Social Structure in the News

US Lesbian Parents Precedent Set
Lesbian parents have the same rights and responsibilities towards their children in the event of a break-up, California's highest court has ruled.
The Christian Science Monitor - csmonitor.com
from the August 25, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0825/p02s02-ussc.html

California court affirms gay parenting

Ruling sets responsibilities, rights of homosexual parents but spurs backlash by same-sex marriage opponents.

By Amanda Paulson and Daniel B. Wood | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

CHICAGO AND LOS ANGELES - Defining parenthood is far less simple than it used to be.

That fact was made abundantly clear by the California Supreme Court's ruling this week in three cases involving reproductive technology and lesbian relationships.

In California, the landmark decisions - which granted full parenthood to former partners despite the absence of legal adoption or, in two of the cases, a biological connection - have made the terrain a little clearer and solidified the direction in which many courts are moving: conferring the rights and responsibilities of parenthood based on intent and psychology rather than biology, adoption, or marriage.

But as the decisions have been lauded and decried across the country, they've also underlined the vastly different patchwork of how states handle the often-murky relationships at the nexus of reproductive technology and shifting family structures.

"I regard these three decisions as unprecedented because they go so far toward protecting children without regard to marital status or biology or gender of the parent, but at the same time they're not unique," says Joan Hollinger, an adoption and parentage law expert at the University of California in Berkeley. "They're part of the quest on the part of so many states to figure out how to define parentage when sex is separated from reproduction."

At least nine states officially allow second-parent adoption - often sought by gay couples - and several confer visitation rights or have ordered child support from nonbiological or nonadoptive parents.

But the California cases are the first in which such individuals have been declared full legal parents, with the rights of, say, inheritance or social-security benefits.

The rulings also affect heterosexual couples who use reproductive technology but this week, much of the reaction has focused on the court's statement that "We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women."

"Same-sex couples are now able to procreate and have children, and the law has to catch up with that reality," says Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Like many gay-rights advocates, he applauded the decision for recognizing parental bonds outside of gender or marital status.

The three decisions, while all involving reproductive technology, addressed very different situations. In one, a woman was ordered to pay child support for the biological children of her former lesbian partner, who has relied on welfare since the two split up.

In the second, a woman who years earlier had gotten a court order - and birth certificate - declaring both herself and her partner to be parents, was told she could not terminate her former partner's rights.

Perhaps the most unusual case involved a couple in which one woman donated an egg to her partner, who bore the twin children. At the time of donation the woman, whose initials are K. M., signed a form giving up parental rights, although both women cared for the twins for six years.

Two dissenting judges in that opinion noted that ignoring the release form might hold implications for other sperm and egg donors who sign waivers believing they've relinquished their obligations. But the majority felt that the intent and act of par- enting were sufficient to grant K.M. the rights she sought.

"As the only existing precedent on the issues that it covers, it will be a significant point of reference" for other states, notes Jill Hersh, K.M.'s lawyer.

While these three rulings apply only in California, the state is often at the forefront of reproductive-technology decisions, and may give guidance to other states that increasingly are faced with complex family structures.

Technology outpaces law

"I tell my students I couldn't invent the kind of family situations in which people actually live," says Nancy Polikoff, a professor at the American University Law School. "And it's the job of the courts to resolve these disputes with the law they have at their disposal."

Such law, formed decades before sperm donors, surrogate parents, and same-sex parents were common concepts, is often hardly adequate. But increasingly, say experts, courts are ruling based on the individuals' intent to act as parents and principles like parenthood by "estoppel" - in which an acting parent-child relationship creates legal parenthood.

Resolving conflicting state laws can be tricky, however. In one much-publicized case, a couple who had a civil union in Vermont and had a daughter through artificial insemination is battling in courts in both Vermont and Virginia, where the biological mother now lives with her child.

A Vermont court awarded the former partner visitation rights, but the other mother is now hoping to use Virginia's Affirmation of Marriage Act - which declares that the state does not recognize civil unions - to declare her the sole parent.

"It's an example of a situation where the fact that different states have different laws can cause a problem," Professor Polikoff says.

Critics of the California rulings warned of a "slippery slope" in which biology is ignored and the number of parents a child has keeps growing.

Developing backlash

"This blows apart the definition of family more than ever," says Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families in California. "It's about the courts pushing social engineering on the unsuspecting public."

Meanwhile, California opponents of gay marriage are pressing to put constitutional amendments on the June 2006 ballot that aims to push back currently recognized domestic partnership benefits and ban gay marriage.

But even as advocates on both sides debate repercussions of the court's rulings, K.M. is thrilled just knowing that she'll soon be reunited with her twin daughters, who have been living in Massachusetts with their other mother for several years.

"I am just like over the moon," she says. "I woke up today for the first time in four years and looked at the photos of my daughters by the bed and could do it without any pain or sadness.... I hope this means that all children and families will be protected from here out."

Return to Top of Page

 

August 16, 2005
New York Times
"Have You Heard? Gossip Turns Out to Serve a Purpose"



By BENEDICT CAREY
Juicy gossip moves so quickly - He did what? She has pictures? - that few people have time to cover their ears, even if they wanted to.

"I heard a lot in the hallway, on the way to class," said Mady Miraglia, 35, a high school history teacher in Los Gatos, Calif., speaking about a previous job, where she got a running commentary from fellow teachers on the sexual peccadilloes and classroom struggles of her colleagues.

"To be honest, it made me feel better as a teacher to hear others being put down," she said. "I was out there on my own, I had no sense of how I was doing in class, and the gossip gave me some connection. And I felt like it gave me status, knowing information, being on the inside."

Gossip has long been dismissed by researchers as little more than background noise, blather with no useful function. But some investigators now say that gossip should be central to any study of group interaction.

People find it irresistible for good reason: Gossip not only helps clarify and enforce the rules that keep people working well together, studies suggest, but it circulates crucial information about the behavior of others that cannot be published in an office manual. As often as it sullies reputations, psychologists say, gossip offers a foothold for newcomers in a group and a safety net for group members who feel in danger of falling out.

"There has been a tendency to denigrate gossip as sloppy and unreliable" and unworthy of serious study, said David Sloan Wilson, a professor of biology and anthropology at the State University of New York at Binghamton and the author of "Darwin's Cathedral," a book on evolution and group behavior. "But gossip appears to be a very sophisticated, multifunctional interaction which is important in policing behaviors in a group and defining group membership."

When two or more people huddle to share inside information about another person who is absent, they are often spreading important news, and enacting a mutually protective ritual that may have evolved from early grooming behaviors, some biologists argue.

Long-term studies of Pacific Islanders, American middle-school children and residents of rural Newfoundland and Mexico, among others, have confirmed that the content and frequency of gossip are universal: people devote anywhere from a fifth to two-thirds or more of their daily conversation to gossip, and men appear to be just as eager for the skinny as women.

Sneaking, lying and cheating among friends or acquaintances make for the most savory material, of course, and most people pass on their best nuggets to at least two other people, surveys find.

This grapevine branches out through almost every social group and it functions, in part, to keep people from straying too far outside the group's rules, written and unwritten, social scientists find.

In one recent experiment, Dr. Wilson led a team of researchers who asked a group of 195 men and women to rate their approval or disapproval of several situations in which people talked behind the back of a neighbor. In one, a rancher complained to other ranchers that his neighbor had neglected to fix a fence, allowing cattle to wander and freeload. The report was accurate, and the students did not disapprove of the gossip.

But men in particular, the researchers found, strongly objected if the rancher chose to keep mum about the fence incident.

"Plain and simple he should have told about the problem to warn other ranchers," wrote one study participant, expressing a common sentiment that, in this case, a failure to gossip put the group at risk.

"We're told we're not supposed to gossip, that our reputation plummets, but in this context there may be an expectation that you should gossip: you're obligated to tell, like an informal version of the honor code at military academies," Dr. Wilson said.

This rule-enforcing dynamic is hardly confined to the lab. For 18 months, Kevin Kniffin, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin, tracked the social interactions of a university crew team, about 50 men and women who rowed together in groups of four or eight.

Dr. Kniffin said he was still analyzing his research notes. But a preliminary finding, he said, was that gossip levels peaked when the team included a slacker, a young man who regularly missed practices or showed up late. Fellow crew members joked about the slacker's sex life behind his back and made cruel cracks about his character and manhood, in part because the man's shortcoming reflected badly on the entire team.

"As soon as this guy left the team, the people were back to talking about radio, food, politics, weather, those sorts of things," Dr. Kniffin said. "There was very little negative gossip."

Given this protective group function, gossiping too little may be at least as risky as gossiping too much, some psychologists say. After all, scuttlebutt is the most highly valued social currency there is. While humor and story telling can warm any occasion, a good scoop spreads through a room like an illicit and irresistible drug, passed along in nods and crooked smiles, in discreet walks out to the balcony, the corridor, the powder room.

Knowing that your boss is cheating on his wife, or that a sister-in-law has a drinking problem or a rival has benefited from a secret trust fund may be enormously important, and in many cases change a person's behavior for the better.

"We all know people who are not calibrated to the social world at all, who if they participated in gossip sessions would learn a whole lot of stuff they need to know and can't learn anywhere else, like how reliable people are, how trustworthy," said Sarah Wert, a psychologist at Yale. "Not participating in gossip at some level can be unhealthy, and abnormal."

Talking out of school may also buffer against low-grade depressive moods. In one recent study, Dr. Wert had 84 college students write about a time in their lives when they felt particularly alienated socially, and also about a memory of being warmly accepted.

After finishing the task, Dr. Wert prompted the participants to gossip with a friend about a mutual acquaintance, as she filmed the exchanges. Those who rated their self-esteem highly showed a clear pattern: they spread good gossip when they felt accepted and a more derogatory brand when they felt marginalized.

The gossip may involve putting someone else down to feel better by comparison. Or it may simply be a way to connect with someone else and share insecurities. But the end result, she said, is often a healthy relief of social and professional anxiety.

Ms. Miraglia, the high school teacher, said that in her previous job she found it especially comforting to hear about more senior teachers' struggle to control difficult students. "It was my first job, and I felt overwhelmed, and to hear someone say, 'There's no control in that class' about another teacher, that helped build my confidence," she said.

She said she also heard about teachers who made inappropriate comments to students about sex, a clear violation of school policy and professional standards.

Adept gossipers usually sense which kinds of discreet talk are most likely to win acceptance from a particular group. For example, a closely knit corporate team with clear values - working late hours, for instance - will tend to embrace a person who gripes in private about a colleague who leaves early and shun one who complains about the late nights.

By contrast, a widely dispersed sales force may lap up gossip about colleagues, but take it lightly, allowing members to work however they please, said Eric K. Foster, a scholar at the Institute for Survey Research at Temple University in Philadelphia, who recently published an analysis of gossip research.

It is harder to judge how gossip will move through groups that are split into factions, like companies with divisions that are entirely independent, Dr. Foster said. "In these situations, it is the person who gravitates into a intermediate position, making connections between the factions, who controls the gossip flow and holds a lot of power," he said.

Such people can mask devious intentions, spread false rumors and manipulate others for years, as anyone who has worked in an organization for a long time knows. But to the extent that healthy gossip has evolved to protect social groups, it will also ultimately expose many of those who cheat and betray. Any particularly nasty gossip has an author or authors, after all, and any functioning gossip network builds up a memory.

So do the people who are tuned in to the network. In one 2004 study, psychologists had college students in Ohio fill out questionnaires, asking about the best gossip they had heard in the last week, the last month and the last year. The students then explained in writing what they learned by hearing the stories. Among the life lessons:

"Infidelity will eventually catch up with you," "Cheerful people are not necessarily happy people" and "Just because someone says they have pictures of something doesn't mean they do."

None of which they had learned in class.

Return to Top of Page

September 5, 2005

New York Times

Exploiting the Gender Gap

By WARREN FARRELL

 Carlsbad, Calif. — Nothing disturbs working women more than the statistics often mentioned on Labor Day showing that they are paid only 76 cents to men's dollar for the same work. If that were the whole story, it should disturb all of us; like many men, I have two daughters and a wife in the work force.

 When I was on the board of the National Organization for Women in New York City, I blamed discrimination for that gap. Then I asked myself, "If an employer has to pay a man one dollar for the same work a woman would do for 76 cents, why would anyone hire a man?"

 Perhaps, I thought, male bosses undervalue women. But I discovered that in 2000, women without bosses - who own their own businesses - earned only 49 percent of male business owners. Why? When the Rochester Institute of Technology surveyed business owners with M.B.A.'s from one top business school, they found that money was the primary motivator for only 29 percent of the women, versus 76 percent of the men. Women put a premium on autonomy, flexibility (25- to 35-hour weeks and proximity to home), fulfillment and safety.

 After years of research, I discovered 25 differences in the work-life choices of men and women. All 25 lead to men earning more money, but to women having better lives.

 High pay, as it turns out, is about tradeoffs. Men's tradeoffs include working more hours (women work more around the home); taking more dangerous, dirtier and outdoor jobs (garbage collecting, construction, trucking); relocating and traveling; and training for technical jobs with less people contact (like engineering).

 Is the pay gap, then, about the different choices of men and women? Not quite. It's about parents' choices. Women who have never been married and are childless earn 117 percent of their childless male counterparts. (This comparison controls for education, hours worked and age.) Their decisions are more like married men's, and never-married men's decisions are more like women's in general (careers in arts, no weekend work, etc.)

 Does this imply that mothers sacrifice careers? Not really. Surveys of men and women in their 20's find that both sexes (70 percent of men, and 63 percent of women) would sacrifice pay for more family time. The next generation's discussion will be about who gets to be the primary parent.

 Don't women, though, earn less than men in the same job? Yes and no. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics lumps together all medical doctors. Men are more likely to be surgeons (versus general practitioners) and work in private practice for hours that are longer and less predictable, and for more years. In brief, the same job is not the same. Are these women's choices? When I taught at a medical school, I saw that even my first-year female students eyed specialties with fewer and more predictable hours.

 But don't female executives also make less than male executives? Yes. Discrimination? Let's look. The men are more frequently executives of national and international firms with more personnel and revenues, and responsible for bottom-line sales, marketing and finances, not human resources or public relations. They have more experience, relocate and travel overseas more, and so on.

 Comparing men and women with the "same jobs," then, is to compare apples and oranges. However, when all 25 choices are the same, the great news for women is that then the women make more than the men. Is there discrimination against women? Yes, like the old boys' network. And sometimes discrimination against women becomes discrimination against men: in hazardous fields, women suffer fewer hazards. For example, more than 500 marines have died in the war in Iraq. All but two were men. In other fields, men are virtually excluded - try getting hired as a male dental hygienist, nursery school teacher, cocktail waiter.

 There are 80 jobs in which women earn more than men - positions like financial analyst, speech-language pathologist, radiation therapist, library worker, biological technician, motion picture projectionist. Female sales engineers make 143 percent of their male counterparts; female statisticians earn 135 percent.

 I want my daughters to know that people who work 44 hours a week make, on average, more than twice the pay of someone working 34 hours a week. And that pharmacists now earn almost as much as doctors. But only by abandoning our focus on discrimination against women can we discover these opportunities for women.

Warren Farrell is the author of "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap - and What Women Can Do About It."

Return to Top of Page

A symmetrical face isn't just prettier - it's healthier too
By Stephen Khan and Roger Dobson


Published: 02 October 2005

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article316593.ece

Those fortunate enough to have symmetrical faces have probably already discovered that they attract the opposite sex. Now they are being told such fine features actually mean they are healthier.

For the perfectly proportioned face is also an indication that the body it sits atop is well prepared to fight off infection. The common cold, asthma and flu are all more likely to be combated efficiently by those whose left side matches their right.

It's all to do with exposure to testosterone and oestrogen during development, say researchers whose study is published this week in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour. Symmetry, it seems, suggests that certain men are more masculine and women more feminine. The study reveals that such faces are also an indication of a person who has evolved from a large gene pool.

The researchers, based at the University of New Mexico in the United States, measured the facial features of around 400 young people and compared them with health records over three years. Features measured included chin length, jaw width, lip width, eye width, and eye height.  Further studies by scientists in the UK reach a similar conclusion. Dr Nick Neave, an evolutionary psychologist at Northumbria University, explained: "We've done research into facial symmetry and found that if a face is very asymmetrical people are turned off.

"But if a man or woman has a symmetrical face, it's a turn-on. You're attracted on a subconscious level because, throughout history, humans have chosen to breed with people they perceive to be healthy. Healthy genes mean a symmetrical face."

When the US researchers looked at rates of illnesses and antibiotic use they found direct links with looks. "The research we report in this paper provides evidence that male masculinity is a marker of resistance to infection, although, more specifically in this population, to respiratory diseases,'' they said.

It is well established that testosterone is involved in the immune system's ability to combat disease. And Professor Dave Perrett at the University of St Andrews has also suggested that women prefer symmetrical faces because this indicates healthy genes in their partner.

Similarly, women's facial femininity may signal resistance to respiratory problems.

The University of New Mexico team warned that women whose partners have mismatching ears, fingers or elbows tend to fantasise about sex with other men when they ovulate.

But the researchers caution that the link between looks and health may change as men and women age. An abundance of testosterone is not necessarily beneficial in the long term. "Testosterone has detrimental effects on longevity, as revealed by the relatively long lifespan of castrated men," researchers said.

But the researchers caution that the link between looks and health may change as men and women age. An abundance of testosterone is not necessarily beneficial in the long term. "Testosterone has detrimental effects on longevity, as revealed by the relatively long lifespan of castrated men," researchers said.

Return to Top of Page

October 17, 2006
New York Times

Married and Single Parents Spending More Time With Children, Study Finds

By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — Despite the surge of women into the work force, mothers are spending at least as much time with their children today as they did 40 years ago, and the amount of child care and housework performed by fathers has sharply increased, researchers say in a new study, based on analysis of thousands of personal diaries.

“We might have expected mothers to curtail the time spent caring for their children, but they do not seem to have done so,” said one of the researchers, Suzanne M. Bianchi, chairwoman of the department of sociology at the University of Maryland. “They certainly did curtail the time they spent on housework.”

The researchers found that “women still do twice as much housework and child care as men” in two-parent families. But they said that total hours of work by mothers and fathers were roughly equal, when they counted paid and unpaid work.

Using this measure, the researchers found “remarkable gender equality in total workloads,” averaging nearly 65 hours a week.

The findings are set forth in a new book, “Changing Rhythms of American Family Life,” published by the Russell Sage Foundation and the American Sociological Association. The research builds on work that Ms. Bianchi did in 16 years as a demographer at the Census Bureau.

At first, the authors say, “it seems reasonable to expect that parental investment in child-rearing would have declined” since 1965, when 60 percent of all children lived in families with a breadwinner father and a stay-at-home mother. Only about 30 percent of children now live in such families. With more mothers in paid jobs, many policy makers have assumed that parents must have less time to interact with their children.

But, the researchers say, the conventional wisdom is not borne out by the data they collected from families asked to account for their time. The researchers found, to their surprise, that married and single parents spent more time teaching, playing with and caring for their children than parents did 40 years ago.

For married mothers, the time spent on child care activities increased to an average of 12.9 hours a week in 2000, from 10.6 hours in 1965. For married fathers, the time spent on child care more than doubled, to 6.5 hours a week, from 2.6 hours. Single mothers reported spending 11.8 hours a week on child care, up from 7.5 hours in 1965.

“As the hours of paid work went up for mothers, their hours of housework declined,” said Ms. Bianchi, a former president of the Population Association of America. “It was almost a one-for-one trade.”

Meaghan O. Perlowski, a 32-year-old mother of three in Des Moines, said in an interview, “Spending time with my kids is my highest priority, but it’s a juggling act.”

Ms. Perlowski, who is a full-time pharmaceutical sales representative, said she did grocery shopping and errands on her lunch hour and cut back on housework so she would have more time with her children.

“We don’t worry much about keeping the house spotless,” she said. “It’s sometimes a mess, cluttered with school papers, backpacks and toys, but that’s O.K.”

Fathers have picked up some of the slack. Married fathers are spending more time on housework: an average of 9.7 hours a week in 2000, up from 4.4 hours in 1965. That increase was more than offset by the decline in time devoted to housework by married mothers: 19.4 hours a week in 2000, down from 34.5 hours in 1965.

When Ms. Perlowski took a business trip on Thursday, her husband, Jim, took time from work to be home with their children, ages 1, 4 and 7.

In Miami, Ian D. Abrams, a 33-year-old marketing executive, said that since his daughter was born two years ago, he had done “a substantial amount of cooking and cleaning, to take that burden off my wife,” but he admitted that home repairs were often delayed. His wife, Yolanda, took a full-time job as a state court employee when their daughter, Marley, was 14 months old.

The researchers found that many parents juggled their work and family duties by including children in their own leisure and free-time activities. Married mothers, in particular, often combine child care with other activities.

Tammy L. Curtis, 34, a schoolteacher in Glendale, Ariz., outside Phoenix, said she typically worked from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., but always made time for her 5-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter.

“I cook less,” Ms. Curtis said. “I exercise less. And I do a lot of multitasking. When my son is at soccer practice, I sit on the sidelines grading papers. I have no time for personal relaxation.”

The book’s two other co-authors, Prof. John P. Robinson and Melissa A. Milkie, are also sociologists at the University of Maryland. Rather than relying on anecdotes and images in the mass media, the researchers used “time diaries” to measure how families spent their time. Using a standard set of questions, professional interviewers asked parents to chronicle all their activities on the day before the interview.

Katharine G. Abraham, a former commissioner of labor statistics, said the new book provided “the definitive word” on how parents allocated time between paid work and family responsibilities. The most recent numbers, for 2000, are remarkably similar to time-use data in a new survey conducted annually since 2003 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau.

Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative who defends traditional marriage as president of the advocacy group American Values, said the research was encouraging in one respect.

“It indicates that parents, especially mothers, instinctively know that the line promoted by social scientists in the 1960’s and 70’s — that professional child care can provide all the things that maternal care can — is not correct,” Mr. Bauer said. “Mothers made adjustments in their own lives to ensure that, even with jobs outside the home, they provide what only mothers can provide.”

The authors cited several factors to help explain how parents managed to spend more time with their children, despite working longer hours:

While married mothers and married fathers were approaching “gender equality,” measured by total hours of work, the researchers found stark differences among women. These disparities suggest why working mothers often feel hurried and harried.

Over all, the researchers said, employed mothers have less free time and “far greater total workloads than stay-at-home mothers.” The workweek for an employed mother averages 71 hours, almost equally divided between paid and unpaid work, compared with a workweek averaging 52 hours for mothers who are not employed outside the home.

On average, the researchers said, employed mothers get somewhat less sleep and watch less television than mothers who are not employed, and they also spend less time with their husbands.

Return to Top of Page


Wisconsin State Journal
October 16, 2006
Children of Gay Parents
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj/2006/10/16/0610160018.php

Abbie Marie Hill has three moms and that fact, to the Madison teenager, is at once crazy and completely unremarkable.

Hill was born to a lesbian couple who later separated. Today she has a third parent, a stepmother, in her life. The 17-year-old high school junior takes a viola to youth symphony sessions and carries straight As home from Madison East.

"It's crazy and confusing but it works," Hill said of her family, which makes sense to her but isn't what some strangers expect. "In some ways it doesn't even seem like that's different."

A new wave of research confirms earlier findings that the children of gay and lesbian parents are at least as healthy and well-adjusted as comparable children of straight parents and that the differences found between these two groups of children have been modest, researchers say.

The studies, they say, undermine the argument that denying marriage and other rights to same-sex couples helps children.

Opponents of same-sex marriage counter that it's too early to be certain the research is valid and that the government has an obligation to give straight families preference over others.

Jenny Baierl, of Evansville, who supports a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions, said she does so in part out of concern for her two young boys.

Baierl, one of thousands of volunteers working to promote or oppose the proposal, has spoken at legislative hearings and squared off in a televised debate over the measure with openly gay Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

"I want to make sure my kids are raised in a society that values marriage," she said.

But for Mike Tate, head of anti-amendment group Fair Wisconsin, the proposed ban is a threat to children, because of the possibility it could go beyond the question of marriage and cost families health insurance or other benefits. "Why would we want to do something that hurts children and hurts families?"

What research says Medical establishment groups that have come out in favor of gay marriage or against bans like Wisconsin's proposed constitutional amendment include the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and, in July, the American Academy of Pediatrics. In Wisconsin, the national pediatrics academy's state chapter and the Wisconsin Medical Society also oppose the proposed ban because of its possible effects on patients.

That doesn't convince Bill Maier, vice president and psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Maier said professional groups sometimes reflect decisions by committees, not all members. Existing studies are still hampered by questions about how strong and representative their samples of human subjects are, he said.

"The evidence confirms nothing about the quality of gay parents," he said. "It's still very early to be making any conclusive statements."

The children of gay men and lesbians are more likely to behave in ways that are outside the norm for their gender and may exhibit other differences as well, Maier said, citing in part a 2001 study that he called the "most comprehensive report" on the subject. But one of that study's co-authors, New York University sociology professor Judith Stacey, said anti-gay marriage groups have misrepresented her research in a "dishonest" way.

Stacey's article - a review of 21 studies going back some 20 years - examined in part whether having two parents of the same sex influenced the development of a child's sexual orientation and behavior related to his or her gender.

Five years later, Stacey said new research, including a study that used a random, nationwide sample, shows the situation has turned out to be more complicated than she had believed.

"I have been surprised that the differences so far seem to be smaller than I would have guessed," Stacey said.

Stacey, who has always supported gay marriage, is co-authoring an update to the first article that looks at some 80 studies of gay and lesbian parents, single mothers and fathers and their children from several countries.

In the first article, Stacey's study examined potential limitations in the studies' samples of human subjects and methods. Today, there are still holes in what we know, she said, noting that many studies of same- sex parents have focused on well-to-do whites and have neglected minorities and the poor.

But she said a new wave of research is "much solider now," addressing more of those issues as well as children such as Hill, who were born into families of same-sex parents rather than to opposite-sex parents who later split up and took same-sex partners.

"The kids are fine. There's no evidence whatsoever that children of gay and lesbian parents have noticeably different outcomes on mental health," Stacey said of the findings. "They turn out at least as well.

These children may turn out somewhat better, she added. "It's not because of the sexuality but because of selection factors. It's because these are wanted children," Stacey said, noting that same-sex couples have to deliberately set out to conceive or adopt children. "When you're looking at heterosexual parenting, you have a lot of accidental" pregnancies.

Stacey's findings square with research that has shown that the social groups of parents - rich and poor, white and black - matter much less than the quality of the parents and the love and discipline they show their children, said David Riley, a human ecology professor at UW-Madison.

But Riley also noted that this research on its own can't answer the question of how people should vote on the amendment. "Most people on both sides of the debate base their arguments on civil rights and religious teachings. Behavioral science can't tell you which of those is preferable."

A busy life Abbie Marie Hill enjoys the youth group at her Unitarian congregation, plays in the Wisconsin Youth Symphony Orchestra and muses thoughtfully about the high school where she earns high marks.

Some evenings, she goes to talks on mathematics at UW-Madison - just because she wants to - and she dreams of a career in engineering or some other math-heavy discipline.

She spends five days a week at the condominium of her biological mother, Abbie Hill, who conceived Abbie Marie through artificial insemination, and two days a week at the East Side home of Hill's former partner.

Abbie Marie said that, growing up in Madison, she's never felt like she's different. In spite of that, she said she sometimes has difficulty explaining her family to strangers.

"I have the lesbian parents, and the split household," she said, joking that some people might scratch their heads when they hear her give contradictory details about her "mom."

"They probably think my mom has multiple personalities."

Most of the time she feels like any other student. "Occasionally, I'll just think of things that people in a traditional family have and realize, 'Oh I really will never have that. Hmmm.' Usually it's just like a hmmm thing. It's not a bad thing or 'Oh I'm missing out on something,'" Abbie Marie said.

Abbie Marie's step-mother Mary Waitrovich said the teen-ager has thrived.

"Here Abbie is - she's near the top of her class," Waitrovich said.

"She's a great kid. She's a shining example of how a child who's raised by lesbians can turn out great."

Abbie Hill said she cried once when she heard a speaker at an event argue that she and other lesbians were second-rate parents.

"As a mother for me to hear that it just broke me out. It made me feel like wait a minute," she said. "I've been such a good mother. It's probably the most important thing I've ever done."

Hill's former partner, Madison firefighter Karen Hoffman, called their daughter "a gift I never thought I'd have."

But Hoffman has never been able to adopt or gain legal recognition as a parent that would guarantee custody rights to her daughter or just the right to authorize hospital treatment.

"You don't have any rights at all," Hoffman said.

Father role cited Focus on the Family's Maier acknowledged the love and effort many lesbian parents give their children but pointed to studies that he said showed children need a father.

"The two most loving lesbians in the world cannot provide a father to a little boy," Maier said. "It's not just two parents. It's having the contributions of a married mother and father."

Jenny Baierl, the Evansville mother and pro-amendment activist, said she knows from experience the challenges of having two women as parents.

Baierl was raised by her mother and grandmother after her father was killed by a drunken driver when she was 5.

Though the two women loved her, Baierl had no uncles or grandfather to fill the void her father had left, she said. That searing experience, the teachings of her Christian faith, and her marriage to her husband John, leave Baierl with a powerful certainty about the value of traditional marriage.

"I had no male role models," said Baierl, 33, who now lives in an all- male household with her husband and two young sons in Evansville. "I feel like I was really cheated."

Differences modest Stacey said the situation of a child who tragically loses a parent isn't comparable to a child who has had two same-sex parents from birth. Plus, children often have access to relatives and other adult role models of both sexes, she said.

But Stacey said her studies and training in sociology suggest that having same-sex parents can lead to modest differences in the areas of a child's gender behavior and sexual orientation.

For instance, the boys of lesbian moms in one study scored just as high on masculinity scales as boys of opposite-sex parents but also higher on femininity scales, showing a willingness to talk about feelings as well as play sports, Stacey said.

As for sexual orientation, Stacey has predicted that the children of gay and lesbian parents are likely to be more comfortable identifying with that orientation themselves, but said that so far the research hasn't proven conclusive on that.

Abbie Marie Hill, for her part, isn't dating anyone and calls herself "straight but not narrow."

Her upbringing in liberal Madison with lesbian parents leaves her less worried about her sexual orientation or who she will love, she said.

"I don't feel this need for labels or I have to be one way or the other and I have to box myself in just to fit in," Abbie Marie said. "Whatever happens, it's cool. Why spend all this time, anguished time, like searching for, you know? Why not just be?"

 


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surrogacyside1xoct30,1,7963634.story
 

FATHERS IN THE MAKING

Do children of gay parents develop differently?

Research suggests there's no distinction. But the field is a young one, and studies are often colored by politics.
By Kevin Sack
Times Staff Writer

October 30, 2006

Despite three decades of research on gay parenting, social scientists cannot conclusively determine whether children raised by homosexuals develop differently, for better or worse, than those raised by heterosexuals.

Though the early consensus is that they do not, even the investigators acknowledge the field is too young, the numbers too few, the variables too many and the research too values-laden to qualify as definitive.

As gay marriage and parenting have moved to the forefront of national discourse, what has emerged, some experts say, is a political debate masked as a sociological one.

In 2001, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, then sociologists at the University of Southern California, published a review of 21 previous studies of the children of homosexual parents (most of them lesbians). Almost uniformly, they wrote, the research found no systematic differences between children reared by a mother and father and those raised by same-sex parents.

But Stacey and Biblarz also observed that researchers who found no differences sometimes skewed their interpretation of results to suit their own leanings. "Ideological pressures," they concluded, "constrain intellectual development in this field…. Because anti-gay scholars seek evidence of harm, sympathetic researchers defensively stress its absence."

Some studies, said Stacey, have ignored or downplayed early indications there may, in fact, be differences in the development of character and gender roles, among them that children of same-sex parents may be more open to homosexual experimentation.

"I think they'll be more tolerant, more flexible in terms of gender conformity," said Stacey, who now teaches at New York University. "The boys may be less aggressive. There's some indication the girls will have a wider array of career aspirations."

Charlotte J. Patterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and a prominent researcher in the field, has found that the purposefulness inherent in same-sex parenting tends to counter any societal disadvantages. "I think what we're seeing overall is pretty positive adjustment on the part of these kids," she said. "What that suggests, I think, is that we may have overrated the role of gender in parenting in our theoretical notions about these matters."

Over the last decade, that general proposition has been embraced, to varying degrees, by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Assn., the American Psychological Assn., the American Psychiatric Assn. and a variety of child welfare groups.

The psychological association holds that "the research has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents."

The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a 2002 review of the literature, also found no negative effects. "Compared with heterosexual fathers, gay fathers have been described to adhere to stricter disciplinary guidelines, to place greater emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be more involved in their children's activities," the group wrote.

Even social science articles that oppose same-sex parenting typically do not claim significant evidence of dire consequences for children.

Instead, opponents have argued that parenting by a mother and father is optimal, and that much of the existing research has been "compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas," in the words of a 2005 Family Research Council report.   [Editorial note by R. Hames: The Family Research Council is a evangelical, right wing, interest group founded by James Dobson president of Focus on the Family].

The report's author, Timothy J. Dailey, also said that "openly lesbian researchers" — he named Patterson specifically — "sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light." To do so, Dailey wrote, ignores "the accumulated wisdom of cultures and societies from time immemorial, which testifies that the best way for children to be raised is by a mother and a father who are married to each other."

Both sides agree that large numbers of cases will need to be studied.

Those cases could become available in a generation or two. The 2000 Census found that 34% of female same-sex households included children under 18, an increase of 72% since 1990, and that 22% of male same-sex households included children, a quadrupling since 1990.
 
kevin.sack@latimes.com