As of this afternoon, the American Psychological Association (APA) has failed to specifically respond to Loren Marks’ detailed criticism, in a Social Science Research article just published, of the APA’s 2005 brief on gay and lesbian parenting.
However, the APA did find the time to release, on June 11, a “news response,” titled “APA on Children Raised by Gay and Lesbian Parents.” It’s not clear what “news” they are responding to, presumably the Mark Regnerus study, and perhaps Marks’ piece. But if it is a response to Marks’ piece, it’s not a response. Instead, they simply parrot what they say in their 2004 policy statement and their 2005 brief, saying that
On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.
They say that theyhave “continued to monitor the research since 2004 and report that research in our amicus briefs, such as in the Gill vs. OPM case.”
I’ll look with interest at that amicus brief to see what new research they rely upon since 2004. But when it comes to the 2005 brief that Marks’ critiques, apparently the public is just supposed to believe the APA when they repeat their assertions.
However, one would hope that when a peer-reviewed journal publishes an article by a scholar who offers a detailed critique of an organization’s expert, scientific research conclusion, and concludes that that organization’s ”strong assertions … were not empirically warranted” — it sure seems like the public deserves more than an assertion repeating exactly what was said seven years ago.
Categories: General
I think you are picking a fight where none exists. The APA believes the research says one thing, while acknowledging the limitations of the research. Marks says the research is limited. So they agree the research is limited, they just don’t agree with Marks that the research says sexual orientation has a bearing on quality parenting.
They have responded to Marks, who is not the first to make the argument. They don’t need to make a detailed rebuttal since they ultimately agree on the quality of the research out there, they just don’t agree on Marks’ hypothesis that the flawed research means gays and lesbians are bad parents.
The response you link to, as you point out, doesn’t do anything but recap things the APA has already said.
I imagine for them to say anything new is a difficult and time-consuming process; an entire committee has to go through a whole process of proposing a new position, selecting members to go and study whatever new information exists and report back on it to the entire committee, there has to be a vote, etc. And all the people that have to be involved with that process, have full-time jobs, so it all has to happen in people’s spare time.
Before all that happens, I doubt that they’re allowed to issue any position that isn’t “repeating exactly what was said seven years ago.”
IF they do respond to Marks or incorporate Regnerus’ papers into their position, it might take a really long time — perhaps over a year.
I think the APA is wisely steering clear of the politics of gay parenting. There is good reason to: no other groups are evaluated for their parenting skills, and no public policy is likely to be implemented based on notions of parenting skills. It’s hard to imagine the government outlawing single parenting (it lacks that evidently crucial other gender), or poor people parenting, or mixed-race parenting or any other parenting status that might compare unfavorably to wealthy, white, educated, married, different-sex parenting, you know, the “gold standard” of parenting. We know there is currently a war on gays and lesbians in America and politicizing social science research isn’t going to diminish the fighting.
I seems like some people are trying to start a fight, on the flimsiest pretext. Make something an issue, just by injecting some doubt: maybe gays really are worse parents. A better way, I think, is to normalize homosexuality and gay relationships, including legalizing same-sex marriage, for some period of time. Then, and only then, can any conclusions about gay parenting be made, if anyone still feels that necessary.
Ultimately, we have pretty loose standards for who is allowed to parent in this country. I don’t think gay people should be held to a higher standard than, say, common criminals.
David,
First of all, Loren Marks is not just *some* expert. He was a witness for the Prop 8 proponents in California almost three years ago:
Plaintiffs’ attorneys last week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married “biological” parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents.
Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined “biological” parents in a way that included adoptive parents — not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word “biological” should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed.
Secondly, look at the articles that the Witherspoon Institute has put out since Regnerus’ study was published. Here’s an excerpt from one by Matthew Franck, a Director at the Institute:
As I say, after the publication of Loren Marks’s critique of past research, and especially of Mark Regnerus’s impressive new research, it could be tempting to seize the implied offer of their rather shell-shocked critics and agree that social scientists may be excused from any further role in the marriage debate.
But then again, why agree to a truce when one is winning an argument? For the plainly rational basis of traditional marriage laws is strongly supported by the studies of Professors Marks and Regnerus.
Is it a surprise that perhaps the APA is suspicious that these two studies are not social science but just a political masquerade?
Political masquerade = propaganda.
Yes, it’s uncivil to make claims based on falsehoods but evidently it’s not the incivility that merits attention. Name-calling, bad; using falsehoods to harm a minority group and their children, no problem.
I find it odd that a “scholarly” blog is offended at personal criticism but supportive of bad scholarship.
And as predicted, the conservative websites and organizations have seized on the Regnerus research, like they were prepared for its release, with a collective “A ha, we told you so!”
JeffreyRO5,
I think using “civility” is an easy way to shield oneself from criticism. Then you don’t need to address the criticism. But there is also something else. It’s unethical conduct.
Here’s another interesting fact.
There is one person who is connected to Mark Regnerus’s funder (Witherspoon Institute), THIS website and the Institute for American Values, and a political outfit that fights same-sex marriage (NOM). I think many would recognize that this is Professor Robert George.
What may not be widely know is that Professor George is also a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Deseret News, the article from which was one of the first two linked by Ms. Marquardt.
Given all these connections, does anyone think that something maybe should have been mentioned about the ubiquity of Professor George?
I don’t think that’s a productive line of thinking, or a way of criticizing the study that’s apt to be persuasive to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
As for the ubiquity of Professor George, I don’t think it means much of anything, except that (1) the world of socially conservative intellectuals working on “traditional family” issues is actually quite small, and the people in that world therefore tend to know one another, and (2) Professor George is the sort of person who tends to have his fingers in a lot of pies.
Even if George was aware of the study early because of his involvement with Witherspoon, and suggested to the Desert News that they should do a story on it — so what? There’s nothing unethical about that.
The travesty here is the design of the study — and the choice of the journal to choose such tepid people (two of whom actually worked on the study project!) to write response pieces. Worrying about Robert George’s relationship to the study is a distraction from the substantive arguments against taking this study seriously.
I’m sorry, Mr. Deutsch, maybe I was not clear. This was not an argument about validity or invalidity of the research. This was about how This blog (and Institute for AV) positions itself.
If he was not connected to this Institute, I’d agree that it would be Ms. Marquardt’s call whether or not to include his name. But not including Prof. George’s connections when he is also quite connected to this Institute – I believe – is unethical. Forgive me for assuming this Institute was concerned for its own image, I will not be making the same mistake again.
“But when it comes to the 2005 brief that Marks’ critiques, apparently the public is just supposed to believe the APA when they repeat their assertions.”
To me it seems that you’re talking about this as if it’s a product recall, or another emergency action in response to potential contamination. Perhaps this is a bit off-topic, so I understand if you don’t want to get into it, but what are your policy prescriptions on children’s exposure to same-sex or otherwise aheteronormative parenting? For instance, do you personally view it as hazardous enough to warrant removal of children from their same-sex families by CPS or a similar agency?
Aravind–
My particular blog post has everything to do with scientific integrity. If Marks’ critique of the APA is correct – if you have had a chance to read it, I think you’ll agree it’s a serious critique – my take-away is that the APA damaged its scientific integrity on the issue of the outcomes of children with same-sex parents. Since the public trusts that the APA is making science-based decisions, they owe the public an explanation of why they drew the conclusions they did, based on the very limited studies available.
As to your question, I am definitely not concerned with children’s “exposure” to same-sex parenting, and as I suspect you agree, I think that’s a rather wrong-headed way of thinking about the issue. The issue is not the ability of same-sex parents to be competent, loving parents. I know that many of them are phenomenal parents. Instead, the issue is, What are the consequences of a child growing up without his biological mother and/or father?
My parents recently became adoptive parents. I think my parents are wonderful parents, and are doing everything in their power to love my adoptive brother and sister. Regardless of that, I suspect that my adoptive brother and sister will always, to some degree, struggle with the absence of their biological mother and father. It’s a deficit – not because my parents are bad parents, but because my brother and sister miss their parents.
The question is, Is it okay for us as a society to deliberately deny a child his mother and/or father? And what are the consequences of denying children one of their biological parents?
Ralph – Poisoning the well by dismissing Loren Marks as a partisan with no scientific integrity is an easy way to dismiss his scholarship – but it doesn’t tell us anything about his scholarship, which is published for all of us to assess. If you have had the chance to read it, I would be interested hearing your thoughts about the content of Marks’ essay.
Jeffrey – The whole problem is that whatever limitations the APA acknowledge, they breeze right past them in their sweeping conclusions that the scientific debate is settled. So if APA acknowledges the limitations, why don’t they follow through on that acknowledgement and withdraw their statements saying that the scientific debate is settled? Go back and read their news response. There are NO acknowledgements of the profound limitations of the research.
“The question is, Is it okay for us as a society to deliberately deny a child his mother and/or father? And what are the consequences of denying children one of their biological parents?”
I don’t think these are the only questions. Others are, do we have any right to deny people who want to be parents, to be parents? How is same-sex parenting related to same-sex marriage, if at all? Don’t children being raised by same-sex parents deserved the security that marriage brings to a family? Is parenting really a topic for discussion, since it is a personal, not social, choice? Apart from same-sex parenting, what other forms of parenting (single, two working parents, mixed-race or mixed-faith marriages, etc.) deserve to be scrutinized and evaluated for their parenting prowess? What public policy prescriptions can be made about who may and who may not be parents?
JeffreyR05
Children of gays and lesbians would benefit from their parent being able to marry their partners because then they would have legal step parents whose income would be calculated together with their parent thereby increasing the amount of support the parent is required to provide – whether they live with that parent who got married or not.
It bugs me though that people talk about getting married as if it makes the spouse of the parent also a parent. They talk about gay couples parenting as if both were parents rather than one being the parent and the other being the step parent. This is of course a problem with marital presumption in general and it needs to be corrected so that no spouse straight or gay simply becomes the parent of a child without the child actually being their offspring.
When you talk about marriage bringing stability to the life of a child your talking about them being able to have a legal step parent right?
“When you talk about marriage bringing stability to the life of a child your talking about them being able to have a legal step parent right?”
Yes, I’m talking about the romantically involved couple, straight or gay, who are raising children, to be married. I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re talking about. Parents don’t have to be biological in order to be parents. David just mentioned his parents became adoptive parents; I hope they’re married, for the sake of themselves and their new child(ren).
Society should insist that couples raising children be married if at all possible. That’s because marriage keeps a couple together, in order to raise the children to adulthood. Married couples are generally wealthier, live longer and happier lives. The children of married couples have better outcomes, generally, than the children of unmarried parents.
Maggie Gallagher has a great article about marriage, and its many benefits for couples and their children. Certainly, we would want the children of same-sex couples to benefit from this fine institution.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_why_marriage_is.html
David Lapp:
I think we need to take a step back on that one. Children being raised by one or more non-biological parents don’t simply interact with those parents potentially differently and consequently grow up differently. We’re immersed in a society that elevates biological parenthood above actual commitment to a child’s security. As a result, I think we really need to consider when answering your question the impact of society’s expectation that parents be biological parents and the (in my experience, frankly) treatment of non-biological families as pathological.
I’m not convinced that us children raised in same-sex households won’t be different from the rest of you (although, I still think the study in question is flawed). That said, I’m pretty skeptical that us being different is a problem. And furthermore, even if we are somehow worse off, it seems much more relevant to look at the negative impacts of society abandoning and ostracizing same-sex couple families (as JeffreyRO5 pointed out, when you don’t give them the same legal and social tools, families understandably can’t do as much or as well).
What no one wants to admit on either side is that a rigorous assessment of the APA’s literature review or Loren Mark’s literature review has not yet been done in terms of effect sizes. Schumm has reported some of them, but not all. Until that is done, we really don’t have a good assessment of the literature. A meta-analysis would be better still, but we don’t have one even today.