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.