Too High a Price The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting v.1 by Eric Ferrero, Joshua Freker, and Travis Foster ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project With an introduction by Rosie O’Donnell © 2004, American Civil Liberties Union - Revised from 2002 version Introduction to the ACLU article by Demian, June 19, 2006 In some states, gay men and lesbians are barred from being parents. They are legally prevented from adoption or foster care, aren’t legally recognized as parents of children they raise, or are denied custody of their own kids. “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 article lays out the reasons that restricting gay parenting is bad for children and bad for all of us. It’s our job to take this information and use it.” — Rosie O’Donnell, from her introduction The following article 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 parenting restrictions — it broadens to cover the national landscape on gay parenting. The article describes the consensus among child welfare experts that restricting gay parenting is bad for kids, summarizes the scientific studies 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. This article also provides summaries of scientific studies of gay-parented households, and makes a point-by-point refutation of the arguments for keeping gay people from being parents. The following article is also available in PDF format:       Too High a Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting v.1 For the updated in 2006 version of this article — with an introduction by Shay Bilchik, president and CEO, Child Welfare League of America — please click:       Too High a Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting v.2 Table of Contents Introduction by Rosie O’Donnell Chapter One A Case Study: Florida’s Gay Adoption Ban       Doug & Oscar       Wayne Smith & Dan Skahen, and Brenda & Greg Bradley       The Loftons       “Save Our Children”       Fighting to overturn the ban in court       Social science contradicts the ban       No child-welfare basis for the ban Chapter Two The Bigger Picture: Gay Parenting Across the Country       Gay parents       Gay parenting and the legal landscape       Adoption by gay individuals       Adoption by gay couples       Second-parent adoption       Custody and visitation       Foster parenting Chapter Three The Public Policy Case: There is No Child-Welfare Basis for Restricting Gay Parenting       The growing consensus among health and children’s advocates       Statements from mainstream groups       Case-by-case determinations       Restrictions that may be appropriate       By the numbers: child welfare and gay parenting Chapter Four The Social Science Case: Gay Parents and Their Kids are Just as Happy and Healthy       Which studies?       What do the studies look for?       Who do they study?       What do the studies say about the kids?       What do the studies say about gay parents?       Do gay parents make gay kids?       A conversation with Professor Judith Stacey       The summaries Chapter Five The Legal Case: Restrictions on Gay Parenting are Illegal       Restrictions on gay adoption       Refusal to recognize gay parents Chapter Six Debunking the Myths: Arguments Against Gay Families, and Why They’re Wrong       Kids need a married mom and dad       Kids need a mother and a father to have proper male and female role models       Gay people cannot provide stable homes       Gay parents molest their children       The studies claiming gay people can be good parents are flawed and prove nothing Conclusion 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 two-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 cooperating 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 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 visitors 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 five-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 pointed 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. 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. “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-five-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 foster 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 article. Read about the Lofton family in Florida and other families who are affected by laws, policies, or rulings that prevent gay people from being parents. 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 specialist, 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. 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 article lays out the reasons that restricting gay parenting 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 article, are already being raised by lesbians and gay men. And there are also thousands of kids out there like my nearly-five-year-old foster daughter, whose lives are deeply disrupted by bans on gay adoption. When we fight restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting, we’re fighting for all of them. Chapter One A Case Study: Florida’s Gay Adoption Ban In 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 parents. 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 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.” 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 timing was remarkable because it happens that we were having conversations 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 husband 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 becoming 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 couples 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 discriminatory law that leaves these kids without permanent homes. 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 parents. 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 five and eight. 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 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 neonatal 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 six 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 hospice, 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. 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 eight and five, 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 grandparents’ 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 interested. 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 immediately 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 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-coordinated 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 combined 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 subject 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 attention, 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 broader 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 banning 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 languish 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 parents. Those kids and their parents deserve to be treated as families, the case says, but Florida law treats them as strangers. 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 foster parents won’t really be hurt by the adoption ban, because the state won’t interfere 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 married 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, thousands 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 married 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 looking for someone to adopt Bert. 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 homosexuality in psychology and psychiatry while ignoring God.” Rekers has published a number of books expressing his religious beliefs condemning homosexuality. 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 advocated 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 mainstream 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 psychology and child development, has found nothing to show that being raised by gay parents harms children or that gay people are unsuitable parents. 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 adoption 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 adoption 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. 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 harmful 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. Chapter Two The Bigger Picture: Gay Parenting Across the Country Florida 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 discrimination. 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 population 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 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 percent of people are gay. Other studies of sexuality have deduced smaller figures of lesbian and gay people — at three-to-four percent 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 developed 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 one-to-12 percent of all children are being raised by a gay parent. The lower figures represent the more narrow definition of who is gay. (“Co-parent 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, information 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 question 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 percent of the participants 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 percent of gay people are parents. The Kaiser survey also measured the extent to which gay people would like to become parents. Among those who weren’t parents at the time of the survey, almost half (49 percent) 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 percent 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 percent 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 million of which are unmarried, heterosexual couples. In addition, there are 4 million households in the United States with multigenerational, extended families — this is nearly 4 percent 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 orientation 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. 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 earlier 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 orientation 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 necessarily mean that no trial court judge in Utah will approve an adoption by the partner 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 landscape 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. 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 legislators 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 parents to have a legally recognized relationship to their child in just one step. 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 permit 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 couples from adopting in Washington, D.C. Many states have laws or policies that discourage adoption by unmarried couples, 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 lesbian 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 example, 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 accomplished 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. Second-parent or co-parent adoption is the best means of ensuring legal protection 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 providing 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 portrait of which states recognize second parent adoptions. These adoptions, like other adoptions, are approved by local family court judges. In some states, however, the issue has been appealed to higher courts. In some of these states, appeals courts have refused to recognize second-parent adoptions, making it difficult 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 recognition of second-parent adoption. Judges in at least 20 other states have awarded second-parent adoptions. A few of these states, like Washington or Alaska, have been known to approve numerous second-parent adoptions, and it’s generally believed gay people have a much better chance of adopting their partners’ children in these states. CUSTODY AND VISITATION Many, if not most, of the children being raised by lesbians and gay men were conceived during their parents’ previous heterosexual relationships. When these gay parents come out of the closet and separate from their spouses, their ability to sustain 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’ sexual orientation. It is hard to square these rulings with any notion of family integrity. 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. 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 openly 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 discrimination 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 awarded 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 homosexuality 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 granted 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 together 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 Three The Public Policy Case: There Is No Child-Welfare Basis for Restricting Gay Parenting The 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 beholder. 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 parenting, and it’s unlikely they’ll jump right into talking about lesbian and gay parents. 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 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 parenting 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 consulting the professionals who handle those resources daily, understand the current supply, and deal with the consequences of the shortage. Our nations’ children certainly deserve no less — and those advocating on their behalf have strong and clear feelings on foster care and adoption generally, and gay parenting 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. 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 biologically. 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 children, lower-income families, single people, and individuals with physical disabilities. “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 standards were being lowered in a way that could forever damage the field of adoption,” 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 foster 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 number 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 limiting the pool of qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation and 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 qualified parents. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued its directive supporting 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 treatment and consideration of their qualifications as adoptive parents, under applicable law. “Applicants should be fairly assessed on their abilities to successfully 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 suitability of adoptive applicants is based. Consideration should be given to other personality and maturity factors and on the ability of 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 parent(s). Some biological parents may choose not to consider gay or lesbian families, and agencies usually follow the expressed wishes 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 children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The 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 participate 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 parent. The other partner in a parental role is called the ‘co-parent’ or ‘second parent.’ Because these families and children need the permanence and security that are provided by having two fully sanctioned and legally defined parents, the Academy supports the legal adoption of children by co-parents or second parents. Denying legal parent status through adoption to co-parents or second parents prevents these children from enjoying the psychological and legal security that comes from having two 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 providing necessary protection for children through co-parent adoption. “Co-parent or second-parent adoption protects the child’s right to maintain continuing relationships with both parents. The legal sanction provided by co-parent adoption accomplishes the following: “Guarantees that the second parent’s custody rights and responsibilities will be protected if the first parent were to die or become incapacitated. Moreover, second-parent adoption protects the child’s legal right of relationships with both parents. In the absence of co-parent adoption, members of the family of the legal parent, should he or she become incapacitated, might successfully challenge the surviving co-parent’s rights to continue to parent the child, thus causing the child to lose both parents. “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 heterosexual parents, would be protected for families with gay or lesbian parents. “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 medical 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 supportive parents, the Academy recommends that pediatricians do the following: “Be familiar with professional literature regarding gay and lesbian parents and their children. “Support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological 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 co-parent or second-parent adoption for children of same-sex partners through the judicial system, legislation, and community 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 one-to-five million with the number of children ranging from six-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 relationships. 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 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 evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men and lesbians is compromised in any respect relevant to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents 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 Parenting: 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 primary 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 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 orientation 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 promote the best interests of a child. Two decades of scientific investigation have, in fact, provided considerable evidence for the opposite 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 September 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 children’s group. These 166-page standards are rooted in a statement of core values, which follows. 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 supported 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 parties 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 nondiscriminatory manner. Changes in adoption practice, policy, and law demand professional expertise 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 collaboration 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 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 children’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.” 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 explicitly 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 primary client, and the best interest of the child is paramount in decisions concerning 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 significantly 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 circumstances are unique. All children do not fit into the same mold,” she told lawmakers, who ultimately rejected the bill. “Personal family situations are difficult to subject to broad, sweeping provisions. The legislature therefore defers to family court judges who, faced every day with individual children in individual 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 criteria 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 family 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 psychological 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, psychological, or psychiatric examinations and diagnoses of the child; any physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or neglect suffered by the child; any developmental 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 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 educational 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 individuals with whom the child has regularly lived or visited; any history related to the child’s placement in out-of-home care, including reason for placement, attachments and moves prior to placement, length of time in care, type of care (family foster care, group care, residential 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, siblings, 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 relatives, if known (to include a photograph of the child’s parents whenever 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; tribal affiliation of an American Indian family, as well as other information 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 advocacy 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 children. 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 biological children. In more than a dozen states, there are no further state laws regulating 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 specify 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 parenting 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 government 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 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 percent were less than a year old; 35 percent were one-five years old; 37 percent were six-10 years old; 23 percent were 11-15 years old; and 3 percent were 16-18 years old. They had spent a median of 38 continuous months in foster care. 33 percent of them have spent more than three years in continuous foster care. 27 percent had spent more than five years continuously in foster care. Each year, roughly 25,000 kids leave the foster care system not because they find permanent homes, but because they reach their 18th birthday and “age out” of the system. 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 percent were one-five years old; 37 percent were six-10 years old; 14 percent were 11-15 years old; 2 percent were 16-18 years old; and 2 percent 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 percent of kids, it took more than 24 months to be adopted after the termination of parental rights. Of those parents adopting kids out of foster care, 31 percent were single women; 2 percent were single men; 1 percent were unmarried couples. The adoptive parents who took these kids were non-relatives in 20 percent of the cases and were the kids’ foster parents in 64 percent of the cases. A national crisis in child welfare — with kids backlogged in foster care waiting to be adopted and not enough qualified adoptive parents coming forward — has developed gradually over the last couple of decades. In 1977 — as in 1997 — about 20 percent of kids in foster care were free for adoption. But of the kids who were free for adoption in 1977, 50 percent were in adoptive placements, while by the end of 1982 only 34 percent 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 percent increase from 1986. Between 1986 and 1996, the number of children in the foster care system jumped 90 percent, while the number of foster families fell by 3 percent. Between 1951 and 1975, the percentage of adoptive placements by public agencies more than doubled from 18 percent in 1951 to 38 percent in 1975. It has since fallen to about 15-20 percent of all adoptions. As nontraditional families — who show up statistically as single adoptive parents — 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 percent to 4 percent of adoptive parents were single. In the 1980s, it was 8 percent to 34 percent. In 2000, 33 percent of kids adopted from foster care were taken by single parents. About 25 percent of adoptions of children with special needs are by single men and women, and about 5 percent of other adoptions 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 seven and 16; most have physical, emotional, mental, or learning disabilities; 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 Four The Social Science Case: Gay Parents and Their Kids are Just as Happy and Healthy To 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 percent 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 unfortunately 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 phenomenon, 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 misunderstandings 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 findings across every study, and concise summaries of 22 leading studies. The purpose is to demystify social science by translating academic jargon into everyday language and to extract the key findings from each study (avoiding lengthier discussions 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. 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 parents 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 parents 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 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 support of gay adoption: The American Association 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. (“Co-parent 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 children — from child psychologists to social workers to pediatricians — find these studies to be credible and reliable enough to base child policies on the information they provide. If the experts on children find that the social science studies make a strong case against restricting gay parents, then so should lawmakers 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 lesbians who conceive children through donor insemination. Of the studies of gay fathers, all have analyzed gay fathers with children from previous (heterosexual) 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-inseminated lesbians and their partners and the children of donor-inseminated heterosexual 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 children. 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 children 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 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 relationships 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 relationships between lesbian, non-biological mothers is better than that between heterosexual 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 support the claim that lesbian and gay parents are unfit because they have more mental health problems than heterosexuals. The groups of gay parents and the groups of heterosexual parents did not differ significantly on any of the measures reflecting overall mental health. (See Golombok, p. 65.) 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 gender 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 percent of daughters of lesbians want to have careers as doctors, engineers, and astronauts, while only 21 percent 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 relationship and were more likely to have had a same-sex sexual experience. (See Golombok, p. 70.) 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 parenting 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 parents. The research also shows that children of same-sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. No credible social science evidence 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 article). 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 participants 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 development 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 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 generally 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 children. 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 commotion 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 immediately 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 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 differences 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 lesbian 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. A few studies found that lesbians worry less than heterosexual parents about the gender conformity of their children. Perhaps that helps to account for a few studies that found that sons of lesbians play less aggressively and that children of lesbians communicate their feelings more freely, aspire to a wider range of occupations, 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 discussing 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 understanding 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 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