At the National Catholic Register reporter Steve Wetherbe has a solid story on how researchers are squelching the science, as the gay marriage debate makes scholars otherwise aware of the research on marriage, divorce and child well-being unwilling to say what they used to say.
NEW YORK — Social scientists are concealing the harm that divorce, single parenting and stepfamilies do to children. Not only that, they are also hiding the benefits which even unhappy marriages bestow, not just on children, but on the couples involved.
So claim the heads of several organizations devoted to defending traditional marriages.
“It’s a very sad occurrence when people, for reasons of political embarrassment, won’t say what they believe,” said David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values. Blankenhorn worries that government agencies and other institutions will frame policies based on misreported scientific findings that disfavor the traditional family.
Elizabeth Marquardt, head of the Manhattan-based Center for Marriage and Families, sparked the debate when she challenged a report from Child Trends, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., that showed the happier the parents’ relationship is, the happier, better socialized and more successful the children are.
The report, “Parental Relationship Quality and Child Outcomes Across Subgroups”, found couples’ satisfaction correlated positively with child behaviors regardless of the family structure, class and ethnicity.
All well and good, said Marquardt in an early April blog on the FamilyScholars.org website she edits. But why didn’t Child Trends even mention that its data also showed that the positive outcomes across all “subgroups” trended significantly upwards the more traditional the parents’ relationship?
Children living with biological or adoptive parents did better than those with their unmarried biological or adoptive parents; the outcomes were significantly worse for children in a married stepfamily and worst with one biological parent and an unmarried partner. more
Categories: Marriage
How do I disagree with thee? Let me count the ways.
I don’t know why a married same-sex couple wouldn’t be included in the Adopted Married category. And some percentage of unmarried same-sex couples arguably should be in this category as well.
Consider: Why did the study authors lump together Biological Married with Adopted Married? This suggest to me that the authors were (rightly or wrongly) not focused on biological relationship. I’m guessing the authors were focusing on households in which the kids were raised by a couple that is committed and stable.
As I noted above, among male/female couples, marriage is a marker for commitment. Among same-sex couples in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, we have no such marker. That doesn’t mean same-sex couples aren’t committed; it means we can’t recognize which couples are committed and which ones aren’t. We must be careful in extrapolating from our ignorance. An absence of knowledge is not the same as knowledge of absence.
I fully agree that “All You Need Is Love” is a poor summary of the report. But I disagree with the suggestion that the study shows that having a mom and dad raising their biologically-created kid causes the best outcomes. First, I repeat, the study did not distinguish between married people raising biologically-related kids and married people raising adopted kids. Second, I repeat, the study did not show CAUSATION.
Nobody: > I have greater difficulty seeing the point of telling people that raising kids in a heterosexual union is better than raising kids in a homosexual union. Who exactly chooses between these two options?
I’d rather people love, honor and cherish the person they potentially create the child with, as a foundation of their love and support for the child.
Any hand-off of responsibility beyond invites the potential for that responsibility to be dropped completely.
I can see helping any banded together situation with support and recognition, but I also see helping keep the procreational unit intact before it has to become a banding together situation.
Its like the fence at the top of the cliff vs the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. They both help, but if you don’t mind looking at it this way they do different tasks, one prevents harm and the other helps heal.
[paragraph deleted by admin]
And only by keeping it intact do you have a shot at fully and equally recognizing the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together — which is what I consider to be marriage equality.
@nobody.really: Your analogy was way off base and unacceptable here. I’ll ban you the next time you use it.