Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Prop. 8 & Biological Connection Between Parents & Child

The importance of a biological connection between parents and children was an issue in the opinion released today that invalidated California's Prop. 8 gay marriage ban. One argument used by those opposed to gay marriage was that California could treat gay couples differently from heterosexual couples because marriage is about procreation, and gay couples cannot procreate.  Though they might be able to adopt children or have children with the use of egg or sperm donors, gay couples can never BOTH be biologically related to the child the parents are raising together:

Lamb [expert for those in favor of gay marriage]and Blankenhorn ["expert" for those opposed to gay marriage (I had to put quotes around expert for this guy, because the judge ultimately disallows his opinion because he doesn't satisfy the rules of evidence requirements for being an expert)] disagreed on the importance of a biological link between parents and children. Blankenhorn emphasized the importance of biological parents, relying on studies comparing children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents [biologically related to the child, right?!], unmarried mothers [again, biologically related], step families and cohabiting parents [biologically related!]. As explained in the credibility determinations, section I below, none of the studies Blankenhorn relied on isolates the genetic relationship between a parent and a child as a variable to be tested. Lamb testified about studies showing that adopted children or children conceived using sperm or egg donors are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by their biological parents. Blankenhorn agreed with Lamb that adoptive parents “actually on some outcomes outstrip biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children.”

* * *

Blankenhorn’s second opinion is that a body of evidence supports the conclusion that children raised by their married, biological parents do better on average than children raised in other environments. The evidence Blankenhorn relied on to support his conclusion compares children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents.

Blankenhorn’s conclusion that married biological parents provide a better family form than married non-biological parents is not supported by the evidence on which he relied because the evidence does not, and does not claim to, compare biological to non-biological parents. Blankenhorn did not in his testimony consider any study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married adoptive parents. Blankenhorn did not testify about a study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married parents who conceived using an egg or sperm donor. The studies Blankenhorn relied on compare various family structures and do not emphasize biology. The studies may well support a conclusion that parents’ marital status may affect child outcomes. The studies do not, however, support a conclusion that the biological connection between a parent and his or her child is a significant variable for child outcomes. The court concludes that “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Blankenhorn’s reliance on biology is unsupported by evidence, and the court therefore rejects his conclusion that a biological link between parents and children influences children’s outcomes.
So, what do you think? Does anyone else think that the anti-gay-marriage folks are also the folks who could care less about the biological connection when a single (unmarried) woman is pregnant and they think she should place the child for adoption with a married (heterosexual) couple?

7 comments:

sostinkinhappy said...

It is a rather specious slight of hand trick, isn't it? As I have watched this unfold, I was also struck by irony of the argument: Biology DOESN'T matter if you are a single, unwed mother but it DOES matter if you are married. However, if you are a married man and woman and you adopt the child of the single unwed mother then biology DOESN'T matter.

Oy. My head hurts just thinking about it.

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone else think that the anti-gay-marriage folks are also the folks who could care less about the biological connection when a single (unmarried) woman is pregnant and they think she should place the child for adoption with a married (heterosexual) couple?"

I think you are making a hell of a leap to jump to that conclusion. What evidence do you have to support it, aside from your obvious bias supporting gay marriage?

SustainableFamilies said...

Yes, they are the exact same people! Phooey on them! : )

Anonymous--- Can you add?

Their argument was this: Children need their biological parents to be married and parent them.

I have no argument there. Sounds good. So what happens when it is not possible for the parents to be married and parent?

We are already treading here in to the world of "the next best". That's ok, next best isn't always as horrific as it's made out to be, throughout life we face "not quite the best" situations. Most of life in face. It can still be beautiful, amazing, and fulfilling, even if it carries suffering and sorrow.

So does the research compare how gay adoptive parents compare with straight adoptive parents? Because so far research I've seen has been unable to prove much of a difference between the two.

If they are using the "marriage exists to produce biological children and raise them" in their definition of marriage, they are excluding every childless couple in the state of California from marriage. While childless fertile couples could claim they "will have children one day", any couple with infertility would be banned from marriage by that logic.

Hence, unless they are willing to ban infertile heterosexual people from marriage, their argument that "marriage is for the purpose of producing biological children and raising them" will not take them very far.

And yes in general, nearly every fiscally conservative person I have discussed adoption with is in favor of single women placing their children for adoption into a heterosexual middle class married couples home. That is not a research based conclusion, but if you want the research, you can look it up. Have fun with that. : )

The general position is that best=married biological parents raise the child. Next up= Married heterosexual middle class or upper class couple raises the child. Next after that= Single middle class adoptive mother raises the child.

Somewhere competing: Adoptive homosexual couples/single biological mother

Come prove us wrong eh?

Fiscally conservative, fundamentally religious people tend to hate homosexuals with the same passion they hate women who give birth out of wedlock.

But if they're "nice", they just "look down on" such people.

Anonymous said...

"Fiscally conservative, fundamentally religious people tend to hate homosexuals with the same passion they hate women who give birth out of wedlock."

Wow... stereotype much?

I have a Chinese daughter - of course she's really smart! She's Chinese! I have an Indian daughter - she's quite the little java programmer! She's Indian!

travelmom and more said...

Focus on the Family a fundamentalist Christian organization (the same organization that paid for the right to life super bowl add featuring Tim Tebow) has a division called Focus on the Family Action, a political division of itself. The only two issues Focus on the Family Action spend its money and energy lobbying on are abortion and opposing gay marriage. The issue of encouraging young girls to give birth then relinquish to adoption and opposition to gay marriage are so intertwined it is hard not to see the connection Malinda is making.

SustainableFamilies said...

The position of being fiscally conservative is a choice. And it entails certain belief systems that tend to go together. I have never spoken with a fiscal conservative who is in favor of creating more social programs to help unwed mothers parent their children.

The position of being fiscally conservative tends to involve... well you know not wanting to spend money on social programs, such that they could avoid being forced into adoption for financial reasons.

That is simply a fact, google fiscal conservatism. Christian fundamentalism which is highly associated with fiscal conservatism per studies (again--google is your friend, check out the few studies that have been done) involves a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong.

Libertarians are fiscally conservative, but often lean towards being open towards homosexuality and abortion. Neo-cons often lean towards being open towards homosexuality and abortion.

But fundamentally religious fiscally conservative people subscribe to a belief system that in it's own definition looks poorly on "sexually deviant" behaviors such as sex outside of wedlock and homosexual sex.

Saying that conservative don't like big spending is not a stereotype. It's like saying Christians believe in following Jesus. It's part of the belief system.

Felicia said...

lot of good information, I come here all the time and am very happy with your updates, Thank you!



child