project attorney Leslie
Cooper – who had helped win a landmark case establishing the rights the bill
sought to undo – testified in a legislative committee. “Each child’s circum-
stances are unique. All children do not fit into the same mold,” she told law-
makers, who ultimately rejected the bill. “Personal family situations are diffi-
cult to subject to broad, sweeping provisions. The legislature therefore defers
to family court judges who, faced every day with individual children in indi-
vidual circumstances, are able to determine the best custody or visitation
arrangement for each child.”
Specific Criteria for Assessing Children’s Needs
Children’s needs and best interests are not as subjective as the debate over
gay parenting may make it seem. They’re assessed using specific criteria,
which vary but are generally based on the same basic principles. In addition
to psychiatric and medical testing, there are specific ways that child welfare
agencies assess children’s circumstances and needs – and based on those
findings, eventually place them with adoptive parents who are best suited to
help them grow into healthy, productive adults. Following is part of the cri-
teria laid out in the “industry standards” in adoption, produced by the
nation’s oldest and largest children’s group.
Assessment of Children
The comprehensive assessment of a child prior to adoptive placement serves
to identify the unique needs and strengths of the child and the type of fam-
ily that will be best able to provide a safe and nurturing permanent family
for the child.
Assessment and History Gathering
The agency providing adoption services should conduct a comprehensive
assessment of those children for whom the permanency plan is adoption.The
assessment should encompass any information required to be collected and
disclosed by state law, as well as the child’s and birth family’s health and
background information.
At a minimum, the following health and background information should be
collected and disclosed to prospective adoptive parents:
As available, the child’s current medical, dental, developmental, and psycho-
logical history, including an account of the child’s prenatal care, medical
condition at birth, and developmental milestones; any drugs or medications
taken by the child’s birth parents during pregnancy; any prior medical, psy-
chological, or psychiatric examinations and diagnoses of the child; any phys-
ical, sexual, or emotional abuse or neglect suffered by the child; any devel-
opmental assessments reflecting deviations from typical development; the
child’s current developmental level; and a record of any immunizations and
health care received while in out-of-home or other care.
Relevant information concerning the medical or mental health history of the
child’s birth parents, siblings, and relatives, including multiple generations
whenever possible; any known disease or hereditary predisposition to
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 35
disease; age and cause of death of close relatives of the birth parents; any
notably positive health findings such as longevity; any addiction by birth
family members to drugs or alcohol; the health of the child’s mother during
her pregnancy; and the health of each parent at the time of the child’s birth.
Relevant information concerning the social history of the child, including:
• the child’s personality and temperament, including sensitivities, likes
and dislikes, and special aptitudes and interests, particularly for the
older child;
• the child’s enrollment and performance in school, results of education-
al testing, and any special educational needs;
• any significant events that could affect the child’s capacity to relate to
a new family;
• an account of the child’s past and existing relationships with any indi-
viduals with whom the child has regularly lived or visited;
• any history related to the child’s placement in out-of-home care, includ-
ing reason for placement, attachments and moves prior to placement,
length of time in care, type of care (family foster care, group care, resi-
dential treatment), number of placements and reasons for re-placements;
•letters, pictures, videotapes, gifts, etc., from the birth family for the
child; and
• reasons for the child’s adoptive placement.
Relevant information concerning the social history of the child’s parents, sib-
lings, and other relatives, including:
• the family’s racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious background, and a
general description of the child’s parents, siblings, and other close rel-
atives, if known (to include a photograph of the child’s parents when-
ever possible);
• specific information on the child’s racial, ethnic, or cultural background
if distinct from that of other members of the family;
• relationship of the parents and their reason(s) for selecting adoption as
a plan;
36 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
• tribal affiliation of an American Indian family, as well as other informa-
tion needed to clarify the legal status of such children and the tribal
jurisdiction regarding their adoption;
• level of educational attainment of birth parents and siblings of the child,
if any, including information about any known learning disabilities;
• special skills, interests, or aptitudes;
• specific accomplishments of the birth parents or other members of the
birth family;
• employment and/or vocational information of the birth parents;
• any background information related to criminal convictions for a felony,
previous judicial orders terminating parental rights, or substantial
reports of child abuse or neglect; and
• any long-term history of multiple generations that provides a picture of
the birth family over time.
From the Child Welfare League of America’s Standards of Excellence for
Adoption Services (Revised Edition), 2000.
RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE
Because of this emphasis on case-by-case determinations, the children’s advoca-
cy community agrees on very few broad restrictions against prospective parents.
The increasingly solid rejection of policies or laws that declare entire categories
of prospective parents ineligible for adoption, custody, or foster care leaves these
decisions in the hands of case-workers, local agencies, and family court judges
who can get to know the children and the prospective parents.
Several states have laws specifically regulating which adults can adopt chil-
dren. All of this is regulated at the state level, and all 50 states (plus
Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) have laws on who can adopt and
who can be adopted. Generally speaking, any single adult or a husband and
wife jointly can apply to adopt. A step-parent can also adopt her spouse’s bio-
logical children. In more than a dozen states, there are no further state laws reg-
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 37
ulating who is eligible adopt. The remaining states either have broad laws or
specific limitations on age and residency.
For example, in Wyoming, an adult must be “fit and competent” in order to adopt
children. In Illinois, an adopting adult must be “reputable.” Puerto Rico prohibits
adoption by anyone who is declared incompetent or incarcerated. In Washington,
a prospective adoptive parent must be “legally competent.” Several states speci-
fy the age of adulthood for purposes of adoption. Other states set a minimum age
difference between the adopting parents and the person they’re adopting. States
also have varying residency requirements for adoptive parents (ranging from a
few days to one year).
At the local children’s service agency level, groups have varying criteria for par-
enting applicants. Generally these criteria are related to the agency’s mission,
auspices, and geographic location or coverage. Their requirements differ greatly,
but some include income, length of marriage (if applicable), religious affiliation,
and age of prospective parents.
While the Child Welfare League of America’s Standards of Excellence for
Adoption Services permit such restrictions, the group is careful to advise caution:
“The [public or private] agency’s eligibility requirements for adoptive applicants
should be designed to allow for creativity in developing families as resources
rather than to inappropriately eliminate families from consideration.”
BY THE NUMBERS: CHILD WELFARE AND GAY PARENTING
In the abstract, there are compelling public policy arguments against restricting
gay parenting. But to really understand the issue and be able to begin addressing
it, we have to look closely at the child welfare system and the kids it’s supposed
to be serving. Statistics on children are not centrally kept, and the federal gov-
ernment stopped collecting comprehensive data on adoption in the mid-1990s
but continued keeping foster care statistics. The information in this section is
from two branches of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services – the 2000
report of that agency’s Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS) and current and historical figures from its sister sub-agency, the
National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (NAIC). While statistics can be
38 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
dehumanizing, they help us fully realize the problem – and, consequently, they
help us see much more clearly that further limiting the pool of qualified parents
cannot possibly be the answer.
Foster care systems in the U.S. are overburdened with more children than
they can handle and not enough qualified, adoptive adults coming forward
to help. In fact, in a six-month period, the number of kids entering foster
care was three times the number of kids adopted out of foster care during
that entire year.
• 568,000 kids are in foster care nationwide.
•117,000 of these kids are waiting to be adopted.
• 46,000 kids are adopted from public child welfare agencies
yearly.
• In the six months between Oct. 1, 1998 and March 31,
1999, 143,000 kids entered foster care.
Once in foster care, kids often languish for years without being placed in
permanent, loving homes.
•The median age of kids in foster care who are waiting to
be adopted is 7.8 years. 2% were less than a year old; 35%
were 1-5 years old; 37% were 6-10 years old; 23% were
11-15 years old; and 3% were 16-18 years old.
• They had spent a median of 38 continuous months in fos-
ter care.
• 33% of them have spent more than three years in continu-
ous foster care.
• 27% had spent more than five years continuously in fos-
ter care.
• Each year, roughly 25,000 kids leave the foster care sys-
tem not because they find permanent homes, but because
they reach their 18th birthday and “age out” of the system.
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 39
When kids are finally adopted out of foster care, it’s after a long struggle to
get through the system – and they are frequently placed in families that fall
outside the traditional model of a married mother and father.
• The median age of kids when they were adopted was 6.4
years. 46% were 1-5 years old; 37% were 6-10 years old;
14% were 11-15 years old; 2% were 16-18 years old; and
2% were under a year old.
• It took on average 12 months for these children to be
adopted after the termination of parental rights.
• For 18% of kids, it took more than 24 months to be adopt-
ed after the termination of parental rights.
• Of those parents adopting kids out of foster care, 31%
were single women; 2% were single men; 1% were unmar-
ried couples.
•The adoptive parents who took these kids were non-rela-
tives in 20% of the cases and were the kids’ foster parents
in 64% of the cases.
A national crisis in child welfare – with kids backlogged in foster care wait-
ing to be adopted and not enough qualified adoptive parents coming for-
ward – has developed gradually over the last couple of decades.
• In 1977 – as in 1997 – about 20% of kids in foster care
were free for adoption. But of the kids who were free for
adoption in 1977, 50% were in adoptive placements, while
by the end of 1982 only 34% were in adoptive placements.
• The number of kids in foster care has increased yearly
since 1984. At the end of 1995, there were about 483,000
kids in foster care, a 72% increase from 1986.
• Between 1986 and 1996, the number of children in the fos-
ter care system jumped 90%, while the number of foster
families fell by 3%.
• Between 1951 and 1975, the percentage of adoptive place-
ments by public agencies more than doubled from 18% in
1951 to 38% in 1975. It has since fallen to about 15-20%
of all adoptions.
40 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
As nontraditional families – who show up statistically as single adoptive par-
ents – increasingly adopt children, they are often providing homes for “less
desirable” adoptive children with special needs.
• In 1970, single people who applied to adopt were turned
down – in fact, some states had laws banning adoption by
single people.
• As the 1970s progressed, 0.5% to 4% of adoptive parents
were single. In the 1980s, it was 8% to 34%. In 2000,
33% of kids adopted from foster care were taken by sin-
gle parents.
•About 25% of adoptions of children with special needs are
by single men and women, and about 5% of other adop-
tions are by single people.
“Each year, more than 110,000 children in foster care await adoption.
These children have special needs: the majority are between the ages of
7 and 16; most have physical, emotional, mental, or learning disabili-
ties; and many are brothers and sisters who need homes together. Their
greatest need, however, is for a loving home.”
– U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Chapter 3: The Public Policy Case 41
T
o a growing number of people in this country, lesbian and gay parents are no
longer strangers. They are sitting next to you at your kids’ basketball game.
They are your sister and her partner patiently asking their daughter – your niece
– to stop crawling under the dinner table. One recent nationwide survey found
that 56% of those asked say they believe gay and lesbian couples can be just as
good parents as heterosexual couples. For these people, gay parenting is not
something to be debated, justified, or feared. It’s just the way some families are.
But not everyone has made up their mind about gay parenting, and unfortunate-
ly not everyone has had the chance to get to know gay parents and families
directly. Openly lesbian and gay parenting is a relatively new social phenome-
non, and it makes sense that courts, lawmakers, and lots of other people want to
learn more about it. Social science studies of families headed by gay parents are
one good way to learn more – and to put to rest some of the fears and misunder-
standings about gay parents. The studies present a convincing case against
restricting lesbian and gay parenting. They confirm that these families are made
up of kids and parents who are just as healthy and happy as any other family.
This chapter of “Too High A Price” provides details about these studies to help
people learn more and to have more informed discussions and debate. Included
is background information on which studies were selected, the consistent find-
ings across every study, and concise summaries of 22 leading studies. The pur-
pose is to demystify social science by translating academic jargon into everyday
language and to extract the key findings from each study (avoiding lengthier dis-
cussions about the study’s theories and precise research tools). The studies may
not offer the same insight a visit with a family headed by gay parents would, but
they do offer a glimpse into the lives of many of these families.
4
The Social Science Case
Gay Parents and
Their Kids are Just as
Happy and Healthy
WHICH STUDIES?
The studies we have chosen are the top studies on gay parenting in the field of
child development and psychology. There are a few so-called “studies” that
claim lesbian and gay parents are harmful to children, but these are not actual
studies. They are not legitimate, respected social science studies that use proper
research methods. They are nothing but sham reports conducted by people who
have been thrown out of mainstream, professional organizations and by people
whose work has never been published in any mainstream, peer-reviewed social
science journals. In addition to citing fake research, some so-called pro-family
activists try to trick the public. They make claims about lesbian and gay parents
by using studies about unmarried parents. But general studies of unmarried par-
ents do not analyze openly lesbian and gay parents. They don’t present a shred
of information about the lives of families headed by lesbian and gay parents. (See
Chapter 6.) Here is the bottom line: no credible, scientifically conducted study
that has focused on gay parents and their children has found any harmful effects
either in the quality of parenting or in the well-being of children.
This is not to say that the social science studies here offer absolute answers. As
is true of any social science research, there are limitations to the extent to which
the studies can be used to make generalizations about every family in a given
population. To be able to use studies to generalize, you need a number of studies
that reach similar results, involving a large number of participants who have been
randomly selected. The numbers of participants in the studies presented here
were generally small. And since it is difficult to identify gay parents unless they
identify themselves, the participants were not randomly selected.
None of that is to say the results are worthless, just that they have to be used
thoughtfully. While it is premature to extrapolate the details of any of the studies
to the general population, they all come to the same conclusion – that gay par-
ents are as capable as heterosexual parents – strongly suggesting that the studies
may be widely applicable. After all, they have assessed over 1,000 children and
500 lesbian or gay parents across diverse settings and social locations (MCCT
and Canada A.G., Affidavit of Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz). Not a single
study has found any indication that children are harmed by having gay parents.
Top child advocacy organizations agree. (See Chapter 3.) The American
Psychological Association, the National Council for Adoptable Children, the
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 43
Child Welfare League of America, and others have taken public positions against
restricting lesbian and gay parenting, based at least partially on the results of the
studies summarized here. In February 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics
joined this growing chorus against discrimination with a policy statement in sup-
port of gay adoption:
The American Association of Pediatrics recognizes that a consider-
able body of professional literature provides evidence that children
with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages
and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development
as can children whose parents are heterosexual.
(“Coparent or Second-Parent Adoptions by Same-Sex Parents,”
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health,
Pediatrics Vol. 109, No. 2 February 2002.)
The professionals whose full-time concern is the safety and well-being of chil-
dren – from child psychologists to social workers to pediatricians – find these
studies to be credible and reliable enough to base child policies on the infor-
mation they provide. If the experts on children find that the social science stud-
ies make a strong case against restricting gay parents, then so should lawmak-
ers and courts.
WHAT DO THE STUDIES LOOK FOR?
Researchers have focused on three primary areas:
• the children’s development (overall well-being, self-
esteem, and peer relationships);
• the skills, practices, and roles of the parents; and
• the gender and sexual development in the children.
WHO DO THEY STUDY?
The vast majority of gay parenting studies focus on lesbian mothers. These
include both lesbians raising children from previous heterosexual marriages and
44 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
lesbians who conceive children through donor insemination. Of the studies of
gay fathers, all have analyzed gay fathers with children from previous (hetero-
sexual) marriages.
The studies involving donor-inseminated mothers compare lesbian biological
mothers and their partners to donor-inseminated heterosexual women and their
husbands. There are two groups of studies with divorced mothers. One group
compares single, divorced lesbian mothers with single, divorced heterosexual
mothers. The other compares single, divorced heterosexual mothers with
divorced lesbian mothers with partners.
No well known studies have examined lesbians and gay men who have adopted
children with no biological relationship to either parent.
WHAT DO THE STUDIES SAY ABOUT THE KIDS?
The sexual orientation of parents does not harm the overall psychological
well-being of their children. A 1997 study of the children of donor-inseminat-
ed lesbians and their partners and the children of donor-inseminated heterosexu-
al women and their husbands found no difference between the two groups of
children in the areas of emotional and behavioral problems. (See Brewaeys, p.
57). At least seven other studies that examined children’s psychological well-
being found the same result; no study has found otherwise.
The sexual orientation of parents does not harm the self-esteem of their chil-
dren. While only a few studies have focused specifically on the self-esteem of
children, others have focused on a variety of emotional and psychological factors
in children that affect self-esteem. None of the researchers have found that chil-
dren of lesbians and gay men suffer adverse affects. (See Huggins, p. 81.)
The sexual orientation of parents does not harm their children’s ability to
form healthy relationships with peers. Of the most respected studies, at least
seven focus on kids’ relationships with their peers, and all of them agree that no
significant problems were found with kids raised by lesbians and gay men. What
has been found to influence kids’ social relationships with their peers is not the
sexual orientation of their parents, but instead whether their parents are happy in
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 45
their relationships with their partners. (See Chan, p. 59.) In at least one study,
daughters of lesbians rated themselves as more popular among their peers than
other children rated themselves. (See Hotvedt, p. 79.)
WHAT DO THE STUDIES SAY ABOUT GAY PARENTS?
No study has found any evidence to support the claim that lesbians and gay men
are unfit to be parents.
The parenting skills of lesbian and gay parents is found to be the same or
slightly better than those of heterosexual parents.
No study that has specifically measured parents’ capabilities and skills found any
evidence that indicates gay and lesbian parents are bad parents. A number of the
studies found that there are areas in which gay parents actually tested better than
their heterosexual counterparts. In one 1982 study, lesbian mothers were found
to respond to behavior problems in a way that was more oriented toward the
needs of their children than heterosexual mothers. (See Miller, p. 89.) Another
study found that lesbian mothers had significantly more parenting awareness
skills. (See Flaks, p. 63.) Gay fathers were found to be more communicative and
more strict in setting limits on their kids’ behavior than heterosexual fathers. (See
Bigner (89), p. 54)
The sexual orientation of parents does not harm the quality of their rela-
tionships with their children.
No study has found that the quality of parent-child relationships is harmed by gay
parenting. More than one study found that the quality of parent-child relation-
ships between lesbian, non-biological mothers is better than that between het-
erosexual fathers and their children. (See Brewaeys, p. 57; Flaks, p. 63; and
Miller, p. 89.)
Sexual orientation does not determine the overall mental health of parents.
No study of lesbians and gay men raising children has found any evidence to sup-
port the claim that lesbian and gay parents are unfit because they have more men-
tal health problems than heterosexuals. The groups of gay parents and the groups
of heterosexual parents did not differ significantly on any of the measures reflect-
ing overall mental health. (See Golombok, p. 65.)
46 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
DO GAY PARENTS MAKE GAY KIDS?
Kids raised by lesbians and gay men are not any more likely than kids raised
by heterosexual parents to question their gender identity.
No study has found that children raised by lesbian and gay parents differ from
their peers in terms of overall psychological concerns related to gender.
Kids raised by lesbian and gay parents are less confined by traditional gen-
der roles than kids raised by heterosexual parents.
The studies examined the children’s behaviors in play, dress, physicality, school
activities, and occupational aspirations. A number of the studies found that there
were differences between the two groups of children in these areas. For example,
daughters of lesbians were more likely to have career aspirations that were not
confined to stereotypically “feminine occupations.” This study found that 52%
of daughters of lesbians want to have careers as doctors, engineers, and astro-
nauts, while only 21% of daughters raised by heterosexual mothers have the
same aspirations. (See Green, p. 72.) Other studies found that children of gay
parents do not have stereotypical notions of which toys are appropriate for girls
and which toys are appropriate for boys. (See Miller, p. 89.)
Children raised by lesbian and gay parents are not more likely to identify as
gay or lesbian themselves.
Only one study has traced children of lesbians and gay men from when they were
young to adulthood. In this study, no differences were found in the proportion of
each group that reported experiencing same-sex attractions. Children of lesbians
were more likely to have considered the possibility of having a same-sex rela-
tionship and were more likely to have had a same-sex sexual experience. (See
Golombok, p. 70.)
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 47
A CONVERSATION WITH PROFESSOR JUDITH STACEY
Judith Stacey is a senior scholar with the Council on Contemporary Families,
Professor of Sociology, and the Streisand Professor of Contemporary Gender
Studies at the University of Southern California. In 2001, she and Timothy J.
Biblarz published a review of the social science research on lesbian and gay par-
enting called, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” in the
American Sociological Review.
Florida and conservative activists everywhere argue that heterosexuals make
better parents than gay men or lesbians. Is there anything in the body of social
science research that supports this claim?
No, nothing at all. Significant, reliable social scientific evidence indicates that
lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as heterosexual par-
ents. The research also shows that children of same-sex couples are as emotion-
ally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially suc-
cessful as children raised by heterosexual parents. No credible social science evi-
dence supports Florida’s claim.
Florida and other states have used so-called experts in social science who try to
discredit the studies you cite (and the ones we summarize in this book). They
claim that these studies used flawed research methods and resulted in flawed
findings. What is your response?
The studies that have been conducted are certainly not perfect–virtually no study
is. It’s almost never possible to transform complex social relationships, such as
parent-child relationships, into adequate, quantifiable measures, and because
many lesbians and gay men remain in the closet, we cannot know if the partici-
pants in the studies are representative of all gay people. However, the studies we
reviewed are just as reliable and respected as studies in other areas of child devel-
opment and psychology. So, most of those so-called experts are really leveling
attacks on well-accepted social science methods. Yet they do not raise objections
to studies that are even less rigorous or generalizable on such issues as the impact
of divorce on children. It seems evident that the critics employ a double-standard.
They attack these particular studies not because the research methods differ from
or are inferior to most studies of family relationships but because these critics
48 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
politically oppose equal family rights for lesbians and gay men.
The studies we discussed have been published in rigorously peer-reviewed and
highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on gener-
ally accepted social scientific standards for research on child development.
Those journals include Child Development and Developmental Psychology, the
two flagship journals in the field of child development. The first is published by
the 5,000-member academic Society for Research in Child Development, and the
second is published by the American Psychological Association.
There are other reviews and research out there that not only criticize the studies
you cite but also come up with findings that actually say lesbians and gay men
should not be parents. Why don’t you include those studies in your review?
There is not a single, respectable social scientist conducting and publishing
research in this area today who claims that gay and lesbian parents harm chil-
dren. The dubious studies you mention were produced primarily by people who
have been discredited and even expelled from the American Psychological
Association (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA). When
people claim that studies show gay parents harm children, they often cite people
like Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron is the primary disreputable and discredited
figure in this literature. He was expelled from the APA and censored by the ASA
for unethical scholarly practices, such as selective, misleading representations of
research and making claims that could not be substantiated.
Last year, you and your colleague Tim Biblarz released a new review of the
existing studies on lesbian and gay parenting. This review caused a bit of a com-
motion in the media. Are people representing the review accurately? What did
you say in the review that caused so much controversy?
In our review we found that many researchers in this field shied away from
studying or analyzing any areas of difference between families with lesbian and
gay parents and those with heterosexual parents. In contrast, we emphasized
some of the scattered findings of small, but interesting differences that have been
reported in some of this research. Conservative activists and journalists immedi-
ately seized on our discussion of these differences and began to cite these and our
article as evidence in support of their efforts to deny partnership and parenting
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 49
rights to lesbians and gay men. This is a serious misreading and abuse of our
work. None of the significant differences reported in the research apply to child
self-esteem, psychological well-being, or social adjustment. Nor were there dif-
ferences in parents’ self-esteem, mental health, or commitment to their children.
In other words, even though we noted some differences, we emphasized that the
differences were not deficits. In fact, the studies found no negative effects of les-
bian and gay parenting, and a few studies reported some differences that could
represent a few advantages of lesbian parenting.
What are some of the differences you observed?
Well, for example, several studies found that lesbian co-mothers share family
responsibilities more equally than heterosexual married parents, and some
research hints that children benefit from egalitarian co-parenting.
Afew studies found that lesbians worry less than heterosexual parents about the
gender conformity of their children. Perhaps that helps to account for a few stud-
ies that found that sons of lesbians play less aggressively and that children of les-
bians communicate their feelings more freely, aspire to a wider range of occupa-
tions, and score higher on self-esteem. I think most people would see these as
positive things, but some of the critics have misrepresented these differences as
evidence that the children are suffering from gender confusion.
Finally, some studies reported that lesbian mothers feel more comfortable dis-
cussing sexuality with their children and accepting their children’s sexuality –
whatever it might be. More to the point are data reported in a 25-year British
study. Although few of the young adults identified themselves as gay or lesbian,
a larger minority of those with lesbian mothers did report that they had at one
time or another considered or actually had a same-sex relationship.
Are you saying that the social science finds that children of lesbians and gays are
more likely to be gay themselves?
Sexuality is far more complicated than that. Most gay adults, after all, were brought
up by straight parents. We are still in the dark ages when it comes to understand-
ing the roots of specific sexual attractions. Regardless of the relative impact of
nature and nurture, it seems likely that growing up with gay parents should reduce
50 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
a child’s reluctance to acknowledge, accept, or act upon same-sex sexual desires if
they experience them. Because the first generation of children parented by self-
identified lesbians or gay men is only now reaching adulthood, it is too soon to
know if the finding in that one study will prove to be generally true.
What are the factors in parents that have been shown to negatively impact
children?
Some factors in parents have been found consistently to correlate to problems in
child development. These include: poverty, a low level of parental education, a
high level of conflict between parents, and depression in parents.
Do you know of any studies currently underway that may shed more light on les-
bian and gay parenting?
I’ve heard that there is new research underway on donor-inseminated mothers
and on gay custodial fathers, particularly on gay men who become fathers
through surrogacy. There are also additional longitudinal studies of lesbian moth-
erhood in progress. I’m confident that we will be hearing about new studies in
the very near future.
What are the areas of gay parenting that you think new studies should explore?
There’s a real need for a study on adoptive parents, one that compares children
adopted by gay parents with children adopted by heterosexual parents. To my
knowledge, there has never been such a study. We also need more research on
gay fathers – especially studies that compare gay fathers to heterosexual fathers
and studies that include gay fathers who have children through surrogacy or
other means. And it’s critical to have studies with more diverse representations
of lesbian and gay parents, specifically in terms of race, ethnicity, education,
income, and nationality.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 51
THE SUMMARIES
Each individual summary describes who was studied, how the researchers
recruited participants, the different aspects of the families that were studied, the
findings of the study, and general information about the limitations of the study.
In the interest of making the summaries concise and clear, we exclude details
about methodology, and we also exclude speculative, theoretical discussions of
the findings. We do not exclude any findings of significant differences between
the groups studied.
Some studies had more conclusive, quantitative findings, while others offered
descriptive information about the children and their parents. Most of the studies
we include are more quantitative in their findings. Though the descriptive stud-
ies offer less generalizable conclusions, we include them because they offer use-
ful information about the inner workings of the families that were studied. The
more quantitative social science research determines whether findings are “sta-
tistically significant.” A finding (for example, the observed differences between
two groups) is described as statistically significant when it can be demonstrated
that the probability of obtaining such a difference by chance only, is relatively
low. We use the term “significant differences,” as shorthand for “statistically sig-
nificant differences.” If the studies themselves do not report that differences are
significant, then we do not use the term significant.
The accompanying chart of the studies notes what areas each study measures.
52 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 53
Bigner, 1989. x
Bigner, 1992. x
Brewaeys, 1997. x x x x
Chan, Brooks, 1998 (a). x x x
Chan, Raboy, 1998 (b). x x x
Flaks, 1995. x x x
Golombok, 1983. x x x x x
Tasker and Golombok, 1995. x x x x
Golombok and Tasker, 1996. x
Green, 1986. x x x
Harris, 1986. x x
Hoeffer, 1981. x x
Hotvedt, 1982. x x x
Huggins, 1989. x x
Javaid, 1993. x x x
Kirkpatrick, 1981. x x
Kweskin, 1982. x
McNeill, 1998. x x x
Miller, 1981. x
Patterson, 1994. x x
Rand, 1982. x
Sullivan, 1996. x
How many studies include this measure? 817 5 86 84 4
Child's Psychological Well-Being
Child's Self-Esteem
Child's Social Adjustment with Peers
Quality of Parent/Child Relationship
Parenting Practices
Parent's Psychological Well-Being
Child's Gender Behavior
Child's Sexuality
Parent's Preferences for Child's Gender/Sexuality
CHART
This chart lists the leading
studies and what they measure.
Parenting Behaviors of Homosexual and Heterosexual Fathers
Jerry J. Bigner and R. Brooke Jacobsen
Summary: This study investigated parenting behaviors in heterosexual
and gay fathers. Gay fathers did not differ significantly from
heterosexual fathers in terms of overall parental involvement,
intimacy, and parenting skills. There were some differences
between the groups in approaches to parenting; for example,
gay fathers tended to be more communicative with their chil-
dren and to enforce rules more strictly.
Measures: Parenting Practices
Type of Family: Single-parent heterosexual and gay fathers with at least two
children
Limitations: Small, non-random sample size; participants were studied
based only on their self-reported answers to questions about
parenting
Bigner and Jacobsen’s study is one of the few studies that focuses on gay fathers.
Atotal of 68 packets were sent to gay fathers in a support group in Denver,
Colorado, of which 33 were returned. The 33 gay father participants were then
matched with 33 fathers, presumed to be non-gay, who were selected randomly
from a large subject pool of participants that had previously participated in a
study. The men were all white, had a high level of income, and lived in an urban
area. The mean age was 40 years, and the mean level of education was high
school graduate. The group included 6 married men, 48 divorcees, 8 men who
were separated, and 4 who were never married. All participants had at least two
children, and the mean age of the children was 11 years.
Each father was given the Iowa Parent Behavior Inventory to complete. The
test is composed of 36 items designed to measure five factors: 1) involvement
with children; 2) limit-setting; 3) responsiveness; 4) reasoning guidance; and
5) intimacy.
Significant differences between the two groups of fathers were found in three
factors: 1) limit-setting; 2) responsiveness; and 3) reasoning guidance. Gay
fathers tended to be more consistent in setting and enforcing limits on children’s
behaviors. Additionally, they were more likely to promote cognitive skills by
54 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
explaining rules. They placed greater emphasis on verbal communication and
tended to be more responsive to the perceived needs of their children. Although
no differences were found in the factors of involvement and intimacy as a whole,
differences were found in specific areas. Gay fathers went to greater lengths to
act as a resource for activities with children. Also, although gay fathers showed
no differences with other fathers in terms of intimacy with children, gay fathers
were less likely to be affectionate with their partners in front of their children.
Gay fathers were more egalitarian and more likely to encourage their children to
discuss their fears with them. Overall, however, gay fathers and heterosexual
fathers had few differences in parenting abilities and skills.
This study is limited by its size and non-random sampling and because the par-
ticipants were recruited in different manners. Additionally, the study is based
solely on the fathers’ self-reporting about their own parenting behaviors.
1989. Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 18, pp. 173-186.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 55
Adult Responses to Child Behavior and Attitudes Toward Fathering:
Gay and Non-Gay Fathers
Jerry J. Bigner, R. Brooke Jacobsen
Summary: This study found no differences between parenting behaviors
and attitudes about fathering between gay and heterosexual
fathers.
Measures: Parenting Practices
Type of Family: Gay fathers and heterosexual single fathers
Limitations: Small, non-random sample
This study looked at parenting behaviors and attitudes toward the role of father-
ing among gay and heterosexual fathers. The authors recruited 24 self-identified
gay fathers from a gay fathers support group. They recruited 29 other men from
a support group for single parents. They assumed the men in the single parent
support group were heterosexual and did not specifically ask these men about
their sexual orientation. A majority of the men had at least one to two children.
They were mostly well-educated and entirely non-Hispanic white.
The authors used two testing methods. The first was designed to discern atti-
tudes toward discipline. This method placed these attitudes into three cate-
gories: child-oriented, parent-oriented, and task-oriented. The second placed
the fathers’ overall parenting characteristics into two categories: traditional and
developmental. Traditional characteristics place less emphasis on training and
are more authoritative; developmental characteristics emphasize training chil-
dren to be self-reliant.
The authors found almost no difference between the two groups of fathers. The
parenting attitudes of both groups of men leaned heavily toward developmental
parenting characteristics.
1992. Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 99-112.
56 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Donor Insemination:
Child Development and Family Functioning in Lesbian Mother Families
A. Brewaeys, I. Ponjaert, E.V. Van Hall, and S. Golombok
Summary: This study found that children in lesbian mother homes were
as positive and healthy as children in homes headed by a moth-
er and a father. Researchers compared children of lesbian cou-
ples conceived via donor insemination, children of heterosex-
ual couples conceived via donor insemination, and children of
heterosexual couples who conceived conventionally. Overall,
lesbian non-biological mothers were found to have better rela-
tionships with their children than the heterosexual fathers. No
differences were found between the three groups of children.
Measures: Child’s Psychological Well-Being, Parenting Practices,
Quality of Parent-Child Relationship, Child’s Gender
Behavior
Type of Family: Lesbian donor-inseminated, heterosexual donor-inseminated,
heterosexual naturally conceived
Limitations: Small sample size, though this is generally considered to be
one of the stronger studies
The Brewaeys study consisted of 30 lesbian two-mother families who conceived
via donor-insemination, 38 heterosexual families who conceived via donor insem-
ination, and 30 heterosexual families who conceived naturally. Each family had a
child between 4 to 8 years. The families were recruited through fertility and obstet-
rics departments at two Belgian hospitals. The biological mothers were inter-
viewed in their homes and the children were given a psychological assessment.
Most of the demographics of the groups, such as the mean age of the mother, the
mean age of the children, and the number of children in the family, did not dif-
fer greatly. There were some differences in education levels and genders of the
children, but in general, sexual orientation and means of conception were the
only differences between the groups.
The researchers measured the quality of the parent-child relationship through a
standardized interview of the parents. Data was also obtained about the division
of professional and childcare activities and the extent to which partners were
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 57
helpful with disciplinary issues. The child’s own perception of his/her relation-
ship with each parent was measured using a game. The emotional and behavioral
adjustment of the child was measured via parental assessment; and the gender
identity of the child was assessed using a test (also used in the 1993 study by
Golombok) to assess stereotypically masculine and feminine behaviors.
No differences were found in the quality of the biological mother and child rela-
tionships between the three groups, but there were differences between the three
groups of non-biological parents and their children. The non-biological lesbian
mothers were found to have significantly better relationships with the children
than either of the groups of heterosexual fathers. Similarly, the lesbian non-bio-
logical mothers were found to be significantly more involved in practical child-
care activities and with disciplinary issues than fathers of either group.
Among the children, no difference was found between the lesbian mother group
and either heterosexual group in terms of emotional and behavioral problems,
gender role development, or the children’s feelings for their biological mothers
versus their fathers/non-biological mothers. In all groups, however, the biologi-
cal mother received a greater quantity of positive feelings than the non-biologi-
cal lesbian mothers or either group of fathers.
The critical conclusion the researchers draw from their study is that the children
in lesbian mother families grow up in a “warm and secure family environment,
just like children in the heterosexual control groups.”
This study has several strengths. The test group is a very specific group of donor-
inseminated lesbian mothers, which eliminates external variables. The external
variables that did exist, such as education levels, were then assessed for their pos-
sible impact on the measured variables. There are also two different heterosexu-
al control groups so that multiple comparisons to heterosexual counterparts could
be made. Furthermore, the parent-child relationship is not solely assessed by the
parent, but rather, by both parent input and child assessment.
Limitations of this study are minimal. Although it has a significantly larger sam-
ple size than many other studies, its sample size is still considered to be small.
1997. Human Reproduction, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 1349-1359.
58 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Division of Labor Among Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents:
Associations with Children’s Adjustment
Raymond W. Chan, Risa C. Brooks, Barbara Raboy, and Charlotte J. Patterson
Summary: This study found that lesbian couples and heterosexual couples
reported even splits of household labor and decision-making.
In the area of childcare, the heterosexual couples had a less
equal distribution of responsibilities, with the mothers gener-
ally taking a larger role. There were no differences between the
groups of children in their social adjustment with peers.
Measures: Child’s Psychological Well-Being, Child’s Social Adjustment
with Peers, Parent’s Psychological Well-Being
Type of Family:Lesbian and heterosexual couples who conceived through
donor insemination
Limitations: Smaller sample of heterosexual parents
This study compared the division of family labor between lesbian-headed fami-
lies and heterosexual-headed families, all of whom conceived via donor insemi-
nation. All the children were elementary school-aged at the time of the study. The
study looked at the overall level of satisfaction in the couples’ relationships and
the impact of this variable on the psychological adjustment of sons and daugh-
ters. Thirty lesbian and 16 heterosexual couples, with a total of 30 boys and 16
girls, participated in the study. Participating families were drawn from the former
clients of The Sperm Bank of California. All of the parents were predominantly
well-educated, non-Hispanic white, and relatively affluent. The lesbian mothers
had a slightly higher level of education.
To assess division of labor in the household and satisfaction with that division,
the authors used a test that measures actual and ideal distribution of household
tasks, family decision-making, and child-care tasks. To assess the couples’ rela-
tionship quality, the study used another psychological test designed to measure
relationship adjustment. Finally, the authors used a standardized questionnaire to
measure love, emotional attachment, and conflict. Children’s social competence
and behavior were measured through questionnaires given both to the child’s
biological mother and to the child’s teacher.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 59
The study found that both the lesbian and the heterosexual couples shared house-
hold tasks and made decisions in a relatively egalitarian fashion. However, les-
bian couples split the childcare responsibilities more equally than the heterosex-
ual couples. The heterosexual mothers performed the majority of the child-care
tasks in their families.
The lesbian couples placed a high value on an equal distribution of household
and decision-making tasks, and were generally pleased with their current family
situation. The heterosexual mothers generally wanted their husbands to take
more responsibility for childcare, but the fathers preferred leaving this to their
wives. For this reason, the fathers generally reported satisfaction with child-care
arrangements, and the mothers reported dissatisfaction. Despite the heterosexual
mother’s desire for more egalitarian distribution of child-care tasks, both the les-
bian and the heterosexual parents showed equal levels of satisfaction with their
relationships and their participation in household tasks.
Both groups had relationship adjustment scores above the national average.
Also, all of the parents reported high levels of love and low or moderate levels
of conflict; there were no significant differences in reported love or conflict
between the lesbian and heterosexual couples. No differences were found
between the children of heterosexual parents and the children of lesbian parents
when it came to the ability of the children to relate with peers and the existence
of behavioral problems.
1998. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 402-419.
60 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Psychosocial Adjustment among Children Conceived via
Donor Insemination by Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers
Raymond W. Chan, Barbara Raboy, and Charlotte Patterson
Summary: This study found that the sexual orientation and relationship
status of parents had no significant impact on the psychologi-
cal well-being of their children. Rather, children were impact-
ed by other factors, such as parents’ psychological well-being
and parenting stress – neither of which had anything to do with
sexual orientation.
Measures: Child’s Psychological Well-Being, Child’s Social Adjustment,
Parent’s Psychological Well-Being
Type of Family: Lesbian single mothers and couples, heterosexual single moth-
ers and couples, all of whom conceived through donor insem-
ination
Limitations: Small, non-random sample, self-assessment tests
This study compared lesbian single mothers, lesbian mother couples, heterosex-
ual single mothers, and heterosexual parent couples who conceived children via
donor insemination. The children were compared in terms of psychological well-
being and social adjustment, and the parents were compared in terms of psycho-
logical well-being and, when applicable, couples’ relationships.
Participants were recruited from The Sperm Bank of California. Clients who had
conceived children who were at least 5 years old were contacted. The researchers
recruited 34 lesbian couples, 21 lesbian single mothers, 16 heterosexual couples,
and 9 heterosexual single mothers.
Demographically, the families were very similar: they were mostly well-educat-
ed, employed at least part-time, and had family incomes “well above national
averages.” Both the lesbian biological mothers and non-biological mothers were
more educated than the heterosexual biological mothers and non-biological
fathers, respectively. The couples had higher annual household incomes than the
single mothers. There were no other significant demographic differences.
Parents and the children’s teachers were given questionnaires to evaluate the
children’s social adjustment and behavioral problems. The questionnaires
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 61
assessed social competence, the way children handle their problems, total behav-
ior problems, academic performance, and ability to adapt to different situations.
Parents were evaluated for parenting stress and perception of having a difficult
child. Parents were also assessed for depressive symptoms, self-image, and cop-
ing with recent stressful life events. In addition, for families headed by couples,
various tests were used to assess their relationships.
The results showed that the parents and the children in each group were well-
adjusted, regardless of sexual orientation and whether or not their mothers had
partners. Non-biological lesbian mothers were more likely to report behavior
problems in their children than the heterosexual fathers. The teachers’ reports of
children’s behavior problems did not correlate with parents’ sexual orientation
but was correlated to parents’ stress. Educational levels were not found to have
significant impact on the results of the study. Among the couples, parents who
reported greater satisfaction with their relationship, higher levels of love, and
lower inter-parental conflict had children who were better adjusted.
The sample size in this study is of moderate size, but it was not wholly random.
That both teachers and parents evaluated the children’s behavior makes the data
more reliable; however, all of the parental behaviors were self-assessment tests,
which may not be wholly truthful or accurate.
1998 (April). Child Development, Vol. 69, No. 2, pages 443-457.
62 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and
Heterosexual Parents and Their Children
David K. Flaks, Ilda Ficher, Frank Masterpasqua, Gregory Joseph
Summary: This study found that children of lesbians and children of het-
erosexuals were equally healthy in terms of psychological
well-being and social adjustment. The lesbian mothers were
found to have more developed parenting awareness skills than
the heterosexual parents.
Measures: Child’s Psychological Well-Being, Children’s Social
Adjustment, Parenting Practices
Type of Family: Lesbian donor-inseminated couples, heterosexual couples who
conceived conventionally
Limitations: Small, non-random sample size
In Flaks’ study, the researchers compared lesbian donor-inseminated families
with heterosexual families who conceived conventionally. The research focused
on the children’s psychological well-being and social adjustment, as well as par-
enting practices and the parents’ relationships.
Flaks recruited the subjects through professional contacts, friendship networks,
and referrals from other participants. The researchers used these criteria for
choosing the couples: 1) the lesbian couple must be two self-identified lesbians
living together with their children in an ongoing relationship; 2) the lesbian cou-
ples were required to have used donor insemination; 3) the heterosexual couples
must be married and living together with their biological children in an ongoing
relationship; and 4) each couple must have had at least one child between 3 and
10 years old. Fifteen lesbian couples and 15 heterosexual couples were selected.
Each lesbian couple was then matched with the most similar heterosexual cou-
ples on the variables of sex, age, and birth order of the children as well as on race,
educational level, and income of the parents. Each parent group had 8 girls and
7 boys; a total of 30 children were studied.
Most of the families who participated in the study lived in Pennsylvania. They
were all white, mostly well-educated, were employed at least part-time, and had
been living with their partners for similar lengths of time. The only difference
was that the lesbian parents were somewhat older than the heterosexual parents.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 63
Each group of children had a mean age of 5.8 years and, for the most part, were
in the same grades at school.
Questionnaires were given to the parents and the teachers, measuring the chil-
dren’s response to their own problems, total problem behaviors, the children’s
social adjustment and well-being, and the couples’ relationship quality. (A vari-
ety of standardized methods were used to analyze the data.) The parents were
also given a survey which measured the sensitivity and effectiveness with which
a parent responds to typical childcare situations. The children were administered
tests measuring their cognitive functioning.
The tests showed that parents’ sexual orientation did not factor into the cognitive
and behavioral functioning of the children. The tests also showed that the lesbian
mothers had significantly more parenting skills than the heterosexual parents,
specifically in terms of “problem solving,” which “pertained to the parent’s abil-
ity to recognize a child-care problem and to formulate acceptable alternative
solutions to it.” However, no differences were found between the groups in terms
of overall problem-solving capabilities. Fathers scored significantly lower on
total scores on tests of parenting skills than each of the three groups of mothers.
This study uses a small, non-random sample, which may lead to biases in the
results. The matching of the lesbian and heterosexual families minimized other dif-
fering factors. Although the tests have their own limitations, one strength of this
study is that the children were evaluated by parents, teachers, and the researchers.
1995. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 105-114.
64 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households:
Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal
Susan Golombok, Ann Spencer, and Michael Rutter
Summary: This study found no significant differences between children
raised by lesbians and children raised by single heterosexual
mothers on measures of emotions, behavior, and relationships
with peers. Also, no differences were found in terms of their
gender identity or gender behavior.
Measures: Child’s Social Adjustment with Peers, Quality of Parent/Child
Relationship, Parenting Practices, Parent’s Psychological
Well-Being, Child’s Gender Behavior
Type of Family: Divorced lesbian and heterosexual mothers
Limitations: Non-random sample
This study compared 37 children reared in lesbian households with 38 children
being raised in heterosexual, single-mother households. In each group there were
27 parents. The children were 5 to 17 years old, and their average age was 9 to
10 years. None of the heterosexual mothers had live-in partners. Nine of the les-
bian mothers also lived alone, while the remaining 18 lived with their partner or
in cooperative households. The two groups had equally mixed vocations, though
the lesbians tended to have more education, and more were in professional occu-
pations rather than skilled, non-manual jobs. For example, there were a large
number of teachers in the lesbian group and a large number of secretaries in the
heterosexual group.
The authors recruited their families through advertisements in a range of gay and
single-parent publications and through contacts with gay and single-parent
organizations.
The mothers and the children were interviewed separately. Each group was
given standardized interviews to assess various aspects of personal and family
functioning. One section of the interview was specific to the lesbian mothers,
and lesbian mothers with partners were asked a series of questions about
household activities and division of labor. The portions of the interviews per-
taining to the child’s psychiatric state were conducted separately by a child
psychiatrist, who did not know the mother’s sexual orientation. To determine
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 65
gender behavior, the authors used a scale that assigns lower scores to stereo-
typically masculine toys and activities and higher scores to stereotypically
feminine toys and activities. For example, pretending to host a tea party
received a higher score than playing a game of cops and robbers. These scales
were used to weigh both the child’s responses about his or her behavior and the
parent’s responses about their child’s behavior.
Additionally, the parents filled out two questionnaires. One was called the
‘malaise inventory,’ and measured emotional stability in the mothers, and the
other questionnaire assessed the children’s emotions, behavior, and peer rela-
tionships. Finally, the children’s teachers filled out similar questionnaires assess-
ing the child’s well-being and behavior.
The lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers did not differ significantly on any
of the measures reflecting current psychiatric status. The lesbian mothers had
slightly lower (i.e. more normal) scores on the malaise inventory than the het-
erosexual mothers. Significantly more of the lesbian mothers reported receiving
psychiatric therapy at some time during their adult life, and slightly more had
taken anti-depressant medication during the previous year. Systemic ratings of
mothers’ warmth to their children did not show differences between the groups.
Fourteen of the lesbian mothers lived with a partner. Rating schemes determined
that the great majority of these relationships were harmonious. In almost every
case the two women shared parenting and housekeeping roles.
The mean scores on assessments of the children’s behavior by both parents and
teachers showed no significant differences between the two groups of children.
However, in the heterosexual mother group, substantially more children (8 out of
38) showed significant psychiatric problems compared with children raised by
lesbians (2 out of 31). There were no significant differences in either group of
children’s overall ability to make and maintain healthy relationships with people
of their own age.
There was no evidence that any child in the study identified him or herself as the
opposite sex. Additionally, boys and girls in both groups had closely similar
scores in the scales testing for stereotypically masculine and feminine behavior.
The prepubescent children in both groups tended to have friends that were pre-
66 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
dominantly of their own sex, and almost all reported having a best friend of the
same sex. All the pubescent and post-pubescent children in the study reported
having either heterosexual sexual interests or no definite interests.
The findings of this study are limited by the small sample size and the fact that
researchers included some two-parent lesbian households in the lesbian group
but had exclusively single mothers in the heterosexual group.
1983. Journal of Child Psychology. Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 551-572.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 67
Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families
Fiona Tasker and Susan Golombok
Summary: This study found no significant difference between children
raised by lesbian parents and those raised by heterosexual par-
ents in the quality of the young adults’ relationships with their
mothers, in incidences of teasing or bullying in high school, or
in their emotional well-being. No differences were found in the
proportion of each group that reported experiencing sexual
attraction to someone of the same sex, though the children of
lesbians were more likely to act, or consider acting, on those
attractions.
Measures: Child’s Psychological Well-Being, Child’s Social Adjustment
with Peers, Quality of Parent/Child Relationship, Child’s
Sexuality
Type of family: Divorced lesbian and heterosexual mothers
Limitations: Small sample size; non-representative sample
This follow-up study of Golombok and Tasker’s 1976-1977 study took place in
1991-1992. The original study looked at a group of families headed by divorced
lesbian mothers and a group of families headed by single, divorced heterosexual
mothers. In the original study, each group had 27 mothers and 39 children. For
this study, 25 of the adult children raised by lesbian mothers (8 men and 17
women) and 21 of the children raised by heterosexual mothers (12 men and 9
women) decided to participate again. In each group, the average age of the par-
ticipants was 23.5 years.
The authors used individual interviews to obtain data on the participants’ family
relationships, peer relationships, and sexual orientation. They used two stan-
dardized questionnaires to measure participants’ anxiety and depression levels.
In the original study, the authors excluded any heterosexual mother with a live-
in partner, but in this follow-up almost all of the heterosexual mothers had remar-
ried or had live-in partners. According to reporting from the two groups of chil-
dren, significantly more children of lesbian mothers felt positively about their
relationship with their mothers’ partners than children of heterosexual mothers
felt about their mothers’ new husbands or boyfriends. Young adults with lesbian
68 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
mothers were also significantly more likely to report being “proud” of their
mother’s sexual identity and having positive feelings towards their mothers’
identities (i.e. lesbian mother or single, heterosexual mother). There was no dif-
ference, however, between the two groups’ retrospective reports of these same
feelings during adolescence. Nor did the groups differ in the overall quality of
participants’ current relationship with their biological mother.
Both groups were equally likely to remember being teased or bullied by their
peers, and they also did not differ in the proportion who remembered being
teased specifically about their family background or mother’s lifestyle. However,
participants from lesbian families–particularly male participants–were signifi-
cantly more likely to recall being teased about being lesbian or gay themselves.
The groups did not significantly differ in the proportion of young adults who
reported at least one instance of sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.
Young adults raised by lesbians, however, were significantly more likely to
report having been involved in, or having considered, acting on those same-sex
attractions. All participants from both groups reported at least one sexual rela-
tionship with someone of the opposite sex.
There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of anxi-
ety level or depression level, and similar proportions of both groups had seen a
health care professional for problems arising from anxiety, depression, or stress.
Two factors limit the potential for these findings to be generalized. One is the
small sample size, which makes it difficult to make generalizations about the
entire population. The second limitation is the impossibility of recruiting a rep-
resentative sample of lesbian mothers.
1995. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 65, No.2., pp.203-215.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 69
Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?
Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families
Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker
Summary: This study found that there was no significant difference
between the number of self-identified lesbian and gay young
adults from lesbian-headed families and from heterosexual-
headed families. Similarly, no significant difference was found
between the two groups in those who reported experiencing
same-sex attraction. Daughters of lesbians, however, were sig-
nificantly more likely to report being open to same-sex attrac-
tions or relationships. Children of lesbians were significantly
more likely to have had a same-sex sexual experience.
Measures: Child’s Sexuality
Type of Family: Single and divorced lesbian and heterosexual mothers
Limitations: Small sample size, not all participants from original study
participated in this follow-up, uneven gender representation
in the sample
This study is a follow-up of Golombok and Tasker’s previous studies, which took
place in 1976-1977. In the first study, 27 lesbian mothers and their 39 children
and 27 heterosexual mothers and their 39 children were investigated (data from
3 of these children were not reported in the original study but are included here).
These original participants were recruited from lesbian and single-parent organ-
izations, and could not participate if there was an adult male living in the home.
At that time, the children had a mean age of 9.5 years.
In this 1991-92 follow-up study, the children had a mean age of 23.5 years. Of
the original participants, only 25 children of lesbian mothers (8 men and 17
women) and 21 children of heterosexual mothers (12 men and 9 women) agreed
to participate. The participants from lesbian and heterosexual families were sim-
ilar with respect to age, gender, ethnicity, and education.
The participants were interviewed individually. The researchers divided “sexual
orientation” into four areas: 1) the presence of same-sex attraction (objects of
crushes, etc); 2) consideration of a same-sex relationship as a future possibility
(this did not necessarily involve actual desire); 3) same-sex sexual experience
70 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
(could be anything from a single kiss to cohabitation lasting over one year); and
4) self-identification as heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian, or gay. The researchers
then used two rating systems, a composite same-sex sexual interest rating and a
Kinsey scale rating (a continuum of sexuality from exclusively homosexual to
exclusively heterosexual).
No significant differences were found in terms of actual self-identification as gay
or lesbian, and no significant differences were found in terms of reported same-
sex sexual attraction. There were, however, differences in two areas. The partic-
ipants raised by lesbians were more likely to have had a sexual relationship with
someone of the same sex (5 daughters and 1 son from lesbian families, no chil-
dren from heterosexual families). Also, significantly more of the daughters from
lesbian families had previously considered or thought it a future possibility to
have same-sex sexual attraction or a same-sex relationship. All of the participants
had experienced at least one opposite-sex sexual relationship.
The commonly held assumption that children brought up by lesbian mothers will
themselves grow up to be lesbian or gay is not supported by the findings of the
study. The large majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified
as heterosexual in adulthood. However, Golombok and Tasker’s study found that
“[children] who had grown up in a lesbian family were more likely to consider
the possibility of having a lesbian or gay relationship and to actually do so.”
Although the first study began with a moderate size of participants, by the time
this study took place, only a very small number of the participants remained in
the study. This, coupled with the disproportionate numbers of men and women
in each group, may cause sampling bias and the underestimation of statistically
significant differences. The study has unique strengths in that the participants
were surveyed over several years such that family relationships as a child were
surveyed at the time the participant was a child, rather than through memory or
reflection. The participants also represented a group of families from diverse
socioeconomic and political perspectives.
1996. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 71
Lesbian Mothers and Their Children:
A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children
Richard Green, Jane Barclay Mandel, Mary E. Hotvedt, James Gray, Laurel
Smith
Summary: This study found that children of lesbians and children of het-
erosexual single mothers show no differences in gender iden-
tity and social adjustment with peers. Some differences were
detected in gender behavior: daughters of lesbians were found
to be less confined in their choices by stereotypical notions of
feminine- and masculine-appropriate behavior. Some signifi-
cant differences were detected between the mothers them-
selves. Lesbian mothers had higher levels of self-confidence,
sought more leadership roles, while the heterosexual mothers
had lower self-confidence and sought subordinate roles.
Measures: Child’s Social Adjustment with Peers, Parent’s Psychological
Well-Being, Child’s Gender Behavior
Type of Family: Lesbian mothers (some with partners) and heterosexual moth-
ers who were divorced, separated, or never married
Limitations: External variables, recruiting method
Green’s 1986 study sought to understand the effects on children’s sexual identi-
ty development in a father-absent household. It compared lesbian mothers and
their children with single heterosexual mothers and their children. The study uses
a model of sexual identity that includes gender identity (the sense of being either
male or female), gender behavior (conduct that is considered stereotypically
masculine or feminine), and sexual orientation.
The subjects included 50 lesbians and their 56 children (30 girls and 26 boys) and
40 heterosexual women and their 48 children (28 girls and 20 boys) from 10
states. Each mother had to be currently unmarried, the legal custodian of at least
one child between 3 and 11 years, and have no adult male living in the house.
The groups were matched in terms of mothers’ age and race, children’s sex and
age, length of time separated from the husband/father, mother’s current marital
status, current family income, mother’s educational level, and amount of time an
adult male had not been living in the household. The children had a mean age of
8 years. The mothers were white women between the ages of 25 and 46 and had
72 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
been single for at least 2 years with a mean of 4 years. The majority were sepa-
rated or divorced, although 3 of the lesbians were widowed, and 10% of both
groups had never married. Income and occupation ranged from the unemployed
on welfare to professionals who earned over $2000 a month, with the median
income being $850 per month. The majority of women worked at least part-time,
and education ranged greatly with the average having at least 2 years of college.
The mothers were given questionnaires which measured child raising, parenting
experiences, marital and romantic relationships, divorce, sex roles, sex education
of the children, and child discipline. They were also given personality tests and
tests that measure gender behavior. In addition, mothers completed question-
naires about their children that covered sexual identity, peer group popularity,
and preferred play activities. The children’s intelligence was measured, and they
were interviewed about sexual identity, family relationships, play preferences,
friendships, television preferences, and thoughts about life as an adult.
The mother groups showed no difference in attitude scales or in gender roles.
However, the lesbian mothers scored higher on self-confidence, seeking leader-
ship roles, and eliciting attention from others while heterosexual mothers scored
higher on abasement and seeking subordinate roles. The lesbian mothers were
more likely than the heterosexual mothers to have played with boys’ toys, to
remember being called a “tomboy” after age 14, to wear pants instead of dress-
es, and to participate in feminist organizations. The heterosexual mothers were
more likely to plan to remarry and to wear make-up.
No significant differences were found between the groups of children in terms of
gender identity and gender roles. However, daughters of lesbians were more like-
ly to want to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or astronaut, while daughters of les-
bians were more likely to choose stereotypically feminine jobs. Daughters of
both groups had more latitude in their clothing choices than the sons, though
daughters of lesbians were slightly more likely to dress in pants and jeans than
the other daughters.
In regard to preferences for gender-classified toys and activities, no significant
differences were found in favorite type of television show, sex of their favorite
television character, or favorite toys or games. Differences were noted in a few
other areas – though the study does not specify these as significant differences.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 73
More daughters of lesbian mothers than heterosexual mothers were reported to
engage in “above average” participation in rough-and-tumble play. More chil-
dren of lesbian mothers than heterosexual mother also showed a “considerable
interest” in play-acting and role-taking. Daughters of heterosexual mothers
were less likely than daughters of lesbian mothers to play with trucks, and
almost twice as many daughters of heterosexual mothers than lesbian mothers
were reported as never playing with guns. Sons and daughters of lesbians were
more likely than heterosexual mothers’ children to prefer playing with children
of both sexes.
No significant differences were found between the children in terms of their best
friends and self- and parent-perceived popularity with children in school and
their neighborhood.
None of the children in the study met the criteria for gender identity disorder. The
daughters in general showed a wider range of gender behaviors than boys; and
although the daughters of lesbians were more likely to be interested in activities
that were not typically feminine, the sons in both groups were similarly masculine.
This study uses a moderate sample size from various locations that may more
adequately represent a national demographic. However, many external variables
in this study are not strictly monitored: some women had never married, others
had not divorced, the lesbians were permitted to have a partner living in the
household but the heterosexual women could not, the demographics of educa-
tional level and household income were not measured for their impact on the
studies, etc. Additionally, the friendship referral network is not an ideal method
of obtaining research participants.
1986. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 167-185.
74 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Gay and Lesbian Parents
Mary B. Harris and Pauline H. Turner
Summary: This study found no significant parenting differences between
gay and lesbian parents and their heterosexual counterparts.
Measures: Quality of Parent/Child Relationship, Parent’s Preference for
Child’s Gender Behavior/Sexuality
Type of Family: Divorced single-parents with children from previous marriage
Limitations: Small, non-random sample size, uncontrolled external vari-
ables, self-evaluation
The Harris and Turner study focused on gay and lesbian parents who retained
custody of their children after divorce from opposite-sex spouses. While much of
the study explores why gays and lesbians entered into marriage and how they
realized their sexuality, other parts are dedicated to the parents’ behavior towards
their children’s gender behavior and child-parent relationships.
The subjects for the study included 10 gay males, 13 lesbians, 2 heterosexual
males and 14 heterosexual females. Heterosexual single mothers and single
fathers were given one survey, and lesbian and gay parents were given a survey
containing the same questions plus additional questions concerning their sexual
orientation. The median age for the gay and lesbian parents was 39 years, while
the median age for the heterosexual parents was 34 years. A large majority of
both groups had college degrees, and about half of each group had professional
careers. Surveys were distributed at local gay and lesbian churches, gay commu-
nity centers, and single parent support groups, where people could retrieve them
without giving up their anonymity.
No difference was found between the two groups in terms of parent’s encour-
agement of gender-classified toys or of same-sex friends for their children. The
heterosexual parents in this study made more of an effort to provide their chil-
dren with role models of the opposite sex of the parent.
Harris and Turner also compared gay male parents to lesbian parents. They found
that the gay male parents were more likely than lesbians to encourage their chil-
dren to play with stereotypically gender-appropriate toys, were more likely to
report greater satisfaction with their first child, and were less likely to report dis-
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 75
agreement with their partners over discipline. Lesbians, on the other hand, were
more likely than gay men to see some advantages of their sexual orientation for
their children in the areas of accepting their own sexuality, increased empathy
and tolerance for others, and exposure to new points of view. Other differences
included that gay men were more likely to be living with a romantic partner and
to make more money than their lesbian counterparts.
The parents reported that the initial reactions of children of lesbian and gay
males to their coming out varied considerably. The children’s current feelings
towards their parents were less varied: most were indifferent or supportive, a
few were confused, and only one each was hostile, angry, or ashamed. One
reported being proud.
Harris and Turner acknowledge that the study is more suggestive than conclu-
sive. The limitations of the study include its small, non-random sample size.
Also, the study was based on a self-evaluation questionnaire, in which partici-
pants may not always answer truthfully for a variety of reasons. Many external
variables in this study were not controlled as strictly as in other studies, includ-
ing economic status, age, and other characteristics of the participants.
1985-86. Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 101-113.
76 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Children’s Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother Families
Beverly Hoeffer
Summary: This study found no significant differences between the gender
behavior of children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers. It
also found that lesbian mothers were significantly more likely
to prefer a more equal mix of masculine and feminine toys,
while heterosexual mothers tended to prefer that girls play
with stereotypically feminine toys and boys play with stereo-
typically masculine toys.
Measures: Child’s Gender Behavior, Parent’s Preference for Child’s
Gender Behavior/Sexuality
Type of Family: Lesbian mothers and single heterosexual mothers
Limitations: Small, non-random sample size, comparing lesbian mothers
who sometimes had female partners with single heterosexual
mothers who had no male partners
Hoeffer’s 1981 study examined the gender behavior of the children of lesbian
and heterosexual mothers as well as the mothers’ preference and influence on
their children’s gender behavior.
The study consisted of 20 lesbian and 20 heterosexual single mothers from the
San Francisco Bay area whose oldest or only child was between 6 and 9 years
old. All of the children were white, raised in the United States, and their fathers
had left the household by the time they were 5 years old. The groups were
matched by age and gender, so that each group had 10 boys and 10 girls.
There were no significant differences between the families in terms of marital
status, educational background, or occupation. Most had at least a college
degree, were separated or divorced, and worked in a white-collar occupation. All
were white. The only major difference between the two groups is that while 95%
of the lesbian mothers identified moderately or strongly with feminism, just 55%
of the heterosexual mothers did so.
The children were tested for gender-classified toy preferences using a toy test,
which consisted of showing children photographs of gender-typed masculine
(e.g., toy snakes, trucks), feminine (e.g., beads, tea sets), and neutral toys (e.g.,
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 77
sea shells, marbles) to determine the child’s preferences. The mothers were asked
to choose the toys with which they would prefer their children to play. The moth-
ers were also given a test to determine their attitudes toward the toys with which
their children played.
No significant differences were found between the gender identity of children of
lesbian and heterosexual mothers. The boys of both groups preferred masculine
and neutral toys and girls preferred feminine and neutral toys.
However, the mother’s sexual orientation correlated with their preference of toys
for their children. Lesbian mothers generally did not base their preferences for
toys on their child’s gender, but heterosexual mothers tended to prefer masculine
sex-typed toys for their boys and feminine sex-typed toys for their girls. Lesbian
mothers were found to prefer a more equal mixture of masculine and feminine
toys for their children than did heterosexual mothers.
Two variables limit our ability to generalize the findings in this study. The partici-
pants came from a small, non-random sample that was not representative of a
national demographic. Also, Hoeffer’s criteria for participation permits the lesbian
mothers to have partners living in the household but did not allow the heterosexu-
al mothers to have partners (no adult male was permitted to live in the house).
1981. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 51, No. 3. pp. 536-544.
78 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Children of Lesbian Mothers
Mary E. Hotvedt and Jane Barclay Mandel
Summary: No significant differences were found between children of
divorced lesbian and heterosexual mothers in terms of general
well-being and relationships with peers. There were no differ-
ences between boys in terms of gender behavior, but daughters
of lesbians tended to have preferences in play and career
choice that were not confined by traditional notions of female
toys and occupations.
Measures: Child’s Psychological Well-Being, Child’s Social Adjustment
with Peers, Child’s Gender Behavior
Type of Family: Divorced, separated, or widowed lesbian and heterosexual
mothers
Limitations: This article combines a review of existing literature with a pre-
liminary report on a study conducted by the authors
Hotvedt and Mendel intended this study to help provide answers to courts
charged with determining child custody involving lesbian mothers. They com-
pared lesbian and heterosexual single mothers.
Participants were selected from ten states representing the Northeast, Midwest,
and South and came from both rural and urban areas. Lesbian mothers were
required to be self-identified lesbians, have custody or joint custody of at least
one child between the ages of 3 and 11, and have had no adult male in the house
for at least 2 years. Heterosexual mothers were matched with the lesbian moth-
ers on the basis of the mother’s age and race, the children’s age and sex, length
of time separated from father, marital status (never married, divorced, separated,
widowed), income level of the family, education level of the mother, and (when
possible) mother’s religion of upbringing. All of the participants were white and
had been living as single parents for an average of 4-5 years. Income and occu-
pation ranged from unemployed and on welfare to full-time professional women
earning up to $2000 per month. Education ranged greatly, but most participants
had at least one year of college.
Each participant was required to fill out questionnaires and attitude/personali-
ty scales which measured parenting experiences, upbringing, marital and rela-
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 79
tionship patterns, and attitudes toward divorce, gender roles, sex education for
children, and discipline. Children were interviewed and tested in the home on
gender behavior, play preferences, friendships, television habits, and thoughts
about adulthood.
No differences were found between the two groups of children in terms of the
sex of their closest friends. Daughters of lesbian mothers tended to rate them-
selves more popular with other children than daughters of heterosexual mothers
did; however, there were no differences between the two groups of sons. There
were also no signs of gender identity confusion. The daughters of lesbians pre-
ferred possible careers that were not traditionally female occupations and
engaged in somewhat wider variety of play than the other daughters.
Hotvedt and Mandel do not provide enough information to assess whether their
study sample size was adequately large or randomly selected.
1982. Homosexuality, Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, edited by W.
Paul. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.
80 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
A Comparative Study of Self-Esteem of Adolescent Children of Divorced
Lesbian Mothers and Divorced Heterosexual Mothers
Sharon L. Huggins
Summary: This study found no significant difference between the self-
esteem of children with heterosexual mothers and children
with lesbian mothers.
Measures: Child’s Self-Esteem, Child’s Sexuality
Type of Family: Divorced lesbian and heterosexual mothers
Limitations: Small sample size
Huggins sought to discern whether or not children with lesbian mothers suffer from
social stigma in peer group relationships, and therefore have low self-esteem.
Huggins explored the self-esteem of 36 adolescent children, ages 13 to 19 years
– 18 of the children lived with divorced heterosexual mothers and 18 lived with
divorced lesbian mothers. Half of the children in each category were girls, and
half were boys. All children and their mothers were non-Hispanic white and lived
in Southern California. Huggins recruited the families through solicitation and
personal referral by the study participants.
The study used a 58-item inventory that has been used in several self-esteem
studies since 1967. A higher score on the inventory corresponds to a higher self-
esteem. Huggins interviewed the adolescents and their mothers, and all the ado-
lescents completed the self-esteem inventory.
There was no significant difference in the self-esteem of children with lesbian
mothers and children with heterosexual mothers. However, children of both les-
bian mothers and heterosexual mothers had higher self-esteem scores if their
mothers were currently living with a partner or remarried.
Finally, although this was not an express purpose of the study, Huggins asked each
of the adolescents whether or not they identified as gay or lesbian. Of the 36 ado-
lescents, only one identified as gay. He was the son of a heterosexual mother.
This study used a small sample and its findings are more suggestive than conclusive.
1989. Homosexuality and the Family, edited by F.W. Bozett. Haworth: New York.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 81
The Children of Homosexual and Heterosexual Single Mothers
Ghazala Afzal Javaid
Summary: Significantly more lesbian mothers than heterosexual mothers
expressed willingness to accept their child if he or she later
came out as gay. No differences were found between the chil-
dren in terms of gender identity or sexual orientation.
Measures: Child’s Gender Behavior; Child’s Sexuality; Parent’s
Preferences for Child’s Gender Behavior/Sexuality
Type of Family: Divorced heterosexual mothers and lesbian mothers whose
children were conceived in a heterosexual relationship
Limitations: Small, non-random sample size; compared some lesbian moth-
ers with partners to single heterosexual mothers; unclear if
other external variables are monitored; does not indicate
whether or not differences were found to be significant
Javaid’s 1992 study explored lesbian mothers and single heterosexual mothers
and their children by focusing on the mother-child relationship, the mother’s
attitude toward the child’s gender and sexuality, and the child’s gender behav-
ior and sexuality.
The participants included 13 lesbian mothers (mean age 37 years) and their chil-
dren–15 boys and 11 girls– and 15 divorced heterosexual mothers (mean age
40.7 years) and their children–13 boys and 15 girls. Of the lesbian mothers, all
were involved in a romantic relationship though only nine had a live-in partner;
and all of their children were conceived in a heterosexual relationship. All of the
heterosexual women had been divorced for at least two years, and none had an
adult male residing in the household.
Significantly more lesbian mothers expressed willingness to accept it if their
children later came out as gay or lesbian. Seven of the lesbian mothers expressed
acceptance of (but not preference for) their children if they were to become gay;
three of the lesbian mothers found it more acceptable if their daughters were to
become lesbian than if there sons were to become gay. All of the heterosexual
mothers said they would be disappointed if their children were gay, although
some of the heterosexual mothers seemed more tolerant of their daughters
becoming lesbian than their sons becoming gay. Also, some of the heterosexual
82 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
mothers indicated greater acceptance of their children becoming gay or lesbian
if it happened later in life, for instance, after they had a family first.
Javaid found no differences between the groups in the children’s attitudes
towards marriage, having children, and sexuality. There were differences, how-
ever, between the responses of the boys and girls. The girls from both groups
tended to deviate from conventional gender roles more often than the boys and
were more likely to acknowledge that same-sex sexual attractions could exist.
Javaid’s used a small, non-random sample and cannot be said to reflect a nation-
al population. It is also unclear is external variables were monitored.
1993. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 235-248.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 83
Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative Survey
Martha Kirkpatrick, Catherine Smith, and Ron Roy
Summary: This study found no difference between children of lesbian
mothers and children of single heterosexual mothers in psy-
chological well-being or gender behavior.
Measures: Child’s Psychological Well-Being, Child’s Gender Behavior
Type of Family: Lesbian and heterosexual women, most of whom were
divorced
Limitations: Small, non-random sample size; external variables not moni-
tored
Kirkpatrick, Smith and Roy investigated the children of lesbian and heterosexu-
al women through the observations of two psychiatrists and one psychologist.
Two of the professionals were not aware of the sexual orientation of the child’s
mother until the evaluations were completed.
Participants included 40 children – 10 sons and 10 daughters of lesbian mothers
and 10 sons and 10 daughters of single heterosexual mothers. All children were
between the ages of 5 and 12. The mothers were contacted through friendship
circles and through a local National Organization of Women (NOW) newsletter.
They were found to be similar in their socioeconomic status and occupational
history, age at marriage and length of marriage, pregnancy and delivery histories,
and age at children’s birth. There was also no difference found between the
groups in terms of maternal interest; however, the heterosexual mothers tended
to have larger families due to remarriages or children after divorce. Almost all
the mothers were working, in school, or both. Both groups were also similar in
the age of child at separation and the length of time since separation except for
two children in the lesbian groups who never had a father in the home.
Children’s psychological well-being and gender behavior were extensively evalu-
ated through tests and a 45-minute interview. The results between the two groups
were found to be “remarkably” similar despite the small sample size. Almost 90
percent of both groups were rated as minimally to not disturbed or as moderately
disturbed with only one boy and one girl from the lesbian group and one boy and
two girls from the heterosexual group reported as severely disturbed.
84 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Gender evaluations were based on historical data of favorite toys and games, the
sex of closest friends, a Human Figure Drawing test, and responses to questions
concerning sex, current interests, and future roles. There was no difference
between the two group of children in terms of gender behavior. The researchers
found that lesbian mothers tended to be more concerned than heterosexual moth-
ers with providing their children with male figures in their lives. Overall, the two
groups were very similar with no difference found between the groups in type or
frequency of pathology or in gender development.
The sample size was exceptionally small in this study. Many external variables
were not monitored, for example, some of the lesbians had children from het-
erosexual marriages while other used donor insemination.
1981 (July). American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 545-551.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 85
Heterosexual and Homosexual Mothers’ Self Described Sex-Role Behavior
and Ideal Sex-Role Behavior in Children
Sally L. Kweskin and Alicia S. Cook
Summary: This study found that a mother’s gender behavior – not her
sexual orientation – may be a more important influence on her
children’s gender identity.
Measures: Parent’s Preferences for Child’s Gender Behavior/Sexuality
Type of Family: Lesbian and heterosexual single-parent families
Limitations: Small sample size, non-random sample, self-described test
This study asked mothers to self-describe their gender behavior (measuring
according to stereotypically feminine versus masculine traits, behaviors, and
preferences) and their ideal gender behavior for their children.
Twenty-two heterosexual and 22 lesbian single mothers were surveyed. There
were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, income, edu-
cation level, number of children, length of previous marriages, or number of
years living without a husband in the household. The lesbian mothers, however,
were more likely to report a live-in partner; and of both the lesbian and hetero-
sexual mothers who reported a live-in partner, the lesbian mothers were much
more likely to report that the partner helped in child-rearing.
Both groups were divided into two groups of eleven each, depending on the gen-
der of their child. They were then mailed two gender behavior inventory tests,
one for themselves and one for their child. Instructions were included for the
mothers to rank themselves and their “ideal” child (boy or girl, depending on the
group they were assigned).
The study found no statistically significant differences between the two groups
in their descriptions of their own gender behavior. The study also found no sig-
nificant differences between the mothers’ rankings of their ideal child; there were
no significant differences in the preferred gender behavior between ideal male
and female children. However, significant differences were found when the
mothers were divided by their gender behavior instead of sexual orientation –
mothers were more likely to rank their ideal child’s gender behavior the same as
their own.
86 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
The size of the samples in this study were very small, and the sample was not
random or necessarily representative of the heterosexual and lesbian populations.
Findings rely on participants’ self-reporting.
1982. Sex Roles, Vol 8., No. 9, pp. 967-975.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 87
Families and Parenting:
A Comparison of Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers
Kevin F. McNeill, Beth M. Rienzi, and Augustine Kposowa
Summary: This study found that lesbian and heterosexual mothers groups
did not differ significantly in relationships with their children,
parenting practices, and overall family stress.
Measures: Quality of Parent-Child Relationship, Parenting Practices,
Parent’s Psychological Well-Being
Type of Family: Lesbian and heterosexual mothers
Limitations: Small, non-random sample size
This study investigated the stigmas surrounding lesbian motherhood. Through
the study, the researchers sought to assess lesbian and heterosexual mothers in
the areas of family and relationship dysfunction, parent-child relationships, and
family dynamics.
Participants included 24 lesbian mothers and 35 heterosexual mothers with mean
ages of 37.1 and 34.1, respectively. Each mother had at least one child. The les-
bian mothers had an average of 1.38 children while the heterosexual mothers had
an average of 1.89 children. Each mother completed four inventories that were
designed to measure perceived family or relationship problems, quality of par-
ent-child relationship as perceived by the parent, family competence (knowledge
of the parental role), and perceived quality of the couples’ relationships.
There were no significant differences found between the two groups in terms of
family awareness, family relationships, and parent-child relationships.
The sample was small and a non-random method of recruiting the participants
was used. The researchers asserted that this study is not conclusive and more
research is needed in this area.
1998. Psychological Reports, Vol. 82, pp. 59-62.
88 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
The Child’s Home Environment for Lesbian vs. Heterosexual Mothers:
A Neglected Area of Research
Judith Ann Miller, R. Brooke Jacobsen, Jerry J. Bigner
Summary: This study measured the way lesbian and heterosexual mothers
responded to a variety of situations involving their children. It
found that lesbian mothers were significantly more likely to
respond in a child-oriented way (oriented more towards help-
ing the child understand the situation) than the heterosexual
mothers who responded in more task-oriented ways (simply
disciplining the children without explaining why).
Measures: Parenting Practices
Type of Family: Lesbian and heterosexual mothers with children from mar-
riages; some married, separated, or divorced
Limitations: Small, non-random sample, external variables
Researchers explored and compared the parenting practices of lesbian and het-
erosexual mothers. The sample of lesbians was recruited from a feminist recre-
ation center and the heterosexual mothers were recruited from local Parent-
Teacher Association (PTA) meetings. There were 34 lesbians with a mean age of
32.6 years and 47 heterosexual mothers with a mean age of 35.6 years.
Over 94% of the lesbian mothers reported a household income of less than
$15,000, while over 87% of the heterosexual mothers reported an income over
$15,000. Also, all of the heterosexual women in the group were married while the
vast majority of the lesbians were divorced. While lesbians were allowed to include
their partners’ income in their total household income, almost one-quarter of them
did not have a partner. The lesbian mothers were more likely to work outside of the
home than heterosexual mothers – two-thirds of the heterosexual mothers also
identified as a housewife. No lesbian mothers identified as a housewife.
The subjects were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire and to
respond to a slide presentation administered at the recreation center and at the
PTA meetings. The slide presentation consisted of slides portraying a situation
involving children in various situations, which were divided into three different
categories: fighting, disrupting furniture, or refusing to go to bed. The mothers
were given three options of response. The responses were categorized as adult-
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 89
oriented, child-oriented, and task oriented. For example, one slide portrayed two
children in a sword fight, with the smaller child in imminent danger. The choic-
es for response were: (a) “Break it up. Stop that, right now” (Adult-Orientated
Response); (b) Talk to them about how hitting can hurt and suggest something
else for them to do (Child-Oriented Response); (c) Take the sticks away from
them (Task-Oriented Response).
There were significant differences that indicated that lesbian mothers were more
likely to be child-oriented than heterosexual mothers. Approximately half of the
lesbian mothers reacted in a child-oriented way and approximately half of the
heterosexual mothers responded in a task-oriented way to scenarios involving
fighting between the children. In the “children disrupting furniture” examples,
lesbian mothers overwhelmingly responded in child-oriented ways. While the
majority of heterosexual mothers also responded in a child-oriented manner, one-
third responded in an adult-oriented manner. Less than 6% of the lesbian moth-
ers responded in an adult-oriented manner.
This study, like many of the studies, has the usual problems of small, non-ran-
dom sampling. It also has the problem of uncontrolled variables, such as age,
income, and education level.
1981 (Fall). Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 49-56.
90 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Children of the Lesbian Baby Boom: Behavioral Adjustment,
Self-Concepts, and Sex Role Identity Charlotte Patterson
Summary: This study found that children of lesbian mothers did not dif-
fer from other children in the areas of psychological well-
being, social adjustment with peers, and gender behavior.
The children of lesbian mothers had two differences: they
tended to have both a higher stress level and a higher sense
of well-being.
Measures: Child’s Psychological Well-Being, Child’s Gender Behavior
Type of Family: Lesbian mother(s) with children from both conventional, het-
erosexual conception and donor-insemination
Limitations: Small sample size, non-random sample, control group from
separate studies
In this study, Charlotte Patterson explored the social adjustment, psychological
well-being, and gender behavior of children of lesbian parents and compared
them to scores of average, non-clinical (no detected psychological problems)
children from two other studies (one from 1983 and one from 1990) that meas-
ured children from heterosexual families in the same areas. This study was
intended both to describe the families and explore their development.
Patterson recruited families through friends, acquaintances, and colleagues. The
three requirements for eligibility were: (1) at least one child between 4 and 9
years of age had to be present in the household; (2) the child had to be born to or
adopted by a lesbian mother or mothers; (3) the family had to live within the
greater San Francisco Bay Area. Thirty-seven families were selected to partici-
pate. The majority were headed by a lesbian couple, although single-parent and
separated-parent families were also represented. Most were white, had college
degrees, and high-paying jobs.
The children were assessed using a standardized child behavior checklist and a
survey questionnaire, and they took part in a standard interview relating to gen-
der identity. The children were evaluated in levels of aggression, stress reactions,
closeness to other people, social potency (desire to be the center of attention),
how they responded to their problems, and overall well-being.
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 91
The scores for the children of lesbians were found to be similar to the other chil-
dren in aggression, closeness to other people, social potency, gender behavior,
and the way the children handled problems. The children of lesbians were found
to report greater stress reactions and a greater sense of well-being than those of
the heterosexual sample.
Obvious limitations of the study include the method by which the participants
were selected and the small sample size. This study, like many of the studies,
could not stand alone as a single authority on lesbian and gay parenting; howev-
er, its findings are consistent with numerous other studies on the children of les-
bian parents.
1994. Lesbian & Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Clinical
Applications,edited by B. Green and G.M. Herek. SAGE: Thousand Oaks,
California.
92 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Psychological Health and Factors
The Court Seeks to Control in Lesbian Mother Custody Trials
Catherine Rand, Dee L. R. Graham, and Edna I. Rawlings
Summary: This study found no significant differences between lesbian
mothers and other mothers in psychological health. It also
found that divorced lesbians tend to have a better level of men-
tal health if they are open about their sexuality to their children
and former husband.
Measures: Parent’s Psychological Well-Being
Type of Family: Lesbian mothers with biological and adoptive children
Limitations: Small, non-random sample size
Rand discussed many of the barriers lesbian mothers face when seeking custody
of their children after a divorce. Even if a mother is granted custody of her chil-
dren, it is often with restrictions such as orders that she not live with or see a les-
bian partner or not be involved with feminist organizations. The authors sought
to research whether these restrictions affect the mothers’ overall well-being.
Twenty-five lesbian mothers were interviewed. They were all white and ranged
from 23 to 46 years old with a mean age of 33.6 years. Their education level
was relatively high. The sample included people from a liberal East Coast com-
munity as well as from conservative midwestern communities. Participants
worked in a variety of occupations, from college professors to gas attendants.
The average income was $10,140. Some women were divorced, separated, or
never married. Thirty-nine of the children were biological children of the
mothers; two were adopted.
The interviews covered the subjects’ lifestyles, including relationships, co-habi-
tation with a partner, frequency of contact with a lesbian community, openness
about sexuality, and acceptance of sexuality. Standardized psychological tests
evaluated self-acceptance, well-being, and achievement via independence, as
well as the lesbian mother’s “happiness.”
The results were compared to a standardization sample from one of the assessment
surveys. They indicated that the lesbian sample was at least as psychologically
healthy as the large standardization sample. The results indicated that the follow-
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 93
ing things positively impacted psychological health: openness about one’s lesbian-
ism with one’s child, ex-husband, employer, involvement with a lesbian commu-
nity; amount of feminist activism; and acceptance of one’s lesbianism. Overall, the
happiest mothers were those who were the most accepting of their lesbianism.
Like most studies investigating marginalized minorities, this study had to rely on
participants recruiting other participants and word-of-mouth means. The sample
size was also small; however, the study did sample lesbians from diverse geo-
graphical locations, financial levels, and political atmospheres, which may make
it more representative of the diverse nature of the lesbian mother population than
other studies.
1982 (Fall). Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 27-39.
94 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Rozzie and Harriet?: Gender and Family Patterns of Lesbian Coparents
Maureen Sullivan
Summary: This study investigated the relationships of lesbian couples
who have children and the way these women share responsi-
bilities. The study found that most of the couples share
responsibility in more egalitarian ways than the stereotypical,
nuclear family model, but the author did not study any het-
erosexual parents.
Measures: Parenting Practices
Type of Family: Lesbian mothers with Donor-Inseminated Children
Limitations: Small sample size, non-random sample, doesn’t control for
variables like income level
Maureen Sullivan explored the division of household, economic, and childcare
responsibilities in the relationships of lesbian mothers. The study did not specif-
ically investigate the impact of lesbian mothers on their children. Sullivan sug-
gests that her findings about the division of responsibilities between lesbian co-
parents may have implications for their children’s understanding of gender and
gender roles.
Sullivan chose families in which the children were conceived through donor
insemination. She conducted interviews over a ninth-month period with 34 cou-
ples who lived in and around San Francisco. Seven of the couples were recruit-
ed through Sullivan’s personal contacts and through their network of acquain-
tances; the rest responded to a letter sent to a selection of clients of a San
Francisco sperm bank and insemination clinic. The participants represented a
non-random sample. The vast majority of the participants had high levels of edu-
cation and income, and although the couples were racially diverse, they could not
be said to be representative of the general population.
The interviews were conducted in the participants’ homes, and Sullivan met the
children and observed interactions among the family members. Questions
included demographic data concerning ethnicity, family income, job position,
and education. More in-depth questions were also posed, including questions
about the mothers’ lives before they met their partners; how they planned their
families; how they decided who would be the biological mother; how their lives
Chapter 4: The Social Science Case 95
changed after the child was born; how much each contributed to the family
income; how the childcare responsibilities were divided; how other domestic
work was divided; and their satisfaction with their relationship and the division
of work.
Almost all of the couples (29 out of 34) reported that they treated parenting and
household work as equally shared responsibilities. If one partner did take on
more responsibilities in either area, that partner was no more likely to be the bio-
logical mother than the non-biological mother. The study also found that these
“equal sharing” couples made decisions in an egalitarian way.
Five of the families fell into a more traditional gender-role pattern which
Sullivan dubbed the “Rozzie and Harriet” pattern in which one woman tended to
be the primary “breadwinner” and the other, the primary “caregiver.” These cou-
ples experienced many of the problems associated with heterosexual couples in
which the mother does not work, including the caregiver being dissatisfied and
the breadwinner experiencing feelings of distance from the home and the child.
The mothers in these families tended to be less satisfied with their relationships
than did couples who claimed a more equal sharing of responsibilities.
Sullivan says her study is suggestive but not conclusive. Her main finding is that
lesbian co-parents tended not to replicate traditional heterosexual gender role
behaviors, which may make for healthier and happier relationships. The study is
severely limited by the small number of families interviewed and by the means
of recruiting the participants. Also, Sullivan attempted to compare the families to
the stereotypical nuclear family (the “Ozzie and Harriet family,” as she names it),
but she does not actually interview any heterosexual families. Instead, she relies
on stereotypes of the ideal nuclear family of the 1950’s, which may not be an
accurate representation of actual heterosexual families today.
1996 (December). Gender & Society, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 747-767.
96 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
5
B
ecause he is gay, a Mississippi man couldn’t get custody of his 15-year-old
son even though the boy’s step-father beats his mother in front of him. A les-
bian who adopted a troubled boy and helped him overcome his problems and
succeed in school can’t adopt another child because her home state now disap-
proves of gay people. A lesbian mother is forced to move out of the home she
jointly owns and has shared with her partner and children for several years
because her ex-husband says she’s violating their divorce agreement. The legal
battle over gay parenting is as wide-ranging as the types of families headed by
lesbians and gay men.
This chapter of “Too High A Price” lays out the legal arguments that are most
commonly used to fight restrictions on gay parenting. These legal efforts often
use a combination of state law claims and federal and state constitutional claims.
The most powerful weapons against restrictions on gay parenting are based on
the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection of the laws, due process,
and intimate association. That’s because when there is a conflict between a law
or an individual family court judge’s ruling and the federal Constitution, the
Constitution always prevails. On the other hand, our first choice is usually to
make arguments that a particular family court judge’s ruling is inconsistent with
the state’s laws. Declaring that something is unconstitutional is about the most
far-reaching thing a court can do. Those decisions can’t be changed by legisla-
tures or Congress; they are the most sweeping possible use of a court’s power. So
most courts are reluctant to make a constitutional decision if a more modest or
“narrower” basis is available. On the other hand, if a state has a clearly anti-gay
law, a constitutional attack may be the only option.
This section generally explains the constitutional claims and a few of the state law
principles and how they’re used, and provides examples from recent court cases.
The Legal Case
Restrictions on Gay
Parenting Are Illegal
RESTRICTIONS ON GAY ADOPTION
Most states in the country consider adoption applications on a case-by-case basis
and have no blanket ban on adoption by lesbians and gay men. Nevertheless,
sometimes judges deny adoption applications either explicitly because a prospec-
tive parent is gay, or under circumstances which make it fairly easy to conclude
that was the reason (to have any chance of successfully attacking an order which
is not explicit, the anti-gay motive has to be pretty obvious).
One way to attack these orders is to say that they are not allowed under state law.
Since state laws usually require a case-by-case evaluation, it can be argued with
considerable force that state law simply does not allow decisions to be based on
one aspect of a person’s identity. More importantly, since most state laws require
that decisions be based on the “best interests of the child,” arguably no factor
should even be used against a prospective parent (much less be the basis for a dis-
qualification) unless it is actually shown to be harmful or damaging to children.
A few states do have laws which restrict gay adoption. This section outlines some
of the constitutional arguments that can be used to challenge those restrictions
(and which can also be used to challenge an individual judge’s decision to deny
an adoption because a prospective parent is gay). And of course, these are also
the constitutional concerns that will inevitably arise in any legislation aimed at
excluding lesbians and gay men from being able to adopt.
The restrictions on adoption by lesbians and gay men that currently exist take
several forms, as discussed in Chapter 2. Florida bans adoption by all gay peo-
ple. Mississippi bans adoption by lesbian or gay couples, but has no ban on adop-
tion by single people, even if they are lesbian or gay. Utah restricts adoption to
married couples, which of course effectively excludes lesbians and gay men, who
cannot marry (and are exactly who that law was targeting when it passed).
Finally, Arkansas and Nebraska do not ban adoption by lesbians and gay men but
do prohibit them from becoming foster parents.
The primary weapon against restrictions on adoption by lesbians and gay men is
the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution mandates
that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. The courts say this
means that the government may not treat one group of people differently from
98 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
others unless it can fairly say that it is treating them differently to achieve some
legitimate policy goal. Except when the group singled out for unfavorable treat-
ment is one that has historically been the target of prejudice, the courts give gov-
ernment tremendous leeway in deciding if it is fair to treat a group differently. So
most of the time, the courts say that the different treatment must simply have a
“rational relationship” to a “legitimate state interest.” That means, the courts say,
that if anyone could rationally think that treating the group in question different-
ly would help bring about a legitimate policy goal, the government can do it. The
focus is on what someone could (legitimately) think about what different treat-
ment would accomplish, not whether, in the end, they are right or wrong about
what it does.
So far, most courts have not been willing to say that lesbians and gay men have
historically been victims of prejudice. So the analysis which gives the govern-
ment so much leeway is usually the one used to evaluate bans on adoption by gay
people. Even so, the bans should not survive.
First, states often admit that the purportedly “legitimate state interest” of a
restriction on adoption is some version of expressing disapproval of lesbians and
gay men. But disadvantaging any group of people, including lesbians and gay
men, simply to say that you don’t like them is not a “legitimate” state purpose.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear, “if the constitutional conception of
‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that
a bare congressional purpose to harm a politically unpopular group cannot con-
stitute a legitimate governmental interest.” U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413
U.S. 528, 534 (1973). Illegitimate “disapproval” does not become “legitimate”
simply because the state says that its disapproval is based in morality. Virtually
every time a state has said that it wanted to discriminate against a group because
it disapproved of them, that disapproval has been wrapped in “morality.” Some
states tried to ban interracial relationships, keep women out of the workplace,
and even sterilize the mentally disabled, all in the name of morality. The equal
protection clause does not allow discrimination against any group just because
those in power don’t like them, and it doesn’t matter if the dislike can be couched
in high-minded terms like “morality” or not. Discrimination based on dislike is
simply discrimination for its own sake, which is precisely what the equal pro-
tection clause forbids.
Chapter 5: The Legal Case 99
Second, states may argue that restrictions on adoption by lesbians and gay men
are designed to advance the best interests of children. While this interest looks
legitimate at first blush, the equal protection clause still requires that there be a
plausible connection between the adoption restriction and the state’s goal of
ensuring that children are well off. That connection is lacking in most if not all
adoption restrictions aimed at lesbians and gay men. For example, if the state’s
goal is to place as many children as possible with married two-parent families,
excluding lesbians and gay men will simply do nothing to further that goal, since
the exclusion will not create more married two-parent households willing to
adopt. Further, if in fact the state cannot place all of the children in its care in
married two-parent families, or even with single parents who are willing to
adopt, but instead leaves many children in foster care, the exclusion of lesbians
and gay men from the pool of people eligible to adopt simply does not further the
state’s goal.
What a state does often undercuts its own explanations for restricting adoption
by lesbians and gay men. It is not unusual, for example, for a state to place chil-
dren in long-term foster care with lesbians and gay men, which in effect amounts
to permanent placement. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to credibly explain
banning adoption by lesbians and gay men, while evaluating all other adoption
applicants on a case-by-case basis. As explained in Chapter 4, there is no credi-
ble scientific evidence that heterosexuals make better parents than lesbians and
gay men do. So the best the state can offer is speculation.
While at first that might seem to be enough to get past the “rational relationship”
standard, the state has a further problem. There is plenty of evidence that people
with some character traits generally do make poorer parents. This is true of peo-
ple with a history of substance abuse, and people with a history of child abuse,
as well as people who have abandoned children in the past, and people who have
failed to keep up child support in the past. Even far less negative characteristics,
like relative poverty, relative lack of education, and having had parents who were
abusive or negligent, are said by some to be traits of individuals who will have a
harder time becoming good parents. So the formidable task the state faces is
explaining why it makes sense to absolutely prohibit gay people from adopting,
in the absence of evidence of harm, while all these other groups are permitted to
apply and be individually evaluated despite real, concrete evidence of harm.
100 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
If the state cannot explain why it draws the line of blanket exclusion at lesbians and
gay men, but allows applications from those whom it knows to pose a significant
risk to children, it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.
Discriminating against lesbians and gay men in adoption also denies equal pro-
tection to children who are being raised by lesbian and gay foster parents,
guardians, and other care givers who are otherwise willing and able to adopt
them. Unlike their peers who have the potential to be adopted by their hetero-
sexual care givers, and thus, get all of the emotional and tangible benefits asso-
ciated with being adopted, children raised by lesbians and gay men are shut out
of the possibility of being adopted, and instead, left vulnerable to being separat-
ed from their families. And for all the reasons detailed above, the equal protec-
tion clause does not permit this kind of discrimination against children based on
their parents’ status.
Restrictions on joint adoption by same-sex couples in states which allow married
people to adopt jointly are subject to very similar constitutional objections.
Until 1996, most lower courts assumed that the U.S. Supreme Court would not
strike down any law which discriminated against gay people. Particularly in a
1986 case which upheld Georgia’s sodomy law, the court displayed considerable
hostility to civil rights claims made on behalf of lesbians and gay men. That
assumption began to change after the Supreme Court struck down a section of
the Colorado constitution that said neither cities nor the state could pass civil
rights laws protecting gay people. But attitudes change slowly, and litigation
takes time. So while it seems very clear that gay adoption bans are based on noth-
ing but prejudice, it may take some time before the courts strike them down.
REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE GAY PARENTS
Beyond adoption, some states have laws, policies, or court rulings that deny or
severely limit recognition of the family relationships that exist between children
and their lesbian or gay parents. As described in Chapter 2, these include (among
others) rules which deny lesbian or gay biological parents custody of their chil-
dren, or which always prefer custody with heterosexual parents; rules which for-
bid visitation if a gay parent lives with a partner; rules which do not recognize
Chapter 5: The Legal Case 101
the relationships partners of parents have with children they actually raise; and
rules which do not allow gay people to adopt the children of their partners.
All of these policies that deny full recognition to family relationships because
a parent is gay run afoul of the constitutional right to equal protection, dis-
cussed above. But since these situations all involve lesbians and gay men who
have formed family relationships with children, they also violate the right to
family integrity.
The right to form and maintain parent-child relationships without interference
from the state is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental rights that the Supreme
Court has recognized. It is protected under the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The government may not interfere with parent-child
relationships or meddle in parental decision-making unless it has a compelling
reason to do it – e.g., if it is acting to protect children against significant harm.
Thus, for example, states can protect children’s physical safety by requiring vac-
cinations or forbidding child labor despite parental objections. But states gener-
ally can’t second-guess a parent’s decisions about whether a child will spend
time with other relatives. And except in very unusual circumstances, they cannot
override a parents’ decisions about education, medical care, etc.
When parents divorce, courts often have to make choices about custody, or at
a minimum about the allocation of time. The constitutional right to family
integrity doesn’t prevent that. It does say that a decision cannot be based on
something like sexual orientation which has nothing to do with a child’s well-
being. Restrictions which say that a gay parent can have custody or visitation
only in the absence of a partner are even more problematic. Everyone in the
county has a right to intimate association – to form the core emotional rela-
tionships with another person that are the source of the greatest personal satis-
faction for so many people. In fact, that right stems from the same source in the
due process clause as the right to family integrity. “No partner” custody and
visitation restrictions in effect ask gay people to choose between their consti-
tutional right to family integrity and their constitutional right to intimate asso-
ciation. But the constitution does not allow the government to demand such
choices unless they are essential to a compelling interest – in this context, child
welfare. And they are not.
102 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Rules that refuse to recognize the relationships gay people have with their part-
ners’ children raise a different issue. Frequently, gay men and lesbians raise the
children of their partners jointly with those partners, functioning as parents every
bit as much as the biological parent. Occasionally, they are the primary caretak-
er for their partners’ children. Yet as the partners of biological parents, they have
virtually no legal status in many states.
In states which do not recognize partners for their parental role, they have a pow-
erful claim. The Supreme Court has long recognized that it is not biological par-
ent-child relationships alone that are entitled to constitutional protection. The
critical core of the family interest protected by the due process clause, according
to the Court, is the emotional bond that develops between family members as a
result of shared daily life. Partners who are equal co-parents, in other words,
should be able to insist the same recognition from states as biological parents, as
part of the right to family integrity.
As with the equal protection claims, change will not come over night. But, in
fact, some states have begun to say (usually as a matter of state law) that those
who truly function as parents deserve to be legally treated as parents, or at least
as family members. Among those states are Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Courts are
also slowly but surely abandoning “no partner” visiting restrictions. And courts
now widely reject using sexual orientation as a negative factor in making cus-
tody decisions.
As lesbians and gay men increasingly choose to have children – through increas-
ingly diverse methods – this area of law will evolve and grow. But all of our work
must remain guided by the fundamental principle that it’s unconstitutional to let
anti-gay bias disadvantage lesbian and gay parents or their children. The ACLU
Lesbian & Gay Rights Project, nationally and through affiliate offices in every
state, is a resource for gay parents who need help or lawyers looking for advice
and assistance. Call 212-549-2627 or e-mail [email protected].
Chapter 5: The Legal Case 103
M
ississippi State Senator Ron Farris sums it up: “No child should be per-
mitted to enter that type of setting.” A gay home is a bad home. Gay par-
ents make bad parents.
This is why people say they want to limit the rights of gay parents. For them, it’s
better for a child to have no home at all than to have a gay home.
Across all the different cases and situations, anti-gay activists use the same
handful of arguments. They use these arguments on talk shows, in testimony
before child welfare boards, and in speeches before legislators. It’s important to
take these arguments seriously, because they have convinced people to restrict
gay parenting – like the state legislators in Mississippi who banned gay couples
from adopting children in 2000. Taking them seriously doesn’t mean believing
them, it means understanding why they are wrong and how to respond with rea-
son and truth.
The arguments of anti-gay activists run throughout this book, and the book as a
whole provides concrete, substantial responses to those arguments. But this
chapter of “Too High A Price” captures the five main anti-gay parenting argu-
ments and refutes each of them, point-by-point. The aim is to show how these
arguments are grounded in distortions and lies and to help those who fight
restrictions on gay parenting in their own communities.
6
Debunking the Myths
Arguments Against
Gay Families, and
Why They’re Wrong
ARGUMENT #1: KIDS NEED A MARRIED MOM AND DAD.
“I’m a big believer that a man and woman who are married should
be the parents of children.”
–Florida State Representative Mike Fasano, defending his state’s
anti-gay law, 2002
“Our Judeo Christian tradition and all of human history tell us what
most Americans still regard as common sense: that a child needs a
mother and a father, and that marriage is the best setting for raising
a family.”
–Robert Knight, Concerned Women for America, arguing that we
need more states with anti-gay adoption laws, 2001
“The fact is, we’re requiring marriage as an indicator of legality and
stability. People who are living together without the benefit of mar-
riage are not in a legal relationship.”
–Scott Clark, President of the Utah Board of Child and Family
Services, describing his rationale for a state ban on adoption by
unmarried parents, 1999
The social science clearly refutes this argument. Most studies on children being
raised by unmarried parents focus on single, heterosexual mothers. At least one
such study conducted by researchers at John Hopkins University found that chil-
dren are not necessarily better off with married parents (“Two Parents Not
Always Best For Children, Study Finds,” New York Times, February 21, 2002).
Social scientists tend to agree that problems with child development are often
attributable not to marriage status, but instead to a variety of other factors such
as parents’ income and education level. More importantly: none of the studies
focusing on the effects of marriage have looked at gay parents. The only studies
that compare same-sex parents to heterosexual parents are the ones in Chapter 4
– none of which found that children in homes with a married mother and father
do better than those in homes with gay parents.
Practically speaking, it is simply deceitful to claim that children without homes
have an option between a married mother and father or some other type of parent.
These children have no parent – neither a mother nor a father, married or unmar-
Chapter 6: Debunking the Myths 105
ried. There are not enough married mothers and fathers who will take them. Every
year, 46,000 kids are adopted from public child welfare agencies. In the six months
between Oct. 1, 1998, and March 31, 1999, 143,000 kids entered foster care. If fos-
ter care agencies wait for married couples to come along, thousands of children
will never know what it means to have a parent at all.
ARGUMENT #2: KIDS NEED A MOTHER AND A FATHER
TO HAVE PROPER MALE AND FEMALE ROLE MODELS.
“Do we want our children to see an aberrant model of what it means
to be a woman, a woman who hates men? What will this result in?
More shame, more gender confusion, more magnified adolescent
rebellion, and resentment.”
–Dennis Rainey, head of Family Life, testifying to the Arkansas
Child Welfare Agency Review Board, 1998
“Children are very aware of gender identity around age three, some
a little earlier. So from that early point on, they are observing and
seeing what it’s like to be a man and a woman, and how they should
relate in a relationship.”
–Dr. Carey Lampton, testifying before the Arkansas Child Welfare
Agency Review Board on the same day that the Board voted to pro-
hibit gay people from becoming foster parents, 1998
“Children should have a male and female parent to grow up and
have a normal life. I’d hate to think I grew up with a dad and a dad
instead of a mom and a dad.”
–Mississippi State Representative Tom Cameron, arguing that his
state should ban all gay adoption, 2000
“They [the studies] found that children brought up in lesbian homes
were more likely to experiment with homosexuality than children
reared in heterosexual households; that children were less likely to
adhere to culturally-accepted gender roles; that boys were more
feminine and girls were more masculine in lesbian households.”
–Reverend Lou Sheldon, decrying the recent American Academy of
106 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Pediatrics report that being gay doesn’t make automatically one a
bad parent, 2002
Research that compares children raised by heterosexual couples with children
raised by same-sex couples simply does not say that a heterosexual family is best
for a child. It does say, however, that gay men and lesbians can raise children just
as well as their heterosexual counterparts. Children do best with a range of role
models and a community of nurturing and responsible adults. They find their role
models in coaches, teachers, grandparents, friends, and neighbors. Everywhere
you turn, single parents are raising children. Grandparents, older brothers, uncles
and aunts are raising children. They are raising millions of children without any
of this so-called gender confusion.
Some anti-gay activists will misuse the studies on gay parenting to attack the chil-
dren of gay parents. They do so by turning what is merely a difference into a defect.
One study, for example, found that daughters of lesbians are more likely to want to
be doctors or astronauts than daughters of heterosexuals. In the mouths of anti-gay
activists, this gets called a gender disorder. Another study found that daughters of
lesbians are more likely to wear pants and jeans than daughters of heterosexuals.
When the activists describe it, this becomes deviant cross-dressing.
One anti-gay activist deliberately distorted the results of a study to imply that gay
parents want their kids to be gay. In a law review article used by judges and
lawyers during custody proceedings, Brigham Young University professor Lynn
Wardle (who is a law professor, not a social scientist) reports that one study
found “three of the thirteen [lesbian] mothers preferred for their daughters to
become homosexual.” In fact, the study finds no such thing. Instead it says that
the three mothers did not prefer for their children to be gay, but found homosex-
uality, “if it had to be, more acceptable for their daughters than for their sons.”
ARGUMENT #3: GAY PEOPLE CANNOT PROVIDE
STABLE HOMES.
“Homosexual people are unstable in their lifestyle – period.”
–Oklahoma State Representative Tim Pope, arguing that his state
should ban gay people from adopting children, 1999
Chapter 6: Debunking the Myths 107
“We know from much of the studies that have been done, that in gay
households typically, those situations are often unstable. There are
more depressions, more cases of suicide, more sexual partners in
cases where you have gay couples, more domestic violence.”
–Ken Conner, President of the Family Research Council, arguing in
support of Florida’s gay adoption ban on CNN, 2002
“Exposing a child to such behavior has a destructive and seriously
detrimental effect on the children. It is an inherent evil against
which children must be protected.”
–Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court, denying
custody to a lesbian mother, 2002
It is just not true. Not one credible study has ever found that somebody’s sexual
orientation alone makes him or her more likely to provide an unstable home.
Child welfare groups, such as the Child Welfare League of America and the
North American Council on Adoptable Children, agree with this, as does the
American Psychological Association. Time and again mainstream groups have
said that gay and lesbian parents are as likely to provide supportive, healthy
homes as heterosexual parents. Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics
added its voice to the chorus.
Gay couples have no more conflict or instability than non-gay couples. One
recent 12-year study (by respected marriage researchers Dr. John Gottman from
the University of Washington and Dr. Robert Levenson of the University of
California-Berkeley) confirmed this and even found that gay and lesbian couples
have unique emotional qualities that help them stay together. Compared with het-
erosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples are more upbeat in the face of con-
flict and use fewer controlling, hostile emotional tactics.
Those who would restrict gay parenting say that gay parents have higher rates of
depression, suicide, and domestic violence. This is a deliberate attempt to trick
the public and neglects to mention that their information comes from studies of
unmarried parents, which don’t tell us anything about the stability of gay fami-
lies. Studies of gay parents find that gay and heterosexual parents have equal lev-
els of mental health.
108 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
Screening for potential adoptive parents should in all cases be rigorous and thorough.
Trained adoption and foster care professionals should and do visit the homes of
potential parents, extensively interview them, and perform meticulous background
checks. These checks look for markers of instability, such as histories of domestic
abuse and drug or alcohol abuse. They ask the candidates why they want to become
parents, and they assure that the parents would be able to support their child. In
short, candidates who will be unstable parents should be and are screened out.
ARGUMENT #4: GAY PARENTS MOLEST THEIR CHILDREN.
“In an article entitled “Homosexual Parents,” Kirk Cameron and
Paul Cameron report that 29% of children raised by at least one
homosexual parent report having sex with that parent.”
–Robin Woodruff, member of the Arkansas Child Welfare Agency
Review Board, describing why she would vote to prohibit gay men
and women from becoming foster parents, 1998
“29% of those raised by homosexual parents reported to having had
sex with their homosexual parent.”
–Dennis Rainey, head of Family Life, in testimony arguing that
Arkansas should prohibit gay men and women from being foster
parents, 1998
“Having a homosexual parent appears to increase the risk of incest
with a parent by a factor of about 50.”
–John Giles, President of Alabama’s Christian Coalition, condemn-
ing a lesbian mother who had her children taken away from her, 2002
There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. All of the legiti-
mate scientific evidence shows that. Only one sham study has reported that there
is a connection. It was written by Paul Cameron – a figure much beloved by anti-
gay activists like Patrick Buchanan and Pat Robertson. When anti-gay activists
make this claim, their only source is Paul Cameron.
Cameron has been discredited by, thrown out of, and publicly chastised by
numerous professional organizations. In December of 1983, he was dropped by
Chapter 6: Debunking the Myths 109
the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association for violating
the Ethical Principles of Psychologists. In October 1984, the Nebraska
Psychological Association voted to “formally disassociate” itself from Cameron.
And in August 1986, the American Sociological Association voted to condemn
Cameron’s “consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.”
His testimony was discounted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
in Gay Student Services v. Texas A & M University, 737 F.2d 1317, 1330 (5
th
Cir.
1984), and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas said
Cameron’s testimony, including his claims about gay parents and molestation,
constituted fraud and misrepresentation, in Baker v. Wade 106 F.R.D. 526
D.C.Tex., 1985. Even Gale Norton, then Attorney General of Colorado, in 1994
dropped Cameron as an expert witness in her failed fight to defend anti-gay
Amendment 2.
According to former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Paul Cameron advocat-
ed as early as 1983 for the extermination of gay men. In an interview with
Penthouse Forum magazine he lobbied for the forcible tattooing and quarantine
of people with AIDS, then said, “It probably would be a lot cheaper to just exter-
minate male homosexuals.” (See Mark E. Pietrzyk, “Paul Cameron, profession-
al sham,” The New Republic, October 3, 1994.)
ARGUMENT #5: THE STUDIES ARE FLAWED AND
PROVE NOTHING.
“The methods used in these studies are so flawed that these
studies prove nothing.”
–Robert Lerner and Althea Nagia, statisticians-for-hire, in
their book, No Basis, which is consistently cited by anti-gay
activists who say the social science proves nothing, 2000
“Much of the literature does generally portray the kids of gays
and lesbians as doing just fine. The only question is whether a
broad-based group of scientists would accept the literature as
being objective and scientific. [There are] some questions
110 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
about the methods that were used in some of these studies and
the methods that were used to extrapolate from them.”
–Dr. Steven Nock, arguing that the American Academy of
Pediatrics were incorrect to say that kids are not harmed by
having a gay parent, 2002
“The social science evidence is very weak, poorly designed,
flawed, biased, simply doesn’t meet scientific standards.”
–Lynn D. Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young
University, testifying before the Utah Board of Child and
Family Services, which later voted to exclude any non-married
people from adopting children, 2000
Those who would ban gay people from being parents are quick to reference the
gay parenting studies when attacking gay parents and their children (see the sec-
ond argument above), but then these same people turn around to say the studies
are completely worthless.
In the past 20 years, respected researchers have looked at over 1,000 children and
over 500 lesbian and gay parents. All of these studies have been published in
peer-reviewed, respected journals, whose standards represent expert consensus
on accepted social scientific methods. Most child development studies benefit
from having in-depth observations of children with multiple reporters (parents,
teachers, clinicians, researchers, etc.) and instruments. The studies of gay and
lesbian parents have been conducted in this manner, and the research designs that
have been criticized adhere to the generally accepted scientific standards of psy-
chology. Indeed, if we were to accept what these activists say, we would have to
dismiss virtually the entire discipline.
The most commonly cited authors in denouncing studies on gay and lesbian par-
enting are Dr. Robert Lerner and Dr. Althea Nagai, who were paid by an anti-gay
group to write a 2001 book called, No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us
About Same-Sex Parenting. In the book, they say that not a single conclusion can
be drawn about gay and lesbian parenting from any study ever done. Lerner and
Nagai are not credible; they are researchers-for-hire who make their living writ-
ing studies for conservative organizations and finding results that support con-
servative social policies. One such organization funded a Lerner study that found
Chapter 6: Debunking the Myths 111
African Americans were over three times more likely to be acquitted of rape
charges than whites. To reach this conclusion Lerner looked at a mere five jury
trials involving black defendants. (Roger Parloff, “Speaking of Junk Science,”
The American Lawyer, January 1997.) This is the same man who dismisses a
study of over two-dozen gay parents for having an insufficient sample size and
clearly someone who will conclude whatever he is paid to conclude.
Lerner is typical of the so-called experts who advocate restricting gay parenting.
None of these activists are trained psychologists. Across the board, they have
close ties to right-wing organizations and think tanks and have been discredited
by mainstream scholars and organizations.
112 Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
CONCLUSION
The policies, studies, and legal rules described in this book are the result of tire-
less work, by advocates, scientists and lawyers, but above all by countless les-
bians, gay men, and children who fought for the right of gay people to form fam-
ilies with children.
Many did that at a time when families with gay parents seemed an impossible
dream, when having children seemed like one of the things you had to give up to
be gay. With respect and admiration, this book is dedicated to those courageous
women, men, and children who helped to change all that. While we can’t name
all of the brave families we’ve worked with over the years, here are a few of the
people who continue to pave the way:
Matthew & Craig in Arkansas;
Anne in Arkansas;
William and his gay son in Arkansas;
Michele and her children in California;
Joshua in California;
Sharon in California;
Anne & Malinda and “Baby Z” in Connecticut;
June and her son in Florida;
Doug and his son in Florida;
Dan & Wayne in Florida;
Steve & Roger and their kids from Florida;
Susan, her two daughters, and her son in Georgia;
Jean Ann in Georgia;
Conswella in Georgia;
Craig, his three sons, and his daughter in Indiana;
Debra in Indiana;
Michael and his son in Mississippi;
Rosemary and her three girls in Mississippi;
Jill in New Jersey;
Valerie and her twins in New Jersey;
Jon & Michael, their two sons, and their daughter in New Jersey;
Janis, her daughter, and her son in New York;
Aviva and her daughter in North Carolina;
Katie and her daughter in Ohio;
Tracie and her son in Pennsylvania;
Sharon and her son in Virginia.
Conclusion 113
Too High a Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
