Many opponents of gay marriage do so on the grounds that
marriage exists primarily for raising children, and that gay
couples cannot satisfy this purpose. A strong version of this point
holds that gay parents are incompetent to raise children, and
perhaps are even dangerous to them (the "competence
argument"). A milder version claims that opposite-sex married
couples are optimal for child-rearing (the "optimality
argument"). The competence argument is factually unsupported and
contravened by the laws of every state. The optimality argument may
or may not be correct, but either way is irrelevant to the
controversy over gay marriage.
The competence argument asserts that children raised by gay
parents, as compared to those raised by heterosexual parents,
are:
- at higher risk emotionally and cognitively;
- are more apt to be confused about their sexual and gender
identity; and
- are more likely to be molested.
Gays, therefore, ought not to raise children.
Since marriage includes a presumptive right to have and raise
children, either through conception or adoption, gays ought to be
denied marriage. The happiness and needs of gay couples do not
justify putting children at risk.
If the competence argument is correct, states should bar gays
altogether from parenting. Yet while judges sometimes use
homosexuality as one factor among many in making custody and
visitation determinations, no state categorically bars gays
from raising children. Only one state, Florida, prohibits gays
from adopting children. However, even Florida permits gays to raise
their own biological children, to obtain custody of children, and
to be long-term foster parents. In short, no state has made the
policy judgment embodied by the competence argument.
In fact, the strong trend in the country is toward the
relaxation of rules disfavoring gay parenting. About half of the
states now recognize two-parent adoptions in which same-sex
partners both adopt a child. Gay parenting is common. More than one
million children are now being raised by gay parents, singly or in
couples, in this country. According to the 2000 census, about
one-fourth of all same-sex-couple households include children.
The available studies on the effects of gay parenting, while not
methodologically perfect, seriously undermine the competence
argument. While the studies may not yet prove that gays are just as
good as heterosexuals at raising children, they point strongly to
the conclusion that gays are at least minimally competent
parents.
In a review of 21 studies of gay parenting, sociologists Judith
Stacey and Timothy Biblarz concluded that "every relevant study to
date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no
measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or
on children's mental health or social adjustment." The minor
observed differences between children raised by gay parents and
those raised by straight parents "either favor children raised by
lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or
represent "difference' of the sort democratic societies should
respect and protect." While more work must be done to shore up
these conclusions, a strong provisional judgment can be made that
the competence argument is factually baseless.
A milder version of the child-rearing objection to gay marriage
maintains that even if gays should not be completely barred from
parenting, married heterosexual couples should be strongly
preferred. This optimality argument holds that, all else being
equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and
father.
In contrast to the competence argument, there is at least some
empirical basis for the optimality argument. There is substantial
evidence that children raised in married households are on average
happier, healthier, and wealthier than children raised by single
parents or by unmarried cohabiting parents. This probably has
something to do with the legal and social support marriage
provides.
Still, this is shaky empirical support for the optimality
argument. There is no good study comparing children raised in
married households with children raised by same-sex couples. And,
because gay marriage is forbidden, there is no study comparing
children raised by opposite-sex married couples with children
raised by same-sex married couples.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that opposite-sex
married couples provide the optimal environment for child-rearing.
That is still no argument against gay marriage. First, even if a
primary purpose of marriage is to facilitate child-rearing, it is
not an indispensable purpose, as the many childless married couples
can attest.
Second, gay marriage won't take any children from mothers and
fathers who want to raise them. Consider: there is no shortage of
children in the country. There are not enough married couples to
raise them all. That's why states allow sub-optimal parenting by
singles (gay and straight) and unmarried couples (gay and
straight). Almost everyone agrees these sub-optimal arrangements
are better than orphanages or foster care, where the outcomes for
children are often terrible.
No serious person advocates removing all children from gay
parents. So whether or not gay marriage is allowed, children will
continue to be raised by gay parents. The only question is, Will
these children be raised in homes that may enjoy the protections
and benefits of marriage? If it's better for children to be raised
by a married opposite-sex couple than by an unmarried opposite-sex
couple, it would surely be better for children to be raised by a
married same-sex couple than by an unmarried same-sex couple.
That's the relevant comparison, not the comparison of married
straight couples to gay couples.
If it's really concern for children that's motivating opponents
of gay marriage, they ought to rethink their conclusion. They
should be pounding the table for gay marriage.