3:14-cv-00064 #110

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

VIRGINIA WOLF and CAROL SCHUMACHER,
KAMI YOUNG and KARINA WILLES,
ROY BADGER and GARTH WANGEMANN,
CHARVONNE KEMP and MARIE CARLSON,
JUDITH TRAMPF and KATHARINA
HEYNING, SALUD GARCIA and PAM KLEISS,
WILLIAM HURTUBISE and LESLIE PALMER,
and JOHANNES WALLMANN and
KEITH BORDEN,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 14-C-00064-BBC

SCOTT WALKER, J.B. VAN HOLLEN, OSKAR
ANDERSON, JOSEPH CZARNEZKI, WENDY
CHRISTENSEN, and SCOTT MCDONELL,

Defendants.

APPENDIX TO STATE DEFENDANTS WALKER, VAN HOLLEN, AND ANDERSONS
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Attorney General

TIMOTHY C. SAMUELSON
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar #1089968

THOMAS C. BELLAVIA
State Bar #1030182

CLAYTON P. KAWSKI
State Bar #1066228

Attorneys for Defendants,
Scott Walker, J.B. Van Hollen,
and Oskar Anderson
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 110 Filed: 05/14/14 Page 1 of 6
Proposed
Finding of
Fact No.
1

Appendix
Tab No.
2

Document Description

I. Marriage in the United States and Across the Globe.
1. U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2715 (2013)

2. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, 1204(a)

3. Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)

4. Ind. Code 31-11-1-1; Pa. Cons. Stat. 1102; W. Va. Code 48-2-
104; Wyo. Stat. 20-1-106

5. Ala. Const. art. I, 36.03; Alaska Const. art. 1, 25; Ariz. Const. art.
XXX, 1; Ark. Const. amend. 83, 1-3; Colo. Const. art. II, 31;
Fla. Const. art. I, 27; Ga. Const. art. I, IV, I; Idaho Const. art. III,
28; Kan. Const. art. XV, 16; Ky. Const. 233a; La. Const. art. XII,
15; Mich. Const. art I, 25; Miss. Const. art. XIV; Mo. Const. art. I,
33; Mont. Const. art. XIII, 7; Neb. Const. art. I, 29; N.C. Const.
art. XIV, 6; N.D. Const. art. XI, 28; Ohio Const. art. XV, 11;
Okla. Const. art. II, 35; Or. Const. art. XV, 5a; S.C. Const. art.
XVII, 15; S.D. Const. art. XXI, 9; Tenn. Const. art. XI, 18; Tex.
Const. art. I, 32; Utah Const. art. I, 29; Va. Const. art. I, 15-A;
Wis. Const. art. XIII, 13

II. Marriage in Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Marriage
Amendment.

6. 1. Wis. Legis. Ref. Bureau, Constitutional Amendment & Advisory
Referendum to Be Considered by Wisconsin Voters, Nov. 7, 2006,
Wisconsin Briefs 06-12 (Sept. 2006)

7. 2. 1983 Wis. Act 186

8. 3. 2003 Assembly Joint Resolution 66

9. 4. 2003 Assembly Joint Resolution 66, History

1
Proposed Finding of Fact No. refers to the paragraph numbers in State Defendants Walker, Van
Hollen, and Andersons Proposed Findings of Fact in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed contemporaneously herein.

2
Appendix Tab No. refers to the documents tabbed and included in the appendix. The appendix tab
numbers do not correspond to the proposed finding of fact numbers because not all documents cited in the
proposed findings of fact are included in the appendix (e.g., published legal and statutory authority are not
included).
10. Id.

11. 5. 2005 Senate Joint Resolution 53

12. 6. 2005 Senate Joint Resolution 53, History

13. Id.

14. Wisconsin Briefs 06-12, supra, at Tab 1.

15. Id.

16. Id.

17. 7. Wis. State Elections Bd. Canvass Summary, Fall General Election
(Nov. 7, 2006)

18. Id.

19. Id.

20. 8. Wis. Legis. Docs. relating to 2013 Assembly Joint Resolution 109

21. 9. Wis. Legis. Docs. relating to 2013 Senate Joint Resolution 74

III. Polling Data Regarding Marriage Laws.
22. 10. Public Policy Polling, Wisconsin narrowly opposes gay marriage
(July 20, 2012)

23. 11. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Holds Lead Over Challenger Mary
Burke In New Marquette Law School Poll, Marquette Law School
Poll (March 26, 2014)

24. 12. Patty Murray, Poll: Most Wisconsinites Support Marriage
Amendment But Also Back Granting Civil Rights, Wisconsin Public
Raido News (April 9, 2014)

25. 13. Gay and Lesbian Rights, Gallup Poll

26. 14. Nate Silver, How Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage Is Changing, and
What It Means, New York Times FiveThirtyEight blog (Mar. 26,
2013)

IV. Same-Sex Marriage in Other States.

27. 15. Minnesota Secretary of State, Results for Constitutional
Amendments, (12/7/12)

V. Presidential and Supreme Court Justice Statements
Regarding Same-Sex Marriage.
28. 16. President Clintons Signing Statement on DOMA

29. 17. Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal, New York
Times (5/9/12)

30. 18. Jason Keyser, Ginsburg Says Roe gave Abortion Opponents Target,
Associated Press (May 11, 2013)

31. 19. Transcript of Proceedings, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144
(Supreme Court), at 46:9-19

VI. Social Science Research.
32. 20. Douglas W. Allen, More Heat Than Light: A Critical Assessment of
the Gay Parenting Literature, 1995-2010 (April 2012)

33. Id.

34. 21. Loren Marks, Same-sex parenting and childrens outcomes: a closer
examination of the American psychological associations brief on
lesbian and gay parenting, Social Science Research 41 (2012)
735-751

35. 22. Kristen Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek, and Carol Emig,
Marriage from a Childs Perspective: How Does Family
Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It? Child
Trends Research Brief (June 2002)

36. Id.

37. 23. Wendy D. Manning and Kathleen A. Lamb, Adolescent Well-Being
in Cohabitating, Married, and Single-Parent Families, Journal of
Marriage and Family 65, no. 4 (November 2003), 2003 WLNR
12921714

38. 24. Prof. Douglas W. Allen and Maggie Gallagher, Does Divorce Law
Affect the Divorce Rate? A Review of Empirical Research,
1995-2006 Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (July 2007)

39. 25. Joseph Osmundson, I Was Born this Way: Is Sexuality Innate, and
Should it Matter? LGBTQ Policy Journal at the Harvard Kennedy
School: 2011 Edition

VII. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT)
Specific Laws in Wisconsin.

40. Wis. Stat. ch. 770

41. Wis. Stat. 50.36(3j)

42. Wis. Stat. 50.09(1)(f)1.; 50.94(1); 50.032(2d); 50.034(3)(e);
50.035(2)(d)

43. Wis. Stat. 48.82

44. Wis. Stat. 111.31; 111.36(1)(d)1.

45. Wis. Stat. 106.50; 106.52

46. Wis. Stat. 939.645(1)(b)

47. Wis. Stat. 118.13(1); 118.46

VIII. Plaintiffs Requests for Admission

48. 26. Plaintiffs Responses to State Defendants First Set of Requests for
Admission

49. Id.

Dated this 14th day of May, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,

J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Attorney General

s/Timothy C. Samuelson
TIMOTHY C. SAMUELSON
State Bar #1089968

THOMAS C. BELLAVIA
State Bar #1030182

CLAYTON P. KAWSKI
State Bar #1066228

Attorneys for Defendants,
Scott Walker, J.B. Van Hollen,
and Oskar Anerson

Wisconsin Department of Justice
Post Office Box 7857
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857
(608) 266-3542 (Samuelson)
(608) 266-7477 (Kawski)
(608) 266-8690 (Bellavia)
(608) 267-2223 (fax)
samuelsontc@doj.state.wi.us
kawskicp@doj.state.wi.us
bellaviatc@doj.state.wi.us

Wisconsin Briefs
from the Legislative Reference Bureau
Brief 0612 September 2006
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND
ADVISORY REFERENDUM TO BE CONSIDERED
BY WISCONSIN VOTERS, NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Introduction
One proposal to amend the Wisconsin Constitution and one advisory referendum will be
submitted to Wisconsin voters on November 7, 2006. The constitutional amendment relates
to providing that only a marriage between a man and a woman shall be recognized in Wiscon-
sin, and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage for unmarried individ-
uals shall not be recognized. The advisory referendum relates to the enactment of the death
penalty in Wisconsin.
Section Created Resolution Subject
Article XIII, Sec. 2003 Assembly Joint Resolution 66 Marriage
13 (Enrolled Joint Resolution 29)
2005 Senate Joint Resolution 53
(Enrolled Joint Resolution 30)
Amendment Process
Article XII, Section 1, of the Wisconsin Constitution requires that every constitutional
amendment must be adopted by two successive legislatures and ratified by the electorate
before taking effect. A proposed change is introduced in the legislature for first consider-
ation in the form of a joint resolution that must pass both houses but does not have to be sub-
mitted to the governor for approval. It must be published for three months before the next
election. If the resolution is adopted on first consideration, a new joint resolution embodying
the identical constitutional text must be approved on second consideration by the next legis-
lature. The second joint resolution specifies the wording of the ballot question and sets the
referendum date. The third and final step involves submitting the question to a statewide ref-
erendum vote where a majority of those casting ballots must ratify the amendment.
MARRIAGE
Ballot Question
The question will appear on the ballot in this form:
Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that
only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a mar-
riage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of mar-
riage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?
Prepared by Michael J. Keane, Senior Legislative Analyst Reference Desk: (608) 266-0341
Web Site: www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 110-1 Filed: 05/14/14 Page 1 of 5
2
LRB06WB12
Proposed Language
Section 13 of article XIII of the constitution is created to read: [Article XIII] Section 13.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage
for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.
Legislative Reference Bureau Analysis
The Legislative Reference Bureau analysis of 2003 AJR-66 states:
This proposed constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2003 legislature on first con-
sideration, provides that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be
valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substan-
tially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recog-
nized in this state.
Attorney Generals Explanatory Statement
Attorney General Peggy A. Lautenschlager has provided the following explanatory state-
ment of the effect of the proposed amendment as required by Section 10.01 (2)(c), Wisconsin
Statutes:
Under present Wisconsin law, only a marriage between a husband and a wife is recog-
nized as valid in this state. A husband is commonly defined as a man who is married
to a woman, and a wife is commonly defined as a woman who is married to a man.
A yes vote would make the existing restriction on marriage as a union between a man
and a woman part of the state constitution, and would prohibit any recognition of the
validity of a marriage between persons other than one man and one woman.
A yes vote would also prohibit recognition of any legal status which is identical or
substantially similar to marriage for unmarried persons of either the same sex or differ-
ent sexes. The constitution would not further specify what is, or what is not, a legal sta-
tus identical or substantially similar to marriage. Whether any particular type of
domestic relationship, partnership or agreement between unmarried persons would be
prohibited by this amendment would be left to further legislative or judicial determina-
tion.
A no vote would not change the present law restricting marriage to a union between
a man and a woman nor impose restrictions on any particular kind of domestic relation-
ship, partnership or agreement between unmarried persons.
Background
The issue of same-sex marriage has come into prominence in recent years because of sev-
eral court decisions using state constitutional requirements mandating equality to require that
same-sex couples be recognized by state governments, either through existing marriage laws,
or through the creation of civil union statutes.
State Actions. Among the earliest cases dealing with same-sex marriage was Baehr v.
Lewin (852 P. 2nd 44), a 1993 Hawaii case in which the state supreme court required that the
legislature justify its distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex couples. During litiga-
LRB06WB12
3
tion, Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment giving the legislature the authority to limit
marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court later ruled that the adoption of the 1998 amend-
ment decided the issue without further action by the legislature.
In a 1999 Vermont case, Baker v. State (744 A. 2nd 864), the state supreme court found that
denying same-sex couples the benefits and protections that flow from marriage, violated the
state constitution. The court gave the legislature the task of deciding how this would be
accomplished, requiring only that [W]hatever system is chosen . . . must conform with the
constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefits, protection, and secu-
rity of the law. In response, the legislature passed 2000 Act 91, creating a civil union frame-
work open to same-sex couples.
A Massachusetts case in 2003 took the issue a step further by requiring that marriage itself
be available to same-sex couples. In Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (SJC-08860) the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state could not deny same-sex couples a mar-
riage license, finding that civil marriage is an evolving paradigm. In language close to that
used by an Ontario court in a similar case five months earlier, the court found that current mar-
riage laws were in violation of principles of liberty and equality found in the Massachusetts
Constitution, declaring that We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two
persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. The court gave the legislature 180 days to
remedy the situation. Legislation to create a civil union statute similar to Vermonts was
unsuccessful, and on May 17, 2004, the court ordered the state to begin issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.
A relevant federal case was also decided in 2003. In Lawrence v. Texas (123 S. Ct. 2472), the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting sodomy were in violation of the due pro-
cess clause of the U.S. Constitutions XIVth Amendment. The Court specifically declined to
extend its ruling to include the issue of same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, some of its language
placing homosexual acts outside the realm of state regulation, specifically: The state cannot
demean their existence by making their private sexual conduct a crime . . ., raises the question
of whether this logic may in the future be extended to overturn state laws regarding marriage.
The emergence of this issue in some states has led others to examine the status of marriage
and to enact legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This has
largely been driven by the concern that Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, requiring
that Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings of every other state may compel every state to recognize same-sex marriages
contracted in other states.
In response to this concern, Congress in 1996 passed Public Law 104-199, the Defense of
Marriage Act. The act states that no state can be required to recognize a same-sex marriage
contracted in another state. The act also defines marriage as a legal union between one man
and one woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
It is not clear whether this statutory remedy would actually shield states from the constitu-
tional requirements of the full faith and credit clause.
The increased interest in the issue of same-sex marriage is reflected in the fact that a num-
ber of states have held ballot referenda on the subject. In 2004, 13 states (Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Okla-
homa, Oregon, and Utah) placed the question before their voters. While the ballot questions
were not identical, all had the effect of defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Each of these measures was approved by the voters, with the largest majority being in Missis-
4
LRB06WB12
sippi (86%) and the smallest in Michigan (58.6%). In nine of the 13 states, the question was
approved by more than two-thirds of those voting. In all, 19 states have adopted constitutional
amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. At least 13 have included
language prohibiting a status similar or identical to traditional marriage. Six states in addition
to Wisconsin are considering marriage amendments in 2006.
The Issue in Wisconsin. The issue of defining marriage is not a new one in Wisconsin.
Beginning in the 1971 session of the legislature, and continuing through the 1977 session, 10
bills were introduced permitting either same-sex marriage, polygamy, or group marriages.
Most of these bills were introduced by Representative Lloyd A. Barbee of Milwaukee. None
of them emerged from committee, although three received public hearings.
The issue was resurrected in Wisconsin about the same time it became a prominent issue
nationally. In 1995, a bill was introduced by Representative Lorraine Seratti to prohibit same-
sex marriage. It was the first of its kind in at least 100 years. Over the next three sessions, four
other, similar bills were introduced. None became law. In 2001, Representative Frank Boyle
introduced a bill permitting same-sex domestic partnerships. In 1997, James Doyle, then
Attorney General, issued an informal opinion advising that the prevailing marriage law, Sec-
tion 765.001 (2), Wisconsin Statutes, which stated that marriage is a legal relationship
between 2 equal persons, a husband and wife, was already sufficiently clear to make same-
sex marriage illegal in Wisconsin.
During the 2003-04 session, Representative Boyle introduced AB-955, providing a domes-
tic partnership law for Wisconsin. Representative Mark Pocan introduced a bill authorizing
same-sex marriages. Neither bill passed. Bills requiring that marriage be between one man
and one woman were introduced by Representative Mark Gundrum (AB-475) and Senator
Scott Fitzgerald (SB-233). On October 21, 2003, Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager reiter-
ated Doyles 1997 opinion that current law already prohibited same-sex marriage. AB-475
passed the Assembly 68-29 on October 23, and the Senate 22-10 on November 5. The bill was
vetoed by Governor Doyle on November 10, and an Assembly override attempt fell short of
the required two-thirds vote, 63-33, on November 12.
Legislative Action
2003 Assembly Joint Resolution 66, the first consideration resolution, which, as a consti-
tutional amendment, did not require action by the governor, was introduced on February 9,
2004, by Representative Mark Gundrum and 44 coauthors and cosponsors. AJR-66 was
adopted by the Assembly on March 4 and the Senate on March 11. It was enrolled on April
6 as Enrolled Joint Resolution 29.
2005 Senate Joint Resolution 53, the second consideration resolution, was introduced on
November 22, 2005, by Senator Scott Fitzgerald and 53 coauthors and cosponsors. It was
adopted by the Senate on December 6, 2005, and the Assembly on February 28, 2006. It was
enrolled on March 22 as Enrolled Joint Resolution 30.
ADVISORY REFERENDUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY
Ballot Question
The question will appear on the ballot in this form:
Should the death penalty be enacted in the State of Wisconsin for cases involving a per-
son who is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, if the conviction is supported
by DNA evidence?
LRB06WB12
5
Attorney Generals Explanatory Statement
Attorney General Peggy A. Lautenschlager has provided the following explanatory state-
ment of the effect of the proposed amendment as required by Section 10.01 (2)(c), Wisconsin
Statutes:
This is an advisory referendum only. Neither a yes nor a no vote will directly make
any change in the law. The Legislature and the Governor are not legally bound by the
results of this advisory referendum.
The present penalty for first-degree intentional homicide is life in prison. The court
imposing a life sentence may also prohibit the defendant from ever being released from
prison. This is commonly referred to as life without the possibility of parole.
A yes vote would advise members of the Legislature that you want them to change
the penalty for first-degree intentional homicide so that the penalty would be death
when a person is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, and the conviction is
supported by DNA evidence. The referendum question does not suggest what level of
DNA evidence would be sufficient.
A no vote would advise members of the Legislature that you do not want them to
change the present penalty for first-degree intentional homicide at this time.
Background
Since 1848, the Wisconsin Legislature has submitted 20 advisory referenda to the voters
covering a broad range of topics. Ten have been approved and 10 have been rejected. Most
recently, in 1993 the legislature submitted five questions to the voters on various aspects of
gambling. Questions on casino restrictions, pari-mutuel betting, and the continuance of the
state lottery were approved by the voters; questions relating to casino excursion vessels and
video poker were rejected. It was the only time more than two advisory questions were sub-
mitted to the people at one time.
Legislative Action
Wisconsin abolished the death penalty in 1853. Numerous bills have been introduced to
restore the death penalty since its abolition. None have passed. The question of the death pen-
alty has never been submitted to the people before.
2005 Senate Joint Resolution 5 was introduced by Senator Alan Lasee on February 15, 2005.
He was joined by 18 coauthors and cosponsors. Senate Amendment 3, recommended by the
Committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy, was adopted 19-13 on March 7. Senate
Amendment 5, offered by Senator Lasee, was adopted 20-13, also on March 7. SJR-5 was
adopted 20-13. Assembly Amendment 1, offered by Representative Frank Lasee, was adopted
on a voice vote on May 4. The Assembly concurred in SJR-5 on May 4 by a vote of 47-45. The
Senate concurred in Assembly Amendment 1 on May 16, 18-15. The joint resolution was
enrolled as Enrolled Joint Resolution 58 on May 18.
Underscored, stricken, and vetoed text may not be searchable.
If you do not see text of the Act, SCROLL DOWN.
LRB-4072/2
PJD&PJK:kmg:jf
2003 - 2004 LEGISLATURE
2003 ASSEMBLY JOINT
RESOLUTION 66
February 9, 2004 - Introduced by Representatives GUNDRUM, W.
WOOD, VUKMIR,
NISCHKE, WEBER, KRAWCZYK, SUDER, J. FITZGERALD,
TOWNS, OWENS, LADWIG,
MCCORMICK, HUNDERTMARK, M. WILLIAMS, SERATTI, VAN
ROY, GROTHMAN, BIES,
LEMAHIEU, HONADEL, PETTIS, NASS, OTT, VRAKAS, F.
LASEE, HAHN, KESTELL,
LOTHIAN, HINES, OLSEN, GOTTLIEB, TOWNSEND,
GUNDERSON, KREIBICH,
PETROWSKI, D. MEYER and HUEBSCH, cosponsored by
Senators S. FITZGERALD,
STEPP, ROESSLER, LAZICH, LEIBHAM, ZIEN, KANAVAS and
SCHULTZ. Referred to
Committee on Judiciary.
To create section 13 of article XIII of the constitution; relating to:
providing that
only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be
valid or recognized
as a marriage in this state (first consideration).
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
This proposed constitutional amendment, proposed to the 2003
legislature on
first consideration, provides that only a marriage between one man
and one woman
shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a
legal status
identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried
individuals shall
not be valid or recognized in this state.
1
2
3
Page 1 of 3 Wisconsin Legislature: AJR66: Joint Resolution Text
5/12/2014 http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2003/related/proposals/ajr66
A proposed constitutional amendment requires adoption by 2
successive
legislatures, and ratification by the people, before it can become
effective.
Resolved by the assembly, the senate concurring, That:
SECTION 1. Section 13 of article XIII of the constitution is
created to read:
[Article XIII] Section 13. Only a marriage between one man
and one woman
shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status
identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals
shall not be valid
or recognized in this state.
SECTION 2. Numbering of new provision. The new section
13 of article XIII
of the constitution created in this joint resolution shall be designated
by the next
higher open whole section number in that article if, before the
ratification by the
people of the amendment proposed in this joint resolution, any other
ratified
amendment has created a section 13 of article XIII of the constitution
of this state.
If one or more joint resolutions create a section 13 of article XIII
simultaneously with
the ratification by the people of the amendment proposed in this joint
resolution, the
sections created shall be numbered and placed in a sequence so that
the sections
created by the joint resolution having the lowest enrolled joint
resolution number
have the numbers designated in that joint resolution and the sections
created by the
other joint resolutions have numbers that are in the same ascending
order as are the
numbers of the enrolled joint resolutions creating the sections.
Be it further resolved, That this proposed amendment be
referred to the
legislature to be chosen at the next general election and that it be
published for 3
months previous to the time of holding such election.
(END)
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2003-2004 Wisconsin Legislature
Assembly Joint Resolution 66
relating to: providing that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage in this state (first consideration).
History
Date / House Action Journal
2/9/2004 Asm.
Introduced by Representatives Gundrum, W. Wood, Vukmir, Nischke,
Weber, Krawczyk, Suder, J. Fitzgerald, Towns, Owens, Ladwig,
McCormick, Hundertmark, M. Williams, Seratti, Van Roy, Grothman,
Bies, LeMahieu, Honadel, Pettis, Nass, Ott, Vrakas, F. Lasee, Hahn,
Kestell, Lothian, Hines, Olsen, Gottlieb, Townsend, Gunderson,
Kreibich, Petrowski, D. Meyer and Huebsch; cosponsored by Senators S.
Fitzgerald, Stepp, Roessler, Lazich, Leibham, Zien, Kanavas and Schultz.

2/9/2004 Asm.
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary
2/11/2004 Asm.
Representative Gard added as a coauthor
2/11/2004 Asm.
Representative Albers added as a coauthor
2/12/2004 Asm.
Public hearing held.
2/24/2004 Asm.
Executive action taken.
2/25/2004 Asm.
Report adoption recommended by committee on Judiciary, Ayes 6,
Noes 1
2/25/2004 Asm.
Referred to committee on Rules
3/2/2004 Asm.
Made a special order of business at 9:00 A.M. on 3-4-2004 pursuant to
AR 35
3/4/2004 Asm.
Read a second time
3/4/2004 Asm.
Refused to reject, Ayes 28, Noes 69
3/4/2004 Asm.
Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives Cullen and
Molepske
3/4/2004 Asm.
Assembly amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 36
3/4/2004 Asm.
Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representative Colon
3/4/2004 Asm.
Assembly amendment 2 withdrawn and returned to author
3/4/2004 Asm.
Assembly amendment 3 offered by Representative Colon
3/4/2004 Asm.
Point of order that Assembly amendment 3 not germane well taken
3/4/2004 Asm.
Decision of the Chair appealed
3/4/2004 Asm.
Decision of the Chair upheld, Ayes 59, Noes 38
3/4/2004 Asm.
Call of the Assembly lifted, Ayes 70, Noes 26
Page 1 of 3 2003 Assembly Joint Resolution 66
5/12/2014 http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2003/proposals/ajr66
3/4/2004 Asm.
Call of the Assembly lifted, Ayes 65, Noes 32
3/4/2004 Asm.
Refused to refer to joint committee on Finance, Ayes 35, Noes 62
3/4/2004 Asm.
Ordered to a third reading
3/4/2004 Asm.
Refused to suspend rules to read a third time, Ayes 68, Noes 28
3/4/2004 Asm.
Read a third time and adopted, Ayes 68, Noes 27, Paired 4
3/4/2004 Asm.
Ordered immediately messaged
3/5/2004 Sen.
Received from Assembly
3/5/2004 Sen.
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary, Corrections and
Privacy
3/8/2004 Sen.
3/9/2004 Sen.
Report concurrence recommended by committee on Judiciary,
Corrections and Privacy, Ayes 3, Noes 2
3/9/2004 Sen.
Available for scheduling.
3/9/2004 Sen.
Placed on calendar 3-10-2004 by committee on Senate Organization.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
Considered for action at this time
3/11/2004 Sen.
Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Carpenter
3/11/2004 Sen.
Senate substitute amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 19, Noes 14
3/11/2004 Sen.
Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Carpenter
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
Senate amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 19, Noes 13
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
Senate amendment 9 considered for action at this time
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
Senate amendment 11 laid on table
3/11/2004 Sen.
Senate amendment 12 laid on table
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/11/2004 Sen.
Rules suspended
3/11/2004 Sen.
Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 20, Noes 13
3/11/2004 Sen.
3/15/2004 Asm.
Received from Senate concurred in
3/18/2004 Asm.
Report correctly enrolled
4/6/2004 Asm.
Deposited in the office of the Secretary of State. Enrolled Joint
Resolution 29
4/6/2004 Asm.
Published 4-16-2004, 8-3-2004, 9-7-2004, 10-5-2004
Content subject to change after proofing by Chief Clerk staff.
LRB-3729/1
PJD:wlj:ch
2005 - 2006 LEGISLATURE
2005 SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION 53
November 22, 2005 - Introduced by Senators S. FITZGERALD, STEPP,
ROESSLER,
LAZICH, LEIBHAM, KANAVAS, SCHULTZ, A. LASEE, REYNOLDS,
GROTHMAN and ZIEN,
cosponsored by Representatives GUNDRUM, NISCHKE,
KRAWCZYK, SUDER, J.
FITZGERALD, TOWNS, OWENS, GARD, HUEBSCH, MCCORMICK,
HUNDERTMARK, M.
WILLIAMS, VAN ROY, BIES, LEMAHIEU, HONADEL, PETTIS,
NASS, OTT, F. LASEE,
HAHN, KESTELL, LOTHIAN, HINES, GOTTLIEB, TOWNSEND,
GUNDERSON, KREIBICH,
PETROWSKI, MEYER, JESKEWITZ, FREESE, VOS, KLEEFISCH,
NERISON, BALLWEG,
MOULTON, KERKMAN, LOEFFELHOLZ, ALBERS, MURSAU,
PRIDEMORE and
MONTGOMERY. Referred to Committee on Judiciary,
Corrections and Privacy.
To create section 13 of article XIII of the constitution; relating to:
providing that
only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be
valid or recognized
as a marriage in this state (2nd consideration).
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
EXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL
THIS PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, TO BE
GIVEN 2ND CONSIDERATION BY THE
2005 LEGISLATURE FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE VOTERS IN
NOVEMBER 2006, WAS FIRST CONSIDERED
BY THE 2003 LEGISLATURE IN 2003 ASSEMBLY JOINT
1
2
3
Page 1 of 4 Wisconsin Legislature: SJR53: Joint Resolution Text
5/12/2014 http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/related/proposals/sjr53
RESOLUTION 66, WHICH BECAME 2003
ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTION 29.
It provides that only a marriage between one man and one
woman shall be valid
or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status
identical or
shall not be valid
or recognized in this state.
PROCEDURE FOR 2ND CONSIDERATION
When a proposed constitutional amendment is before the legislature
on 2nd
consideration, any change in the text approved by the preceding
legislature causes
the proposed constitutional amendment to revert to first consideration
status so that
2nd consideration approval would have to be given by the next
legislature before the
proposal may be submitted to the people for ratification [see joint rule
57 (2)].
If the legislature approves a proposed constitutional amendment on
2nd
consideration, it must also set the date for submitting the proposed
constitutional
amendment to the people for ratification and must determine the
question or
questions to appear on the ballot.
Whereas, the 2003 legislature in regular session considered a
proposed
amendment to the constitution in 2003 Assembly Joint Resolution 66,
which became
2003 Enrolled Joint Resolution 29, and agreed to it by a majority of
the members
elected to each of the 2 houses, which proposed amendment reads as
follows:
SECTION 1. Section 13 of article XIII of the
constitution is created to
read:
[Article XIII] Section 13. Only a marriage
between one man and one
woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in
this state. A legal
status identical or substantially similar to that of
marriage for unmarried
individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this
state.
1
2
3
4
SECTION 2. Numbering of new
provision. The new section 13 of
article XIII of the constitution created in this joint
resolution shall be
designated by the next higher open whole section
number in that article
if, before the ratification by the people of the
amendment proposed in this
joint resolution, any other ratified amendment has
created a section 13 of
article XIII of the constitution of this state. If one or
more joint resolutions
create a section 13 of article XIII simultaneously
with the ratification by
the people of the amendment proposed in this joint
resolution, the sections
created shall be numbered and placed in a sequence
so that the sections
created by the joint resolution having the lowest
enrolled joint resolution
number have the numbers designated in that joint
resolution and the
sections created by the other joint resolutions have
numbers that are in
the same ascending order as are the numbers of the
enrolled joint
resolutions creating the sections.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate, the
assembly concurring,
That the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution is agreed
to by the 2005
legislature; and, be it further
Resolved, That the foregoing proposed amendment to the
constitution be
submitted to a vote of the people at the election to be held on the
Tuesday after the
first Monday in November 2006; and, be it further
Resolved, That the question concerning ratification of the foregoing
proposed
amendment to the constitution be stated on the ballot as follows:
QUESTION 1: "Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of
the constitution be
created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one
woman shall be
valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status
identical or
shall not be valid
or recognized in this state?"
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
(END) 6
2005-2006 Wisconsin Legislature
Senate Joint Resolution 53
relating to: providing that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage in this state (2nd consideration).
History
11/22/2005 Sen.
Introduced by Senators S. Fitzgerald, Stepp, Roessler, Lazich, Leibham,
Kanavas, Schultz, A. Lasee, Reynolds, Grothman and Zien; cosponsored
by Representatives Gundrum, Nischke, Krawczyk, Suder, J. Fitzgerald,
Towns, Owens, Gard, Huebsch, McCormick, Hundertmark, M. Williams,
Van Roy, Bies, LeMahieu, Honadel, Pettis, Nass, Ott, F. Lasee, Hahn,
Kestell, Lothian, Hines, Gottlieb, Townsend, Gunderson, Kreibich,
Petrowski, Meyer, Jeskewitz, Freese, Vos, Kleefisch, Nerison, Ballweg,
Moulton, Kerkman, Loeffelholz, Albers, Mursau, Pridemore and
Montgomery.

11/22/2005 Sen.
Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary, Corrections and
Privacy
11/29/2005 Sen.
Representative Strachota added as a cosponsor
11/29/2005 Sen.
Public hearing held.
12/5/2005 Sen.
12/5/2005 Sen.
Report adoption recommended by committee on Judiciary, Corrections
and Privacy, Ayes 3, Noes 2
12/5/2005 Sen.
Available for scheduling.
12/5/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
Read a second time
12/6/2005 Sen.
Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senators Hansen, Decker,
Breske, Jauch, Erpenbach, Lassa and Robson
12/6/2005 Sen.
Senate substitute amendment 1 rejected, Ayes 19, Noes 14
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
Senate substitute amendment 4 laid on table
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
Page 1 of 3 2005 Senate Joint Resolution 53
5/12/2014 http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/proposals/sjr53
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
Senate substitute amendment 9 laid on table
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
Senate amendment 1 rejected, Ayes 19, Noes 14
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
Senate amendment 3 withdrawn and returned to author
12/6/2005 Sen.
Senate amendment 4 offered by Senator Plale
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
12/6/2005 Sen.
Rules suspended
12/6/2005 Sen.
Read a third time and adopted, Ayes 19, Noes 14
12/6/2005 Sen.
2/23/2006 Asm.
Received from Senate
2/23/2006 Asm.
Read first time and referred to committee on Rules
2/23/2006 Asm.
Placed on calendar 2-28-2006 by committee on Rules.
2/28/2006 Asm.
Rules suspended to withdraw from calendar and take up
2/28/2006 Asm.
Read a second time
2/28/2006 Asm.
Assembly substitute amendment 2 offered by Representatives
Molepske, Cullen, A. Williams, Gronemus and Nelson
2/28/2006 Asm.
Assembly substitute amendment 2 laid on table, Ayes 57, Noes 38
2/28/2006 Asm.
Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative
Underheim
2/28/2006 Asm.
Assembly substitute amendment 1 withdrawn and returned to author
2/28/2006 Asm.
2/28/2006 Asm.
Rules suspended
2/28/2006 Asm.
Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 62, Noes 31, Paired 6
2/28/2006 Asm.
3/1/2006 Sen.
Received from Assembly concurred in
3/3/2006 Sen.
Report correctly enrolled on 3-3-2006
3/22/2006 Sen.
Deposited in the office of the Secretary of State on 3-22-2006. Enrolled
Joint Resolution 30.
3/30/2006 Sen.
Not published
Content subject to change after proofing by Chief Clerk staff.
Wisconsin State Elections Board
Canvass Summary
Fall General Election - 11/07/2006
Run: 12/05/2006 10:16 AM Page 1 of 8
Statewide Referendum : Definition of Marriage
5,142 2,741
3,566 2,392
10,958 4,962
4,132 3,010
55,780 36,305
3,428 1,921
4,418 1,686
13,338 5,986
13,993 7,408
7,737 3,436
13,023 8,866
3,980 2,427
70,377 142,491
22,552 8,154
8,412 5,790
9,316 6,241
8,520 5,939
19,595 18,297
1,515 481
25,745 11,731
2,407 1,180
7,883
5,958
15,920
7,142
92,085
5,349
6,104
19,324
21,401
11,173
21,889
6,407
212,868
30,706
14,202
15,557
14,459
37,892
1,996
37,476
3,587
Y
E
S
N
O
Adams County
Ashland County
Barron County
Bayfield County
Brown County
Buffalo County
Burnett County
Calumet County
Chippewa County
Clark County
Columbia County
Crawford County
Dane County
Dodge County
Door County
Douglas County
Dunn County
Eau Claire County
Florence County
Fond du Lac County
Forest County
T
o
t
a
l

V
o
t
e
s

C
a
s
t
Canvass Summary
Run: 12/05/2006 10:16 AM Page 2 of 8
10,546 6,321
7,074 6,011
5,850 2,051
4,553 4,424
1,743 935
4,418 2,504
19,918 10,687
5,717 2,625
29,676 20,490
6,450 2,399
21,327 21,175
3,624 2,149
5,856 2,724
7,129 3,661
22,442 9,572
31,675 17,054
12,192 4,554
4,152 2,003
507 448
172,548 141,453
8,871 4,525
16,867
13,085
7,901
8,977
2,678
6,922
30,605
8,342
50,166
8,849
42,502
5,773
8,580
10,790
32,014
48,729
16,746
6,155
955
314,001
13,396
Y
E
S
N
O
Grant County
Green County
Green Lake County
Iowa County
Iron County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Juneau County
Kenosha County
Kewaunee County
LaCrosse County
Lafayette County
Langlade County
Lincoln County
Manitowoc County
Marathon County
Marinette County
Marquette County
Menominee County
Milwaukee County
Monroe County
T
o
t
a
l

V
o
t
e
s

C
a
s
t
Canvass Summary
Run: 12/05/2006 10:16 AM Page 3 of 8
10,222 4,165
9,356 6,478
42,849 25,631
25,914 14,916
2,106 889
8,350 5,673
10,619 4,733
15,409 13,285
3,944 2,259
43,869 24,868
3,939 2,454
30,220 24,087
3,848 1,916
12,394 9,310
4,245 2,082
11,333 4,279
32,908 13,895
16,668 9,749
4,741 2,414
5,996 3,466
6,253 3,901
14,387
15,834
68,480
40,830
2,995
14,023
15,352
28,694
6,203
68,737
6,393
54,307
5,764
21,704
6,327
15,612
46,803
26,417
7,155
9,462
10,154
Y
E
S
N
O
Oconto County
Oneida County
Outagamie County
Ozaukee County
Pepin County
Pierce County
Polk County
Portage County
Price County
Racine County
Richland County
Rock County
Rusk County
Sauk County
Sawyer County
Shawano County
Sheboygan County
St. Croix County
Taylor County
Trempealeau County
Vernon County
T
o
t
a
l

V
o
t
e
s

C
a
s
t
Canvass Summary
Run: 12/05/2006 10:16 AM Page 4 of 8
1,264,310 862,924
6,386 3,953
20,501 12,652
4,465 2,097
38,759 13,804
118,736 55,165
13,281 5,810
6,168 2,833
37,188 27,228
19,441 9,723
Office Totals : 2,127,234
10,339
33,153
6,562
52,563
173,901
19,091
9,001
64,416
29,164
Y
E
S
N
O
Vilas County
Walworth County
Washburn County
Washington County
Waukesha County
Waupaca County
Waushara County
Winnebago County
Wood County
T
o
t
a
l

V
o
t
e
s

C
a
s
t
Canvass Summary
Run: 12/05/2006 10:16 AM Page 5 of 8
Statewide Referendum : Death Penalty-Advisory
5,222 2,588
3,402 2,468
10,175 5,500
4,168 2,879
54,169 37,126
3,247 2,044
4,176 1,854
11,775 7,302
11,814 9,376
6,567 4,443
11,492 10,190
3,504 2,860
69,368 141,898
18,467 11,807
7,783 6,237
10,013 5,474
8,403 5,877
17,779 19,290
1,358 620
21,577 14,956
2,299 1,215
7,810
5,870
15,675
7,047
91,295
5,291
6,030
19,077
21,190
11,010
21,682
6,364
211,266
30,274
14,020
15,487
14,280
37,069
1,978
36,533
3,514
Y
E
S
N
O
Adams County
Ashland County
Barron County
Bayfield County
Brown County
Buffalo County
Burnett County
Calumet County
Chippewa County
Clark County
Columbia County
Crawford County
Dane County
Dodge County
Door County
Douglas County
Dunn County
Eau Claire County
Florence County
Fond du Lac County
Forest County
T
o
t
a
l

V
o
t
e
s

C
a
s
t
Canvass Summary
Run: 12/05/2006 10:16 AM Page 6 of 8
8,513 8,103
7,114 5,906
5,108 2,629
4,067 4,779
1,784 874
4,392 2,410
18,001 12,263
4,828 3,383
30,583 18,964
5,121 3,605
21,793 20,114
2,981 2,721
5,360 3,113
6,459 4,242
19,240 12,358
26,826 21,466
10,925 5,284
3,753 2,271
536 406
155,576 154,363
8,093 5,090
16,616
13,020
7,737
8,846
2,658
6,802
30,264
8,211
49,547
8,726
41,907
5,702
8,473
10,701
31,598
48,292
16,209
6,024
942
309,939
13,183
Y
E
S
N
O
Grant County
Green County
Green Lake County
Iowa County
Iron County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Juneau County
Kenosha County
Kewaunee County
LaCrosse County
Lafayette County
Langlade County
Lincoln County
Manitowoc County
Marathon County
Marinette County
Marquette County
Menominee County
Milwaukee County
Monroe County
T
o
t
a
l

V
o
t
e
s

C
a
s
t
Canvass Summary
Run: 12/05/2006 10:16 AM Page 7 of 8
9,728 4,471
9,562 6,111
38,825 28,726
23,679 16,707
1,714 1,209
8,333 5,551
10,311 4,931
13,314 15,022
3,927 2,268
40,342 27,210
3,292 3,015
30,432 23,522
3,480 2,160
10,935 10,639
4,147 2,103
10,130 5,218
29,795 16,368
16,528 9,633
4,284 2,806
5,266 4,060
5,594 4,383
14,199
15,673
67,551
40,386
2,923
13,884
15,242
28,336
6,195
67,552
6,307
53,954
5,640
21,574
6,250
15,348
46,163
26,161
7,090
9,326
9,977
Y
E
S
N
O
Oconto County
Oneida County
Outagamie County
Ozaukee County
Pepin County
Pierce County
Polk County
Portage County
Price County
Racine County
Richland County
Rock County
Rusk County
Sauk County
Sawyer County
Shawano County
Sheboygan County
St. Croix County
Taylor County
Trempealeau County
Vernon County
T
o
t
a
l

V
o
t
e
s

C
a
s
t
Canvass Summary
Run: 12/05/2006 10:16 AM Page 8 of 8
1,166,571 934,508
6,748 3,531
20,908 11,900
4,247 2,249
33,941 18,026
106,756 64,842
12,058 6,744
5,875 3,013
38,298 25,502
16,311 12,240
Office Totals : 2,101,079
10,279
32,808
6,496
51,967
171,598
18,802
8,888
63,800
28,551
Y
E
S
N
O
Vilas County
Walworth County
Washburn County
Washington County
Waukesha County
Waupaca County
Waushara County
Winnebago County
Wood County
T
o
t
a
l

V
o
t
e
s

C
a
s
t
Public Policy Polling
July 20, 2012
Wisconsin narrowly opposes gay marriage

Raleigh, N.C. -- Wisconsin voters believe by a 47% to 43% margin that gay marriage should be illegal, according
to the latest PPP poll in the state. That represents an increase in support for gay marriage since last August when
50% of voters opposed it and only 39% were in support. When more specific positions were offered, 69% believed
that gay couples should either be able to marry or form a civil union, while 28% opposed any sort of legal
recognition for gay couples.
Green Bay emerged as the states most popular city, scoring a 68% to 7% favorability rating. Republicans in the
state gave Green Bay their highest marks with a +67 net favorable score for the home of the Packers. Democrats
gave the city a slightly more tepid +47 mark, reserving their best for Madison, which they approved of by 66
points. GOP voters disapproved of the capital more than 2 to 1.
Both beer and cheese asserted their overwhelming popularity in Wisconsin, with beer scoring a net favorable
rating of +47 and cheese barely outpacing it at +52. However, when forced to decide between the two, voters chose
cheese in a landslide, 64% to 18%. Beer saw its highest unfavorables come from young voters, with 32% of
Wisconsinites aged 18 to 29 expressing an unfavorable opinion of the beverage, compared to 19% for the
population as a whole.
As he heads toward retirement, Herb Kohl remains Wisconsins more popular senator, with 46% of voters
approving of him to 38% who disapprove. Voters are closely divided on Ron Johnson, with 38% approving of him,
to 37% who disapprove.
PPP surveyed 1,057 Wisconsin voters from July 5th to 8th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.0%. This poll
was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through
automated telephone interviews.
Page 1 of 6 Wisconsin narrowly opposes gay marriage - Public Policy Polling
5/12/2014 http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/07/wisconsin-narrowly-opposes-gay-marri...
Topline results are below. Full results, including crosstabs, can be found here.
Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Ron
Johnson's job performance?
Approve ................. .38%
Disapprove............. .37%
Not sure ................. .25%

Q2 Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Herb
Kohl's job performance?
Approve ................. .46%
Disapprove............. .38%
Not sure ................. .16%

Q3 If there was an election for the state legislature
today, would you vote Democratic or
Republican?
Democratic...................................................... 45%
Republican...................................................... 44%
Not sure .......................................................... 11%

Q4 In general, do you think Wisconsin should have
recall elections, or not?
Wisconsin should have recalls........................ 51%
It should not .................................................... 40%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

Q5 Do you think same-sex marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal............................................................... 43%
Illegal .............................................................. 47%
Not sure .......................................................... 10%
Q6 Which of the following best describes your
opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should
be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples
should be allowed to form civil unions but not
legally marry, or there should be no legal
recognition of a gay couple's relationship?
Gay couples should be allowed to legally
marry ..............................................................39%
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil
unions but not marry .......................................30%
There should be no legal recognition of a gay
couple's relationship .......................................28%
Not sure .......................................................... 4%

Q7 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of the city of Milwaukee?
Favorable........................................................ 35%
Unfavorable .................................................... 37%
Not sure .......................................................... 28%

of the city of Madison?
Favorable........................................................ 50%
Unfavorable .................................................... 33%
Not sure .......................................................... 16%

of the city of Green Bay?
Favorable........................................................ 68%
Unfavorable .................................................... 7%
Not sure .......................................................... 25%

of the city of Kenosha?
Favorable........................................................ 26%
Unfavorable .................................................... 27%
Not sure .......................................................... 47%
of the city of Racine?
Favorable........................................................ 23%
Unfavorable .................................................... 35%
Not sure .......................................................... 41%

of the city of Appleton?
Favorable........................................................ 64%
Unfavorable .................................................... 7%
Not sure .......................................................... 29%

of the city of Oshkosh?
Favorable........................................................ 57%
Unfavorable .................................................... 8%
Not sure .......................................................... 35%

of the city of Eau Claire?
Favorable........................................................ 57%
Unfavorable .................................................... 7%
Not sure .......................................................... 36%

of the city of La Crosse?
Favorable........................................................ 60%
Unfavorable .................................................... 7%
Not sure .......................................................... 34%

of cheese?
Favorable........................................................ 56%
Unfavorable .................................................... 4%
Not sure .......................................................... 39%

of beer?
Favorable........................................................ 66%
Unfavorable .................................................... 19%
Not sure .......................................................... 15%
Q18 What do you like better: cheese or beer?
Cheese ........................................................... 64%
Beer ................................................................ 18%
Not sure .......................................................... 17%

of Ryan Braun?
Favorable........................................................ 55%
Unfavorable .................................................... 9%
Not sure .......................................................... 37%

Q20 Who did you vote for President in 2008?
John McCain................................................... 46%
Barack Obama................................................ 46%
Someone else/Don't remember ...................... 8%

Q21 Would you describe yourself as very liberal,
somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat
conservative, or very conservative?
Very liberal ...................................................... 10%
Somewhat liberal ............................................ 18%
Moderate......................................................... 28%
Somewhat conservative.................................. 26%
Very conservative ........................................... 18%

Q22 If you are a woman, press 1. If a man, press 2.
Woman ........................................................... 51%
Man................................................................. 49%

Q23 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
press 2. If you are an independent or identify
with another party, press 3.
Democrat ........................................................ 30%
Republican...................................................... 32%
Independent/Other.......................................... 38%

Q24 If you are white, press 1. If other, press 2.
White .............................................................. 90%
Other............................................................... 10%
Q25 If you are 18 to 29 years old, press 1. If 30 to
45, press 2. If 46 to 65, press 3. If you are
older than 65, press 4.
18 to 29........................................................... 12%
30 to 45........................................................... 24%
46 to 65........................................................... 44%
Older than 65.................................................. 20%
Posted by Tom Jensen at 01:51 PM in baseball, Gay marriage, Herb Kohl, Polls, Wisconsin | Permalink
ShareThis
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us |
Tweet
|
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Posted by: |
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Post Edit
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post
another comment
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This
prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Continue
4 Like
Sitemap 2014 Public Policy Polling


A Comprehensive Look at the Wisconsin Vote
WISCONSIN GOV. SCOTT WALKER HOLDS
LEAD OVER CHALLENGER MARY BURKE IN
NEW MARQUETTE LAW SCHOOL POLL
MARCH 26, 2014

MILWAUKEE A new Marquette
Law School Poll finds Republican
Gov. Scott Walker leading
Democratic candidate Mary Burke,
48 to 41 percent, in the run-up to
Wisconsins gubernatorial election
this November. Walker held a 47
to 41 percent advantage in the
most recent Marquette Law School
Poll, taken in January.
The poll of 801 Wisconsin
registered voters was conducted
by cell phone and landline March
20-23 and has a margin of error of
+/- 3.5 percentage points.
Forty-seven percent of
respondents approve of the job
Walker is doing as governor while
an equal 47 percent disapprove,
with 5 percent saying they dont
know. In January, Walkers
Analysis
Media Coverage
Results & Data
About the Poll
Video Commentary
Contact Us
approval rating stood at 51
percent, with 42 percent
disapproving.
Voters have mixed views of the
direction of the state, policy issues
and the economy. Fifty-four
percent say the state is headed in
the right direction while 42
percent say it is on the wrong
track; this is little changed from
Januarys 54-40 percent split.
A majority, 55 percent, favor the

$500 million tax cut enacted by the
legislature and signed into law by
Walker, while 34 percent oppose
the tax reduction. While approving
of the tax cut, 58 percent say tax
cuts do more to benefit the
wealthy, while 25 percent see the
middle class and 9 percent see the
poor as benefiting more.
Asked how Wisconsin compares to
other states in job creation, 45
percent say Wisconsin is lagging
behind other states, 37 percent say
it is keeping pace with other states
and 12 percent think Wisconsin is
creating jobs faster than other
states. In January, 40 percent said
lagging, 41 percent said keeping
pace and 11 percent said
Wisconsin was adding jobs faster.
Thirteen percent believe
Wisconsin will reach the 250,000
new jobs Walker pledged in his
2010 campaign, while 80 percent
say the state will fall short of that
number. Twenty-nine percent say
this issue is very important to their
vote, 44 percent say somewhat
important, 14 percent not very
important and 12 percent say the
jobs pledge is not at all important
for their vote.
Candidate images Candidate images Candidate images Candidate images
Burke is viewed favorably by 19
percent and unfavorably by 22
percent, with 59 percent saying
they either dont know enough
about her or cant say if they have a
favorable or unfavorable view of
her. In January, 70 percent were
unable to give an opinion about
her; those expressing an opinion
split 12 percent favorable and 18
percent unfavorable.
By contrast, only 5 percent are
unable to rate Walker, with 49
percent favorable and 47 percent
unfavorable. In January, Walker
was seen favorably by 49 percent
and unfavorably by 44 percent
with 6 percent unable to give an
opinion.
Asked if each candidate cares
about people like you, 43 percent
say Walker does while 51 percent
say he does not, with 5 percent
saying they didnt know. For Burke,
36 percent say she cares about
them while 29 percent say she
does not and 34 percent say they
dont know.
Sixty-seven percent of voters say
they have read or heard about the
release of some 27,000 pages of
emails from employees in Walkers
office when he was Milwaukee
County Executive, while 31
percent have not. Of those who
have read or heard about them 43
percent say the emails give them a
less favorable view of Walker
while 53 percent say the emails
made no difference and 3 percent
say they have a more favorable
view.
Legislative issues Legislative issues Legislative issues Legislative issues
As the state legislature approaches
the end of its session, voters have a
mixture of views about major
legislative issues. Voters favor
requiring a government-issued
photo ID in order to vote by a 60 to
36 percent margin, essentially
unchanged from the 61-37 margin
when last asked in May 2012.
On early voting, also called in-
person absentee voting, 39
percent favor allowing three
weeks, including three weekends,
for early voting; 27 percent
support a two-week period
including one weekend; 12 percent
support a limit of two weeks with
no weekend voting; and 20 percent
prefer to eliminate early voting
entirely.
Voters diverge over when local
governments should be allowed to
regulate mining and minimum
wages in their communities. Fifty-
three percent say local
governments should be allowed to
regulate sand mining in their
communities while 35 percent
think only the state should set such
regulations. In contrast, 42 percent
believe local governments should
be able to set minimum wages,
with 50 percent saying they should
not be able to do so.
Legalization of marijuana is
supported by 42 percent while 52
percent say it should remain illegal.
That reverses the October poll
that found 50 percent favoring
legalization with 45 percent
opposed.
Other issues Other issues Other issues Other issues
Forty-eight percent of
respondents favor allowing
marriage of gay couples, 24
percent support civil unions but
not marriage and 24 percent
prefer no legal recognition for
same sex couples. In January, 53
percent supported marriage, 24
percent civil unions and 19 percent
no legal recognition. Since
September 2012, support for
marriage has varied between 42
and 53 percent, support for civil
unions between 24 and 27 percent
and support for no legal status has
varied between 19 and 28 percent.
In 2006, Wisconsin approved a
constitutional amendment banning
same sex marriage by a 59-41
percentage point margin. Asked if
that amendment were brought up
for a new vote today, 36 percent
would continue the ban while 59
percent would vote to repeal the
amendment.
Voters support an increase in the
minimum wage to help low-income
workers, even when reminded that
some argue this would lead some
businesses to cut jobs. Sixty-three
percent favor increasing the
minimum wage while 33 percent
oppose an increase.
A random half of the sample was
asked if they would be more likely
or less likely to vote for a
candidate who supports increasing
the minimum wage. Thirty-four
percent say more likely while 16
percent say less likely and 49
percent say it would make no
difference. The other half of voters
were asked if they would be more
or less likely to vote for a
candidate who opposes increasing
the minimum wage. For this group,
21 percent say more likely while
34 percent say less likely and 44
difference.
With respect to the federal health
care reform act, sometimes called
Obamacare, 39 percent say they
have a favorable view of it while 50
percent have an unfavorable view.
In January 35 percent said
favorable and 56 percent
unfavorable. Before the troubled
rollout of the federal health care
exchange website in October, 42
percent said favorable and 48
percent unfavorable.
Despite this view of health care
reform, voters prefer reform of the
law rather than repeal. Eight
percent would keep the law as it is;
52 percent would keep the law but
improve it; 18 percent would
repeal it but replace it with an
alternative; and another 18
percent would repeal it and not
replace it. Half the sample was
asked if they would be more or less
likely to vote for a candidate who
supports the federal health care
law, with 25 percent saying more
likely, 28 percent less likely and 45
percent saying it would make no
difference.
The other half of the sample was
asked if they would be more or less
likely to vote for a candidate who
calls for the complete repeal of
the federal health care law.
Twenty-four percent say they are
more likely to vote for a candidate
who would repeal the law while 35
percent say they are less likely to
vote for that candidate and 39
difference.
Other political figures Other political figures Other political figures Other political figures
President Barack Obamas job
approval stands at 47 percent to
49 percent disapproval. In January
44 percent approved and 50
percent disapproved.
Sen. Ron Johnson is viewed
favorably by 29 percent and
unfavorably by 27 percent while
44 percent say they either dont
know enough about him or cant
give a rating. Sen. Tammy Baldwin
is rated favorably by 35 percent
and unfavorably by 35 percent
with 30 percent unable to give an
opinion. Rep. Paul Ryan receives a
39 percent favorable rating and 35
percent unfavorable with 25
percent unable to rate him.
About About About About the Marquette Law School the Marquette Law School the Marquette Law School the Marquette Law School
Poll Poll Poll Poll
The Marquette Law School Poll is
the most extensive independent
statewide polling project in
Wisconsin history. In 2012, the poll
provided highly accurate estimates
of election outcomes, in addition to
gauging public opinion on a variety
of major policy questions.
This poll interviewed 801
registered Wisconsin voters by
both landline and cell phone March
20-23, 2014. The margin of error is
+/- 3.5 percentage points for the
full sample. The four half-sample
items on minimum wage and health
care reform have a margin of error
of +/- 5.2 percentage points. The
entire questionnaire, full results
and breakdowns by demographic
groups are available at
http://law.marquette.edu/poll.
Tweet 15

14 Like
0

NEW MARQUETTE LAW SCHOOL POLL
EXAMINES WI GOVERNORS RACE,
DIRECTION OF THE STATE AND JOBS
OUTLOOK
JANUARY 27, 2014

MILWAUKEE The first
Marquette Law School Poll of the
2014 election year finds Gov. Scott
Walker leading Democratic
candidate Mary Burke, 47 to 41
percent. The poll also finds that
most voters think the state is
headed in the right direction and
believe the state budget to be in
better shape than a few years ago.
But they do not believe the state
will add the 250,000 jobs Gov.
Walker promised in his 2010
campaign.
The poll interviewed 802
Wisconsin registered voters by
both landline and cell phone Jan.
20-23.
Asked about the direction of the
state, 54 percent say that the state
is headed in the right direction,
while 40 percent say it is off on the
wrong track and 6 percent say they
dont know or did not respond.
Two years ago, in Jan. 2012, 50
percent said right direction and 46
percent wrong track. The last time
the question was asked, two weeks
before the June 2012 recall
election, 52 percent said right
direction and 44 percent said
wrong track.
In interviews conducted in the
week following an announcement
of unexpectedly high state revenue
projections, 49 percent say that
the state budget is in better shape
now than it was a few years ago, 26
percent say that it is about the
same and 20 percent say that the
budget is in worse shape now.
Polling was completed for all but
one-eighth of the sample before
the State of the State speech Jan.
22, which announced a plan for tax
cuts funded by the greater-than-
previously-forecast revenue.
In the October Marquette Law
School Poll, Walker held 47
percent support to 45 percent for
Burke,a Madison school board
member and former Trek Bicycle
executive.
Burke Burke Burke Burke still largely unknown still largely unknown still largely unknown still largely unknown
Voters remain largely unfamiliar
with Democratic gubernatorial
candidate Burke, who announced
her candidacy Oct. 7. Seventy
percent of respondents say they
havent heard enough about her to
have an opinion or didnt know if
their view was favorable or not.
Twelve percent say they have a
favorable view of Burke while 18
percent have an unfavorable view.
In the Marquette Law poll
conducted Oct. 21-24, 17 percent
had a favorable view, 14 percent
unfavorable and 70 percent were
unable to say.
Burke is almost equally unknown
among partisan groups, with 66
percent of Democrats and 67
percent of Republicans unable to
say if they have favorable or
unfavorable opinions. Seventy-
three percent of independents lack
an opinion.
Partisans split sharply when they
do have an opinion, with 26
percent favorable to 8 percent
unfavorable among Democrats,
but 3 percent favorable among
Republicans to 30 percent
unfavorable. Nine percent of
independents have a favorable
view of Burke, and 18 percent an
unfavorable view.
Far more respondents are familiar
with Walker, and the partisan split
there is also sharp. Overall, Walker
is seen favorably by 49 percent,
unfavorably by 44 percent and 6
percent lack an opinion. Among
Democrats, 16 percent are
favorable and 76 percent
unfavorable, with 8 percent unable
to say. For Republicans 89 percent
are favorable and 10 percent
unfavorable, with just 1 percent
unable to say. For independents,
48 percent have a favorable view
and 43 percent an unfavorable
one, with 8 percent lacking an
opinion.
Walker and Walker and Walker and Walker and jobs jobs jobs jobs
Walkers job approval rose in the
January poll to 51 percent
approval while 42 percent
disapprove. In October, his
approval stood at 49 percent with
47 percent disapproving. Over the
past two years, Walkers approval
has averaged 49.9 percent with
disapproval averaging 45.6
percent.
Voters have mixed views of the
jobs situation in Wisconsin. Eleven
percent of voters think Wisconsin
is adding jobs faster than most
other states, 41 percent say about
the same rate and 40 percent think
Wisconsin is lagging behind other
states.
These perceptions have shifted a
bit over the past eight months. In
May 2013, 49 percent said lagging
while 9 percent said faster and 35
percent said about the same. In
October, 41 percent said lagging
while 14 percent said faster and 37
percent said about the same.
Partisans have sharply differing
views of the jobs picture. Fifty-
three percent of Democrats say
the state is lagging in job creation
while only 20 percent of
Republicans agree. Forty-five
percent of independents think the
state is lagging. Twenty percent of
Republicans say the state is adding
jobs faster than other states and
54 percent say the same rate.
Among Democrats six percent say
faster and 36 percent say at the
same rate. For independents, ten
percent say faster and 37 percent
say the same rate.
Only 14 percent think the state
will have added 250,000 jobs over
four years by the end of 2014,
while 79 percent say the state will
fall short of that figure. In the 2010
campaign, Walker said the state
would be able to add a quarter-
million jobs in his first term.
Majorities of each partisan group
doubt the state will reach the jobs
total. Sixty-three percent of
Republicans, 81 percent of
independents and 91 percent of
Democrats do not expect the state
to reach the 250,000 jobs mark.
Partisans also disagree on how
important it is to their vote
whether the state reaches the
250,000 jobs benchmark. Overall,
29 percent say very important, 39
percent somewhat important, 17
percent not very important and 14
percent not at all important. For
Republicans, 16 percent say very
important and 35 percent
somewhat important. Among
independents, 28 percent say very
important and 38 percent say
somewhat important. For
Democrats, 41 percent say very
important and 43 percent
somewhat important.
Personal finances and taxes Personal finances and taxes Personal finances and taxes Personal finances and taxes
Voters see their personal financial
situation as a bit better than two
years ago. While one in four, or 23
percent, say their financial
situation still has not recovered
from the recession, 35 percent say
they have recovered after a
significant amount of damage
during the recession. Forty percent
say the recession did not have a
major impact on their financial
situation. Two years ago, in
January 2012, 32 percent said they
were still suffering from the
recessions effects, 27 percent said
they had largely recovered while
38 percent said they had not been
affected.
Voters would most like to see
reductions in property taxes over
other taxes. Asked which tax they
would most like cut if the state
could reduce just one tax, 42
percent say property taxes, 34
percent say income taxes and 22
percent say sales tax. When it
comes to property tax cuts, income
plays a small role. Among those in
the bottom third of income, with
family income under $40,000 per
year, 40 percent would most like
property taxes cut, while 41
percent of the middle third
($40,000-$75,000 in family
income) and 43 percent of the top
third, earning over $75,000, would
cut property taxes first.
Income matters more for
preferences on sales and income
taxes. Among those in the bottom
third of income, 30 percent would
cut sales taxes first while 17
percent of the middle third and 18
percent of the top third rank sales
tax cuts as most important.
Conversely, 37 percent of the top
third of earners would most like
income taxes cut while 40 percent
of the middle third and 29 percent
of the bottom third agree.
Among homeowners, 48 percent
would most like to cut property
taxes while only 25 percent of
renters agree. Thirty-one percent
of homeowners would cut income
taxes first and 19 percent would
cut sales taxes. Among renters,
income taxes are the top priority
for 39 percent and sales taxes are
the most important to cut for 33
percent.
Voters are reluctant to restructure
taxes by raising the sales tax in
exchange for either property or
income tax reductions. Thirty-nine
percent would be willing to
increase the sales tax in order to
cut property taxes, while 56
percent are unwilling to do so.
Similarly, 39 percent would accept
increased sales tax for lowered
income taxes while 57 percent are
unwilling. However, 64 percent are
willing to increase income taxes on
those earning over $250,000 in
order to lower property taxes
while 32 percent are unwilling to
do that.
Fifty-nine percent of voters also
see tax cuts as primarily benefiting
the wealthy, while 21 percent say
the middle class benefits and 11
percent say tax cuts do more for
the poor.
Voters do not see sales taxes as
falling unduly harshly on the poor,
however. Asked if sales taxes are
unfair because they take a larger
percentage of the income of the
poor, or are fair because everyone
pays it when they buy things, a
substantial majority, 69 percent,
say sales taxes are fair because
everyone pays. Twenty-eight
percent say sales taxes are unfair
for taking a larger share of the
income of the poor.
Many voters unclear on Many voters unclear on Many voters unclear on Many voters unclear on Common Common Common Common
Core Core Core Core education education education education issues issues issues issues
While the new statewide
standards for what students
should learn in reading and math
have stirred recent controversy,
including legislative hearings,
almost half of voters say they know
little or nothing about the
Common Core State Standards, as
the learning targets are called.
Thirty-six percent say they have
heard nothing about the Common
Core and an additional 10 percent
say they have just heard the name.
Thirty-four percent say they have
heard some and 20 percent said
they know quite a bit about the
standards. Of those who have
heard something, 5 percent are
very favorable, 45 percent
favorable, 26 percent unfavorable
and 8 percent very unfavorable
towards the standards, with 15
percent saying they dont have an
opinion.
About a third, 32 percent, say
Wisconsin currently sets education
standards at about the right place,
while 15 percent say standards are
too high. Almost half, 47 percent,
say Wisconsin standards are too
low. As to who should set
standards, 41 percent say local
school districts should set
standards, 23 percent say this
should be done at the state level, 8
percent say groups of states should
agree on standards, and 23 percent
say standards should apply
nationwide.
Kenosha casino and other issues Kenosha casino and other issues Kenosha casino and other issues Kenosha casino and other issues
The public remains about evenly
split on whether the governor
should approve or reject a new
casino in Kenosha, with 42 percent
urging approval and 41 percent
wanting the casino rejected. In
October 41 percent favored the
casino while 38 percent opposed it.
In national issues, support for
health care reform has dropped in
the aftermath of the rollout of
health care exchanges in the fall.
Thirty-five percent have a
favorable view of health care
reform while 56 percent have an
unfavorable view. In October,
before the problems with the
health care website became a
focus of attention, 42 percent had
a favorable view of health care
reform while 48 percent were
unfavorable.
President Barack Obamas job
approval ratings also have suffered
since the health care rollout. In
January, his job approval fell to 44
percent, with disapproval at 50
percent, down from 49 percent
approval and 46 percent
disapproval in October. Over the
past two years Obamas approval
has averaged 49.3 percent with
disapproval averaging 45.2
percent.
A majority of voters favor an
increase in the minimum wage,
even when reminded that some
people say raising the minimum
wage will lead some businesses to
cut jobs. Sixty-two percent say the
minimum wage should be
increased while 35 percent oppose
an increase. After a reminder of
the respondent that the current
minimum wage is $7.25 per hour,
25 percent say it should remain
where it is, 33 percent say it should
be increased to about $9 per hour,
25 percent say it should be around
$10 per hour, 5 percent say about
$11 per hour and 10 percent say it
should be $12 or more per hour.
Wisconsin voters also support
extending federal unemployment
benefits for the long-term jobless,
with 53 percent supporting and 42
percent opposing an extension.
Looking ahead to the 2016
presidential race, 60 percent of
Republicans would like to see
Walker run for president, with 34
percent opposed. Twenty-eight
percent of independents and 13
percent of Democrats support a
Walker presidential bid while 66
percent of independents and 84
percent of Democrats would not
like him to run.
Among Republicans, sixty-six
percent would like Congressman
Paul Ryan from Janesville to run,
with 25 percent opposed. Thirty-
seven percent of independents
support a Ryan run with 53
percent opposed. For Democrats,
23 percent would like Ryan to run
while 69 percent would not like to
see him run.
About the Marquette Law School About the Marquette Law School About the Marquette Law School About the Marquette Law School
Poll Poll Poll Poll
both landline and cell phone Jan.
full sample. The entire
questionnaire, full results and
breakdowns by demographic
Tweet 24

19 Like
2

MARQUETTE LAW SCHOOL POLL SHOWS
WALKER IN TIGHT RACE WITH BURKE FOR
WISCONSIN GOVERNOR IN 2014
OCTOBER 29, 2013

MILWAUKEE A new Marquette
Law School Poll finds that, just
over a year from the election, the
2014 Wisconsin governors race is
shaping up to be very competitive.
Gov. Scott Walker polls at 47
percent of the vote to Democratic
challenger Mary Burkes 45
percent, a difference that is within
the margin of error of the poll.
Burke officially entered the race
Oct. 7. State Sen. Kathleen
Vinehout, who has said she will
decide whether to enter the race in
early 2014, receives 44 percent
support to Walkers 47 percent,
also inside the margin of error.
State Assembly Democratic
Minority Leader Peter Barca
receives 42 percent support to
Walkers 48 percent.
The poll surveyed 800 Wisconsin
registered voters Oct. 21-24 by
both cell phone and landline. The
survey has a margin of error of +/-
3.5 percentage points.
The public has yet to form strong
impressions of Burke, a Madison
school board member, former
state commerce secretary and
Trek Bicycle executive. Seventy
percent of registered voters in the
poll say they havent heard enough
or dont know if they have a
favorable or unfavorable view of
Burke, while 17 percent have a
favorable impression of her and 14
percent an unfavorable one.
In contrast, only 4 percent are
unable to give a rating to Walker,
with 50 percent favorable and 46
percent unfavorable. Vinehout is
seen favorably by 10 percent and
unfavorably by 10 percent, with 79
percent unable to rate her, while
Barca is viewed favorably by 9
percent, with 82 percent unable to
give a rating.
Walker and Burke both receive
strong support within their party,
with Walker getting 94 percent of
the vote among Republicans and
Burke supported by 88 percent of
Democrats. Independents split 48
percent for Walker to 41 percent
for Burke, with the remainder
undecided or not planning to vote.
Walker leads among those calling
themselves conservative or very
conservative, 72 percent to 21
percent, while Burke leads among
self-described moderates, 46
percent to 42 percent. Among
those who consider themselves
liberal or very liberal, Burke
leads 88 percent to 9 percent.
Women prefer Burke by 49
percent to 42 percent for Walker,
while men prefer Walker by 52
percent to 40 percent for Burke.
This gender gap is slightly smaller
for Vinehout, whom women prefer
by 47-43, while men go for Walker
51-42. When Barca is the
Democratic candidate, women
prefer him by 46-43, with men
preferring Walker 54-38.
Charles Franklin, director of the
Marquette Law School Poll, said,
The gender gap is due in part to
the fact that women are more
likely to identify themselves as
Democrats, rather than purely a
response to the candidates.
While 28 percent of both men and
women call themselves
Republicans, 35 percent of women
consider themselves Democrats,
with 29 percent of men doing so.
Thirty-three percent of women call
themselves independent versus 41
percent among men.
Among all registered voters, 49
percent say they approve of
Walkers handling of his job as
governor while 47 percent
disapprove. In July, 48 percent
approved and 46 percent
disapproved.
Perceptions of economic conditions Perceptions of economic conditions Perceptions of economic conditions Perceptions of economic conditions
Jobs continue to be an issue in the
state with 41 percent saying the
state is lagging behind other states
in job creation, while 37 percent
say Wisconsin is adding jobs at
about the same rate and 14
percent say the state is adding jobs
faster than others. In July, 48
percent said Wisconsin was lagging
behind, 35 percent said keeping up
and 8 percent said adding jobs
faster than other states.
There are sharp partisan divisions
in perception of job growth in the
state, with 10 percent of
Republicans, 42 percent of
independents and 67 percent of
Democrats thinking Wisconsin lags
behind other states, while 78
percent of Republicans, 51 percent
of independents and 29 percent of
Democrats see the state keeping
pace or adding jobs faster than
other states. Both Republicans and
independents became more
positive in their view of the jobs
picture compared to July, when 24
percent of Republicans and 48
percent of independents saw the
state lagging while 67 percent of
Republicans and 44 percent of
independents saw the state
keeping pace or exceeding job
creation in other states. In July, 68
percent of Democrats saw the
state lagging and 23 percent
thought it keeping pace or better.
Looking at the overall economy, 32
percent expect improvement over
the next 12 months while 29
percent expect the economy to
worsen with 36 percent expecting
no change. That represents more
pessimism about the economy
than found in the July Marquette
Law School Poll, when a similar 31
percent expected improvement
but only 20 percent expected
worsening conditions. In July, 45
percent expected no change in the
economy.
Legislative actions in Legislative actions in Legislative actions in Legislative actions in 2013 2013 2013 2013
Legislation passed over the
summer and fall elicits a range of
views from the public. Tax cuts
receive the most favorable
responses, with 56 percent
favoring and 36 percent opposing
the recent $100 million property
tax cut and 52 percent favoring
and 35 percent opposing the
earlier $650 million income tax
cut.
Statewide expansion of vouchers
for private school tuition is favored
by 50 percent and opposed by 44
percent. Borrowing $994 million
for road construction is supported
by 49 percent and opposed by 44
percent. More opposition than
support is found for ending
residency requirements for
municipal employees, with 45
percent favoring and 49 percent
opposed. Thirty-eight percent
favor and 56 percent oppose
requiring women seeking an
abortion to have an ultrasound.
Thirty-six percent favor rejecting
federal funds to expand Medicaid
for those slightly over the poverty
line while 56 percent oppose that
state policy.
While the two specific tax cuts are
popular, 65 percent think tax cuts
generally do more for the wealthy,
compared to 18 percent thinking
tax cuts benefit the middle class
and 9 percent who say they benefit
the poor.
Support for same-sex marriage has
increased over the past 12 months
in Wisconsin, with 53 percent now
supporting same-sex marriage, 24
percent favoring civil unions and
19 percent saying there should be
no legal recognition for same-sex
unions. This question was asked of
400 respondents and has a margin
of error of +/-5.0 percentage
points. In October 2012, 44
percent said they favored same-
sex marriage, with 28 percent
favoring civil unions and 23
percent opposed to any legal
recognition.
Legalization of marijuana use is
supported by 50 percent and
opposed by 45 percent.
A proposed new casino to be
located in Kenosha is supported by
41 percent of respondents and
opposed by 38 percent with 19
percent undecided. Support for the
casino is strongest in the
Milwaukee media market outside
the city of Milwaukee, with 54
percent support and 30 percent
opposition. In the city of
Milwaukee, 37 percent support the
casino while 45 percent oppose it.
The Green Bay market splits 43
percent in favor to 41 percent
opposed, while the Madison
market has 32 percent in favor and
43 percent opposed. Those in the
western and northern parts of the
state divide 30 percent in favor
and 42 percent opposed to the
casino.
The The The The 2016 outlook 2016 outlook 2016 outlook 2016 outlook
Looking ahead to the 2016
presidential race, Scott Walker is
the first choice for the partys
nomination among Wisconsin
Republicans and independents
who lean Republican, with 29
percent support, followed by Rep.
Paul Ryan with 25 percent.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is the
third choice at 9 percent, followed
by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
at 9 percent, Kentucky Sen. Rand
Paul at 8 percent, Texas Sen. Ted
Cruz at 4 percent and former
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 2 percent.
Thirteen percent say they support
someone else or do not know
whom they would support. In May,
Walker was the choice of 16
percent while Ryan had the
support of 27 percent and Rubio
21 percent.
Among Republicans and
independents who lean
Republican, 52 percent say they
personally would like to see
Walker run for president while 43
percent say they would not like to
see him run. For Ryan, 64 percent
say they would like to see him run
while 27 percent say they would
not like that. While Walker has a
lower percentage wanting him to
run, fully 50 percent of those
wanting Walker to run rank him as
their first choice for the
nomination, while for Ryan only 35
percent of those wanting Ryan to
run rank him as their first choice
for the nomination.
On the Democratic side, former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
continues to dominate the
nomination race, with support of
64 percent of Democrats and
independents who lean
Democratic, followed by
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth
Warren and Vice President Joe
Biden at 11 percent each, New
York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at 2
percent and Maryland Gov. Martin
OMalley at 1 percent. In May,
Clinton had the support of 62
percent, Warren 5 percent and
Biden 13 percent.
In a 2016 presidential election trial
heat, Clinton leads all Republicans
tested. Clinton leads Walker 53
percent to 41 percent and leads
Ryan 51 to 43 percent. She leads
Christie 50-40 and Cruz by 55-33
percent.
Federal government shutdown Federal government shutdown Federal government shutdown Federal government shutdown
The October shutdown of the
federal government is widely
disapproved of by Wisconsin
voters. Nineteen percent support
shutting down the government in
an effort to stop the health care
reform law from going into effect,
while 76 percent oppose the
shutdown.
This opposition is despite a balance
of opinion opposed to the health
care reform legislation, with 42
percent saying they favor the law
and 48 percent holding an
unfavorable view of it. Thirty-
seven percent of Republicans favor
the shutdown while 57 percent
oppose it, 19 percent of
independents favor and 78 percent
oppose, and among Democrats 4
percent support and 91 percent
oppose the shutdown.
The shutdown receives 54 percent
support and 43 percent opposition
among those calling themselves
very conservative, compared to
30 percent support and 64 percent
opposition among those
identifying as conservative.
Moderates split 11 percent in
favor and 85 percent opposed.
Those considering themselves
liberal oppose the shutdown by a
93-5 percent margin while very
liberal voters oppose it 94-6
percent.
Voters who say they have a
favorable view of the tea party
split with 41 percent in favor of the
shutdown and 53 percent opposed.
Voters are unhappy with the
performance of both parties in
Congress, though more so with
Republicans. Thirty-four percent
approve of the way Democrats in
Congress are doing their job while
61 percent disapprove. For
Republicans, 17 percent approve
and 76 percent disapprove.
For President Barack Obama, 49
percent approve and 46 percent
disapprove, a slight improvement
from July when Obamas approval
stood at 47 percent with 46
percent disapproving.
Wisconsin U.S. Senators ratings
shifted in opposite directions since
last measured in May. In October,
Sen. Ron Johnson is rated
favorably by 28 percent and
unfavorably by 33 percent, while
38 percent are unable to give a
rating. In May, his ratings were 33
percent favorable, 25 percent
unfavorable and 41 percent unable
to rate. Sen. Tammy Baldwins
October favorability is 47 percent
with 36 percent unfavorable and
17 percent unable to rate. In May,
she was seen favorably by 40
percent, while 22 percent were
unable to give a rating. Both
Johnson and Baldwins favorability
questions in October were asked
of half the sample and have a
margin of error of +/- 5 percentage
points.
Rep. Paul Ryans ratings have
changed little since May. In
October, 42 percent have a
favorable view of him, with 37
percent unfavorable and 23
percent unable to rate. In May, 44
percent were favorable, with 38
percent unfavorable and 17
percent unable to rate him.
About the Marquette Law School About the Marquette Law School About the Marquette Law School About the Marquette Law School
Poll Poll Poll Poll
both landline and cell phone Oct.
full sample. For questions asked of
half the sample the margin of error
is +/- 5.0 percentage points. The
entire questionnaire, full results
and breakdowns by demographic

Tweet 10

68 Like
0

1 2 8 Next
2014 Marquette University Law School. All rights reserved. 1215 W. Michigan St., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53233 | P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 | 414.288.7090
S S
WPR NEWS
Page 1 of 3 Poll: Most Wisconsinites Support Marriage Amendment But Also Back Granting Civil Rights | Wisconsin Public Radio
5/12/2014 http://www.wpr.org/poll-most-wisconsinites-support-marriage-amendment-also-back-granting-civil-rights
UPDATED:
Listen Download
-
-
-
-
-
Survey: Walker Would Win Re-Election If Vote
Held Now
Poll: Most Wisconsinites Support Marriage
Amendment But Also Back Granting Civil
Rights
Wisconsin Survey Finds Slight Majority Don't
Think Voter Fraud Is Problem
Infographics: Highlights From Wisconsin
Survey, Spring 2014
WPR-St. Norbert College's Wisconsin Survey
Results (PDF Format)
Poll: Most Wisconsinites Support Marriage Amendment But Also Back Granting Civil
Rights
Constitutional Amendment Passed In 2006
Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 5:00am
By Patty Murray
While most respondents to a new survey said that they still support Wisconsin's constitutional
amendment that effectively bans same-sex marriage, the poll also found most people think gay couples
should be granted certain civil rights.
The marriage amendment to the state constitution passed in 2006. The amendment states that "only a
marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."
The questioners for the Wisconsin Survey, which was commissioned byWisconsin Public Radio andSt.
Norbert College, used the amendment's language when they contacted 401 state residents and asked if
they favored or opposed the amendment.
Wendy Scattergood, an associate with the Strategic Research Institute at St. Norbert College, said
support for the amendment has held steady over the years. This year, 51 percent of respondents favor it.
Still, she said that more than three-quarters -- 77 percent of respondents -- said they think gay couples
should have some legal protections regarding health care and family leave.
Scattergood said people react to the term "marriage" and its spiritual implications.
"Because in a lot of ways, what they're saying is the civil part of marriage, which is sort of the legal aspects of it, they're in favor," she said. "As we (saw)
across the parties are in favor of those sorts of civil aspects of a marriage,"
Scattergood said support for those protections appears to be on the upswing.
"And that's actually increased. When we first asked that question in the spring of 2009, only 60 percent -- which is still a big majority," she said. "But 60
percent favored giving those decisions to same-sex couples, and now it's at 77 percent."
She said support for legal protections is strong across party lines. While 90 percent of Democrats favor it, 65 percent of Republicans do. Three-quarters
of those who identify themselves as independents also back the idea.
Gay and Lesbian Rights

Page 1 of 24
5/12/2014 http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/Gay-Lesbian-Rights.aspx
Page 2 of 24

Page 3 of 24
Page 4 of 24
Page 5 of 24
Page 6 of 24
Page 7 of 24
Page 8 of 24

Page 9 of 24

Page 10 of 24

Page 11 of 24

Page 12 of 24

Just your best guess, what percent of Americans today would you say are gay or lesbian?
Less
than
5%
5%
to
<10%
10%
to
<15%
15%
to
<20%
20%
to
25%
More
than
25%
No
opin-
ion Mean
2011 May 5-8 4% 9 17 9 17 35 8 24.6
Do you favor or oppose allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military?
FavorOpposeNo opinion
% % %
2010 May 3-6
70 25 5
2009 May 7-10 69 26 6
2004 Nov 19-21 63 32 5
Just your best guess, do you think that allowing two people of the same sex to legally marry will change our
society for -- [ROTATED: the better, will it have no effect, or will it change our society for the worse]?
BetterNo effectWorseNo opinion
2009 May 7-10 13% 36 48 2
Page 13 of 24
2003 Sep 19-21 10% 40 48 2
As you may know, federal law currently allows prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of the
victim's race, color, religion or national origin. There is a proposal to expand federal hate crime laws to
include crimes committed against people because they are gay or lesbian. Would you favor or oppose
expanding the federal hate crime laws in this way?

2009 May 7-10 67% 29 3
Are you, personally, comfortable or uncomfortable when you are around someone you know is gay or
lesbian?
ComfortableUncomfortableNo opinion
2009 May 7-10 78% 18 4
Do you have any friends or relatives or coworkers who have told you, personally, that they are gay or
lesbian?
YesNoNo opinion
2009 May 7-10 58%40 3
2008 May 30-Jun 157%42 1
2004 Jan 9-11 58%42 *
2003 Jul 18-20 56%43 1
* Less than 0.5%
Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man
and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?
Page 14 of 24
% % %
2008 May 8-11^ 49 48 3
2006 May 8-11 50 47 3
2005 Apr 29-May 1 53 44 3
2005 Mar 18-20 57 37 6
2004 Jul 19-21 ^ 48 46 6
2004 May 2-4 51 45 4
2004 Mar 5-7 50 45 5
2004 Feb 9-12 53 44 3
2004 Feb 6-8 ^ 47 47 6
2003 Jul 18-20 50 45 5
^ Asked of a half sample
Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?
AcceptableNot acceptableNo opinion
% % %
2008 May 8-11 57 40 3
2007 May 10-13 57 39 3
2006 May 8-11 ^ 54 41 4
Page 15 of 24
2005 May 2-5 ^ 51 45 4
2004 May 2-4 54 42 4
2003 Jul 25-27 46 49 5
2003 May 5-7 54 43 3
2002 May 6-9 51 44 5
2001 May 10-14 52 43 5
1999 Feb 8-9 ^ 50 46 4
1997 Apr 18-20 ^ 42 52 6
1996 Mar 15-17 ^ 44 50 6
1992 Jun 4-8 38 57 5
1982 Jun 25-28 34 51 15
^ Asked of half sample
As you may know, there has been considerable discussion in the news regarding the rights of homosexual
men and women. In general, do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job
opportunities?
Yes,
should be
No,
should not be
Depends
(vol.)
No
opinion
% % % %
2008 May 8-11 89 8 1 1
2007 May 10-13 89 8 1 2
Page 16 of 24
2006 May 8-11 ^ 89 9 1 1
2005 May 2-5 87 11 1 1
2004 May 2-4 89 8 1 2
2003 May 19-21 88 10 1 1
2003 May 5-7 88 9 2 1
2002 May 6-9 86 11 1 2
2001 May 10-14 85 11 3 1
1999 Feb 8-9 83 13 2 2
1996 Nov 21-24 84 12 2 2
1993 Apr 22-24 80 14 -- 6
1992 Jun 4-7 74 18 -- 8
1989 Oct 12-15 71 18 -- 11
1982 Jun 25-28 59 28 -- 13
1977 Jun 17-20 56 33 -- 11
(vol.) = Volunteered response
WORDING: As you may know, there has been considerable discussion in the news regarding the rights of
homosexual men and women. In general, do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in
terms of job opportunities?
Do you think that homosexual couples should be legally permitted to adopt children?
Page 17 of 24
Yes, should No, should not No opinion
2007 Sep 7-8 46% 50 4
2003 May 5-7 ^ 49% 48 3
^ WORDING: Do you think homosexual couples should or should not have the legal right to adopt a child?
As you may know, under the current military policy, no one in the military is asked whether or not they are
gay. But if they reveal that they are gay or they engage in homosexual activity, they will be discharged from
the military. Do you personally think -- [ROTATED: gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military,
gays should be allowed to serve under the current policy, or gays should not be allowed to serve in the
military under any circumstances]?
Serve
openly
Serve under
current policy
Not serve
under any
circumstances
No
opinion
2007 Jul 6-8 46% 36 15 3
2000 Jan 13-16 ^ 41% 38 17 4
^ WORDING: As you may know, under the current military policy, no one in the military is asked whether or
not they are homosexual. But if they reveal that they are homosexual and they engage in homosexual activity,
they will be discharged from the military. Do you personally think -- gays should be allowed to serve openly in
the military, gays should be allowed to serve under the current policy, or gays should not be allowed to serve in
the military under any circumstances?
Do you think homosexuals should or should not be hired for each of the following occupations? First, ... Next,
... [RANDOM ORDER]?
A. Salesperson
ShouldShould notDepends (vol.)
No
opinion
% % % %
2005 May 2-5 90 7 1 2
Page 18 of 24
2003 May 19-21 92 6 1 1
2001 May 10-14 91 6 2 1
1999 Feb 8-9 90 8 1 1
1996 Nov 21-24 90 7 1 2
1992 Jun 4-8 82 13 3 2
B. The armed forces
No
opinion
% % % %
2005 May 2-5 76 22 1 1
2003 May 19-21 80 18 1 1
2001 May 10-14 72 23 2 3
1999 Feb 8-9 70 26 2 2
1996 Nov 21-24 65 29 3 3
1992 Jun 4-8 57 37 2 4
C. Doctors
No
opinion
Page 19 of 24
% % % %
2005 May 2-5 78 19 1 2
2003 May 19-21 82 16 1 1
2001 May 10-14 78 18 2 2
1999 Feb 8-9 75 21 2 2
1996 Nov 21-24 69 25 3 3
1992 Jun 4-8 53 42 2 3
D. Clergy
No
opinion
% % % %
2005 May 2-5 49 47 1 3
2003 May 19-21 56 39 2 3
2001 May 10-14 54 39 2 5
1999 Feb 8-9 54 40 2 4
1996 Nov 21-24 53 40 3 4
1992 Jun 4-8 43 50 2 5
E. Elementary school teachers
Page 20 of 24
No
opinion
% % % %
2005 May 2-5 54 43 2 1
2003 May 19-21 61 37 2 *
2001 May 10-14 56 40 3 1
1999 Feb 8-9 54 42 2 2
1996 Nov 21-24 55 40 3 2
1992 Jun 4-8 41 54 3 2
* Less than 0.5%
F. High school teachers
No
opinion
% % % %
2005 May 2-5 62 36 1 1
2003 May 19-21 67 30 2 1
2001 May 10-14 63 33 3 1
1999 Feb 8-9 61 36 2 1
1996 Nov 21-24 60 34 3 3
Page 21 of 24
1992 Jun 4-8 47 49 2 2
G. As a member of the president's Cabinet
No
opinion
% % % %
2005 May 2-5 75 23 * 2
2003 May 19-21 79 19 * 2
2001 May 10-14 75 21 2 2
1999 Feb 8-9 74 23 1 2
1996 Nov 21-24 71 24 2 3
1992 Jun 4-8 54 39 3 4
* Less than 0.5%
Which of the following arrangements between gay or lesbian couples do you think should be recognized as
legally valid -- same-sex marriages, civil unions, but not same-sex marriages, or neither same-sex marriages
nor civil unions?
Same-sex
marriages
Civil
unions

Neither
No
opinion
2005 Mar 18-20 ^ 20% 27 45 8
2004 Nov 19-21 21% 32 43 4
^ Asked of a half sample
Page 22 of 24
Back to Top
Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving
them some of the legal rights of married couples?
Favor Oppose No opinion
% % %
2004 May 2-4 49 48 3
2003 Jul 25-27 40 57 3
2003 May 5-7 49 49 2
2002 May 6-9 46 51 3
2002 Apr 8-11 45 46 9
2002 Feb 8-10 41 53 6
2001 May 10-14 44 52 4
2000 Oct 25-28 ^ 42 54 4
^ WORDING: Suppose that on election day this year you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Please
tell me whether you would vote for or against each one of the following propositions. Would you vote --
[RANDOM ORDER]? (For or against a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions,
giving them some of the legal rights of married couples)
Do you think people who are openly gay or homosexual should -- or should not -- be allowed to serve in the
U.S. military?
Yes, shouldNo, should notNo opinion
2003 Dec 5-7 79% 18 3
Page 23 of 24
Copyright 2014 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.
Gallup, Inc. maintains several registered and unregistered trademarks that include but may not be limited to: A8, Accountability
Index, Business Impact Analysis, BE10, CE11, CE11 Accelerator, Clifton StrengthsExplorer, Clifton StrengthsFinder, Customer
Engagement Index, Customer Engagement Management, Dr. Gallup Portrait, Employee Engagement Index, Enetrix, Engagement
Creation Index, Follow This Path, Gallup, Gallup Brain, Gallup Business Journal, GBJ, Gallup Consulting, Gallup-Healthways Well-
Being Index, Gallup Management Journal, GMJ, Gallup Panel, Gallup Press, Gallup Tuesday Briefing, Gallup University, Gallup
World News, HumanSigma, HumanSigma Accelerator, ICE11, I10, L3, ME25, NurseInsight, NurseStrengths, Patient Quality System,
Performance Optimization, Power of 2, PrincipalInsight, Q12, Q12 Accelerator, Q12 Advantage, Selection Research, Inc., SE25, SF34,
SRI, Soul of the City, Strengths Spotlight, Strengths-Based Selling, StatShot, StrengthsCoach, StrengthsExplorer, StrengthsFinder,
StrengthsInsight, StrengthsQuest, SupportInsight, TX(R+E+R)=P3, TeacherInsight, The Gallup Path, The Gallup Poll, The Gallup
School, VantagePoint, Varsity Management, Wellbeing Finder, Achiever, Activator, Adaptability, Analytical, Arranger, Belief,
Command, Communication, Competition, Connectedness, Consistency, Context, Deliberative, Developer, Discipline, Empathy,
Fairness, Focus, Futuristic, Harmony, Ideation, Includer, Individualization, Input, Intellection , Learner, Maximizer, Positivity,
Relator, Responsibility, Restorative, Self-Assurance, Significance, Strategic, and Woo. All other trademarks are the property of their
respective owners. These materials are provided for noncommercial, personal use only. Reproduction prohibited without the express
permission of Gallup, Inc.
Page 24 of 24

FiveThirtyEight
Nate Silvers Political Calculus
How Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage Is Changing,
and What It Means
By NATE SILVER
March 26, 2013, 10:10 am
The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week on two cases related to
same-sex marriage, the first involving a California referendum that barred gay
marriage, the other involving a federal law that prevents the government from
recognizing same-sex unions. A variety of outcomes are possible, but it seems
prudent to take stock of public opinion on same-sex marriage before the decisions
come down.
Support for same-sex marriage is increasing but is it doing so at a faster
rate than in the past? Is it now safe to say that a majority approves it? How much
of the shift is because people are changing their minds, as opposed to generational
turnover? Is there still a gap between how well same-sex marriage performs in the
polls and at the ballot booth? How many states would approve same-sex marriage
today, and how many might do so by 2016?
Polling trends
Eight national polls on same-sex marriage have been conducted so far this
year, according to the PollingReport.com database. The consensus of these polls is
that support for same-sex marriage now exceeds opposition to it; on average, the
polls have 51 percent saying they approve same-sex marriage, and 43 percent
saying they are opposed. However, the polls differ in the exact numbers, showing
46 percent to 58 percent of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage (and
Page 1 of 7 How Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage Is Changing, and What It Means - NYTimes.com
5/12/2014 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changi...
anywhere from 36 percent to 46 percent against it) making it uncertain whether
supporters of same-sex marriage now constitute an outright majority.
Whats clearer is the long-term trend. The chart below documents national
polls on same-sex marriage since 1996, as according to PollingReport.com. (It
excludes polls that offer a three-way choice between same-sex marriage, civil
unions, and no legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, focusing on those
that require a binary choice.) The polls are accompanied by a trendline determined
through Loess regression to reflect the change in public opinion over time.
In the past, we have sometimes considered the possibility that support for
same-sex marriage is increasing at a faster rate than before. The data seems to
suggest, however, that the increase in support has been reasonably steady since
about 2004.
This can be seen by comparing the sensitive Loess trendline to a simple linear
trendline, as in the following chart. Before 2004, the lines do not match up all that
well, reflecting the slow rate of increase in support for same-sex marriage between
1996 (when 27 percent of Americans said they supported same-sex marriage in a
Gallup poll) and 2003 (when 33 percent did on average among 12 polls conducted
that year). Same-sex marriage took on a more prominent political role following a
Massachusetts court decision to allow it in that state in late 2003, but that
produced little immediate effect. An average of 33 percent of Americans said they
supported same-sex marriage among 19 polls conducted in 2004, the same as the
previous year.
Support for same-sex marriage then began to rise at a rate of about 2
percentage points a year, growing to an average of 37 percent in polls conducted in
2006, and 41 percent in polls conducted in 2008. It has continued to increase at
about the same rate since then. At some point in 2010 or 2011, support began to
outweigh opposition in the polls. Among the 37 polls conducted since 2012, all but
four have shown more Americans supporting same-sex marriage than opposed to
it.
Nevertheless, this seems to reflect a steady gain in support for same-sex
marriage rather than there having been any one inflection point. The linear
trendline implies that support for same-sex marriage should be 50 percent right
now, not meaningfully different from the average of 51 percent among the eight
polls conducted so far this year.
The steadiness of the trend seems consistent with the idea that the shifts are
partly generational, with younger Americans gradually replacing older ones in the
electorate. However, some voters have also changed their opinion to favor same-
sex marriage while fewer have done the reverse, as can be seen in surveys that
track generational cohorts over time. As a rule of thumb, perhaps about half of the
increase in support for same sex-marriage is attributable to generational turnover,
while the other half is because of the net change in opinion among Americans who
have remained in the electorate.
Ballot initiatives
Before last year, the increased support for same-sex marriage at the polls had
largely failed to translate into success at the ballot booth. The lone exception had
been a 2006 Arizona ballot proposition to ban both same-sex marriage and civil
unions that was rejected by voters there; Arizona voters approved a more narrowly
-defined ban on same-sex marriage in 2008, however.
Some of the reason for this was because the propositions had mainly been
placed on the ballot in conservative states where they were likely to succeed.
Californias Proposition 8 in 2008, however, was a reality check for same-sex
marriage advocates. Some 52 percent of voters there approved a ban on same-sex
marriage in one of the nations most liberal states.
Subsequent research has found that polls may slightly overstate support for
same-sex marriage, as compared to ballot results. This could reflect a form of
social desirability bias: some voters may think it is politically correct to say they
support same-sex marriage even if they are still uncomfortable with it. Another
factor may be that the voters who reliably turn out for elections are older (and
therefore less likely to support same-sex marriage) than the broader set of
Americans who are included in polls of all adults.
The momentum in favor of same-sex marriage finally seemed to win out in
November 2012, however, when voters rejected a Minnesota constitutional ban on
it, and voted to affirm it in Maine, Maryland and Washington State. (Note that a
state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by North Carolina
voters in May 2012.) Did these results reflect a major shift in public opinion? Or
were they predictable enough based on the long-term trends?
In 2011, I published a model projecting ballot initiative results for same-sex
marriage based on two scenarios: one which assumed a linear increase in support,
and the other which assumed an accelerating trend.
In general, the more conservative linear model was closer to the mark in
forecasting the 2012 results. It predicted that 48.8 percent of voters would vote in
support of same-sex marriage on average among the five states, fairly close to the
actual figure of 50.1 percent. By contrast, the accelerated model predicted that
53.6 percent would vote to support same-sex marriage in these states.
This would tend to suggest, as the polling data does, that while the increase in
support for same-sex marriage may be impressive, it has mostly been a
consequence of support building slowly and steadily over time, rather than there
having been sudden reversals in public opinion.
However, the predictions were not especially accurate when looking at
individual states. Both versions of the model underestimated same-sex marriage
support in Maryland and Minnesota, while both versions overestimated it in
Maine, North Carolina and Washington.
There are a couple of complications in the analysis. One is that there is an
increasing variety of propositions relating to same-sex marriage on the ballots,
from those that seek to ban it (as in North Carolina) to those that ask voters to
approve it (as in Maryland), and from those that seek to do so by statute (as in
Maine) to those that would alter the state constitution (as in Minnesota). This
contrasts with the situation from 1998 through 2008, when essentially all of the
ballot measures sought to ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution, and the
major point of differentiation was whether or not civil unions were also included.
The landscape may only grow more complicated, particularly if the Supreme
Court issues a split or ambiguous ruling. Moreover, very few states that are
plausible candidates to approve constitutional bans on same-sex marriage have
not already done so. Instead, there may soon be some states that will seek to
repeal constitutional bans that were previously put into place by voters, something
that no state has yet attempted.
While ballot wording will remain a complicating factor, it is possible to be
more precise about the contours of public opinion in individual states. Our 2011
model looked at only two demographic factors specific to each state: how many
voters in those states were regular churchgoers, and how the voters rated
themselves on an overall conservative-liberal scale. There are clearly a number of
other factors that also affect opinion on same-sex marriage, however, most notably
age, race, urbanity and education levels. The statistical challenge is that it is tough
to reliably account for all of these demographic factors (while at the same time
controlling for other factors like the year in which the measure was on ballot)
given a relatively small sample of 39 ballot measures since 1998.
One workaround is to focus on some cases for which far more detailed
demographic data is available, and then to make inferences about the other states
from there. In particular, I looked at individual-level survey results from exit polls
in 2008 in the three states that voted on same-sex marriage ballot initiatives that
year (California, Florida and Arizona). Each of these states are quite
demographically diverse, and among them more than 5,000 voters were surveyed
in the 2008 exit polls. Using this data, I applied logistic regression to analyze how
more than a dozen demographic characteristics affected these voters decisions on
same-sex marriage. In essence, the technique is to predict how likely an individual
voter is to support same-sex marriage given their particular demographic profile.
From these results, I was able to infer how voters in the other 47 states might
have reacted to same-sex marriage ballot measures in 2008. The model suggests
that voters in only eight states (and the District of Columbia) would have been
ready to approve same-sex marriage by that time, and correctly infers that same-
sex marriage would narrowly be defeated in California. It also suggests that only
about 42 percent of voters nationwide would have approved same-sex marriage
had there been a national referendum that year.
It is also possible to project how the results in each state might change over
time. I assume that support for same-sex marriage will continue to increase by one
and a half percentage points nationally per year, which reflects the recent
historical trend from both polling and ballot-initiative data. (The way that the
model is designed, support might be projected to increase slightly faster or slower
than that in individual states based on the number of swing voters.) Thus, we can
extrapolate the results forward from 2008 to 2012, and to future years like 2016
and 2020.
This model predicts the results of the 2012 ballot propositions quite
accurately, accounting for some of the more subtle demographic distinctions that
we had lost previously. (For instance, Maine is a relatively old state and a rural
one, which may account for why it initially rejected same-sex marriage in 2009
despite being liberal and irreligious.) It projects that voters in roughly 20 states
would have voted in favor of same-sex marriage last year, including the four states
that actually did so.
The model also projects, however, that a national referendum to approve
same-sex marriage would have narrowly failed last year, 48 percent to 52 percent,
despite national polls showing more voters approving same-sex marriage than
opposing it. For right now, it is probably best to treat the question of whether a
majority of Americans support same-sex marriage as having an ambiguous
answer. Polls are on the verge of saying that they do, but the ballot results are
more equivocal.
By 2016, however, voters in 32 states would be willing to vote in support of
same-sex marriage, according to the model. And by 2020, voters in 44 states
would do so, assuming that same-sex marriage continues to gain support at
roughly its previous rate.
Thus, even if one prudently assumes that support for same-sex marriage is
increasing at a linear rather than accelerated pace, and that same-sex marriage
will not perform quite as well at the ballot booth as in national polls of all adults,
the steady increase in support is soon likely to outweigh all other factors. In fact,
even if the Supreme Court decision or some other contingency freezes opinion
among current voters, support for same-sex marriage would continue to increase
based on generational turnover, probably enough that it would narrowly win a
national ballot referendum by 2016. It might require a religious revival among the
youngest generation of Americans to reverse the trend.
Its also possible, of course, that the Supreme Court decision could somehow
kick-start public support for same-sex marriage, causing it to accelerate faster, or
that the recent spate of Democratic and Republican politicians coming out in favor
of it could do so. But one no longer needs to make optimistic assumptions to
conclude that same-sex marriage supporters will probably soon constitute a
national majority. Instead, its the steadiness of the trend that makes same-sex
marriage virtually unique among all major public policy issues, and which might
give its supporters more confidence that the numbers will continue to break their
way regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.
2014 The New York Times Company

State General Election
Unofficial Results Tuesday, November 6, 2012 Results Home Previous Page
Precincts Reporting in State: 100% 4102 of 4102 Last Updated: 12/07/12 11:46 AM Voters Registered at 7AM : 3084025

Results for Constitutional Amendments
Passage of a Constitutional Amendment depends on the total number of voters casting ballots in the election. On this site,
the total number voting is estimated using the votes cast for U.S. President, and is replaced by the actual number who voted
as voting statistics are entered for each precinct.
Value Definition
Estimated Total Number of Voters Calculated using votes for U.S. President & Vice President or actual statistics.
Yes Actual YES votes cast
No Actual NO votes cast
Estimated Blanks Equals Estimated Total Number of Voters minus Yes votes and No votes
Estimated Percent of YES* YES divided by Estimated Total Number of Voters, displayed as a percentage
*An estimated YES percentage of greater than 50% is an indication of likely passage of an amendment.

Constitutional Amendment 1 Show Question
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1 RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGE SOLELY BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN
Yes 1399916
No 1510434
Estimated Blanks 40430
Estimated Total Number of Voters 2950780
Estimated Percent of YES* 47.44%
Results by Congressional District Results by Legislative District Results by County
Constitutional Amendment 2 Show Question
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 2 PHOTO IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR VOTING
Yes 1362009
No 1539044
Estimated Blanks 49727
Estimated Total Number of Voters 2950780
Estimated Percent of YES* 46.16%
Results by Congressional District Results by Legislative District Results by County
Polling Place Finder | Secretary of State | Elections Home Page
Page 1 of 1 MN Election Results
5/12/2014 http://minnesotaelectionresults.sos.state.mn.us/Results/AmendmentResultsStatewide/1

President's statement on DOMA
Statement by President Bill Clinton
On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the
following statement:
Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination
against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender
marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is
consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with
respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the
terms "marriage" and "spouse".
This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state
or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to
enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination
protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation
contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next
Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.
I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at
times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or
intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and
intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and
have no place in American society.
Page 1 of 1 President Clinton's statement on DOMA
5/12/2014 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html

May 9, 2012
Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should
Be Legal
By JACKIE CALMES and PETER BAKER
WASHINGTON Before President Obama left the White House on Tuesday morning to fly
to an event in Albany, several aides intercepted him in the Oval Office. Within minutes it was
decided: the president would endorse same-sex marriage on Wednesday, completing a
wrenching personal transformation on the issue.
As described by several aides, that quick decision and his subsequent announcement in a
hastily scheduled network television interview were thrust on the White House by 48 hours
of frenzied will-he-or-wont-he speculation after Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. all but
forced the presidents hand by embracing the idea of same-sex unions in a Sunday talk show
interview.
Advisers say now that Mr. Obama had intended since early this year to define his position
sometime before Democrats nominate him for re-election in September. Yet many of the
presidents allies believed he would not do so, trusting instead in his strong support from gay
voters for having ended a ban on openly gay people in the military and disavowing a federal
law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Such caution was understandable, the allies said, given the unpredictable fallout the
president would face by taking a clear stand on one of the most contentious and politically
charged social issues of the day, before what is likely to be a close election. Mr. Obamas
closest advisers say only the timing was in question. Mr. Bidens unexpected remarks
undoubtedly accelerated the timetable.
Initially Mr. Obama and his aides expected that the moment would be Monday, when the
president was scheduled to be on The View, the ABC daytime talk show, which is popular
with women. Certainly, they thought, he would be asked his position on same-sex marriage
by one of the shows hosts, who include Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg.
Yet the pressure had become too great to wait until then, his aides told him; on Monday, the
White House press secretary, Jay Carney, was pummeled with questions from skeptical
Page 1 of 5 Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal - NYTimes.com
5/12/2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be...
reporters about Mr. Obamas stance. After the Tuesday morning meeting, Dan Pfeiffer, the
presidents communications director, contacted ABC and offered a wide-ranging interview
with the president for the following day.
And so it was that Mr. Obama on Wednesday afternoon sat down in the White House with
ABCs Robin Roberts and made news, after nearly two years of saying that his views on same
-sex marriage were evolving.
At a certain point, Ive just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go
ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married, Mr. Obama
said.
Long a proponent of civil unions, Mr. Obama said his views had changed in part because of
prodding by friends who are gay and by conversations with his wife and daughters.
I had hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be
sufficient, Mr. Obama said. I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word
marriage was something that invokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs.
Mr. Obama also invoked his Christian faith in explaining his decision.
The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf,
but its also the golden rule you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated,
he said. And I think thats what we try to impart to our kids, and thats what motivates me
as president.
Reaction to Mr. Obamas announcement was largely predictable including immediate
opposition from his presumptive Republican rival, Mitt Romney yet people on both sides
of the issue pointed to the historical significance of a president endorsing marriage between
people of the same sex. It was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage
Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which the Obama administration
last year decided not to enforce in the courts.
While Mr. Obamas announcement was significant from a symbolic standpoint, more
important as a practical matter were Mr. Obamas decision not to enforce the marriage act
and his successful push in 2010 to repeal the dont ask, dont tell law that prohibited
openly gay men and lesbians from serving in the military. For that reason, gay rights groups
had been largely enthusiastic about his re-election campaign while being pragmatically
resigned to his not publicly supporting same-sex marriage before the election.
Mr. Obamas announcement has little substantive impact as an aide said, Its not like
were trying to pass legislation.
But the political impact is a wild card, even Obama advisers acknowledged, and it came one
day after voters in North Carolina the site of the Democratic Partys nominating
convention supported a ban on same-sex marriage. But while the president has now
injected a volatile social issue into the campaign debate, both sides say the election still is all
but certain to turn on the economy.
Public support for same-sex marriage is growing at a pace that surprises even pollsters as
older generations of voters who tend to be strongly opposed are supplanted by younger ones
who are just as strongly in favor. Same-sex couples are featured in some of the most popular
shows on television.
Yet opponents include white working-class voters, among whom Mr. Obama has long had
weak support, and many African-Americans, led by influential ministers in their churches,
whose support is critical to Mr. Obama in swing states like Virginia and North Carolina.
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, one of the first openly gay
members of Congress, said he told the White House months ago that it should not worry
about the politics.
This country is moving, and whats interesting is every time somebody does something
thats supportive of our rights, it turns out to be (a) popular and (b) not very controversial,
he said in a telephone interview.
Many Americans already assumed Mr. Obama supported same-sex marriage, Mr. Frank
said, adding, Politically, its kind of a nonevent.
Obama strategists had rejected the idea of announcing the presidents support during a
fund-raiser or at a speech to a gay rights group, because, as one Democrat close to the White
House put it, that would look like pandering.
Then last Friday, Mr. Biden taped his interview for NBCs Meet the Press, shown on
Sunday morning. Afterward, Mr. Bidens aides circulated a transcript around the West Wing,
with the gay marriage remarks highlighted in yellow. A flurry of e-mails ensued about how
Mr. Bidens office should explain it once the interview was broadcast.
The news media attention escalated on Monday when Mr. Obamas education secretary,
Arne Duncan, acknowledged in a television interview that he also supported same-sex
marriage. Editorialists, columnists and bloggers criticized Mr. Obama as appearing
calculating by his continued ambivalence.
An administration official, who like others did not want to be named discussing internal
White House deliberations, said that until this week, the one certainty was for Mr. Obama to
take his stand before September to avoid a convention fight. Its not helpful to go down
there and have a big conflagration about including this in the platform, the official said.
But several events loomed that would also force attention on the issue, leaving Mr. Obama
vulnerable to continued criticism.
On Thursday, Mr. Obama is to visit the Los Angeles home of the actor George Clooney for a
campaign fund-raiser expected to raise about $12 million, much of it from Hollywood people
active in the gay rights cause.
Mr. Obama is scheduled to give the commencement address next week at Barnard College in
New York City, where he will receive a medal along with Evan Wolfson, the founder and
president of Freedom to Marry, a leading advocate for same-sex unions. Mr. Wolfson, who
had written that he would whisper in the presidents ear to support same-sex marriage,
said in an interview on Wednesday, Im going to shout, Thank you!
Also on Monday, Mr. Obama is to speak at a campaign fund-raiser for gay rights supporters.
And on June 6, he is to return to Los Angeles to speak at a gala benefiting the gay, bisexual
and transgender community.
Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: May 11, 2012
An article on Thursday about President Obamas decision to declare his support for same-sex
marriage described incorrectly in some editions a transcript circulated within the White House
of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.s earlier remarks on the subject. The transcript, of a taping
on Friday for broadcast on NBCs Meet the Press on Sunday, had the vice presidents remarks
on gay marriage highlighted in yellow. It was not the case, as a White House official said, that
the vice presidents office did not call the comments to anyones attention.

The Big Story

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discusses the Roe vs. Wade
case on it's 40th anniversary at The University of Chicago Law School in
Chicago, Saturday, May 11, 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v.
Wade in 1973. It established a nationwide right to abortion. Ginsburg, the
second woman to serve as Supreme Court justice, was appointed to the high
court by former President Bill Clinton in 1993. (AP Photo/Paul Beaty)
Prev
1 of 4
Next
CHICAGO (AP) One of the most liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be expected to give a rousing defense of
Roe v. Wade in reflecting on the landmark vote 40 years after it established a
nationwide right to abortion.
Instead, Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law
School that while she supports a woman's right to choose, she feels the ruling
by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion
opponents a symbol to target. Ever since, she said, the momentum has been
Ginsburg says Roe gave abortion
opponents target
By JASON KEYSER
May. 11, 2013 10:39 PM EDT
Home Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ginsburg says Roe gave abortion opponents target
READ MORE
UN Gay Rights
Gay marriage's latest frontier: state courts

The Associated Press
@AP
10:10 AM - 12 May 14 Reply Retweet Favorite

AP NFL
@AP_NFL
Latest News
Kremlin seeks talks for
Ukraine, not annexation
May. 12, 2014 10:52 AM EDT
England taking youthful
squad to World Cup
May. 12, 2014 10:51 AM EDT
No hesitation for networks
airing Sam reaction
May. 12, 2014 10:50 AM EDT
Grain lower, cattle and pork
mixed
May. 12, 2014 10:50 AM EDT
Congo soccer stadium
stampede kills at least 15
May. 12, 2014 10:49 AM EDT
Advertisement
AP on Twitter
Taliban unleash attacks across Afghanistan, killing at
least 21 at start of spring offensive: t.co/jUZUtYDFhX
RT @AP_NFL: Caught off guard by
@MikeSamFootball kissing his partner on draft day?
Page 1 of 4 Ginsburg says Roe gave abortion opponents target
5/12/2014 http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ginsburg-says-roe-gave-abortion-opponents-target
on the other side, with anger over Roe fueling a state-by-state campaign that
has placed more restrictions on abortion.
"That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion
a target to aim at relentlessly," she told a crowd of students. "... My criticism of
Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of
change."
The ruling is also a disappointment to a degree, Ginsburg said, because it was
not argued in weighty terms of advancing women's rights. Rather, the Roe
opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, centered on the right to privacy and
asserted that it extended to a woman's decision on whether to end a pregnancy.
Four decades later, abortion is one of the most polarizing issues in American
life, and anti-abortion activists have pushed legislation at the state level in an
effort to scale back the 1973 decision.
Ginsburg would have rather seen the justices make a narrower decision that
struck down only the Texas law that brought the matter before the court. That
law allowed abortions only to save a mother's life.
A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing
momentum to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion
rights, she said. She added that it might also have denied opponents the
argument that abortion rights resulted from an undemocratic process in the
decision by "unelected old men."
Ginsburg told the students she prefers what she termed "judicial restraint" and
argued that such an approach can be more effective than expansive,
aggressive decisions.
"The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that
change develop in the political process," she said.
A similar dynamic is playing out over gay marriage and the speculation over
how the Supreme Court might act on that issue.
The court decided in December to take up cases on California's constitutional
ban on gay marriage and a federal law that denies to gay Americans who are
legally married the favorable tax treatment and a range of health and pension
benefits otherwise available to married couples.
Among the questions now is whether the justices will set a nationwide rule that
could lead to the overturning of laws in more than three dozen states that
currently do not allow same-sex marriage. Even some supporters of gay
marriage fear that a broad ruling could put the court ahead of the nation on a
hot-button social issue and provoke a backlash similar to the one that has
fueled the anti-abortion movement in the years following Roe.
The court could also decide to uphold California's ban an outcome that would
not affect the District of Columbia and the 11 states that allow gay marriage.
Ginsburg did not address the pending gay marriage cases.
Asked about the continuing challenges to abortion rights, Ginsburg said that in
her view Roe's legacy will ultimately hold up.
"It's not going to matter that much," she said. "Take the worst-case scenario ...
suppose the decision were overruled; you would have a number of states that
will never go back to the way it was."
READ MORE
UN Gay Rights

@AP

@AP

@AP
Here's #ESPN on the scene: t.co/5JsYdt8UhO #NFL
#
Lawyers keep Godzilla a champ onscreen and in court
in fights against counterfeiters, copycats:
t.co/29XbAj9lvr @mccartneyAP
Video from Nigeria's Boko Haram terrorist network
purports to show dozens of abducted schoolgirls praying
in Arabic: t.co/YfZm2ghbrx
AP VIDEO: Hugh Jackman talks of his recent bout with
skin cancer at the 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'
premiere: t.co/Ry3QzCpkDd
Advertisement
READ MORE
Zemanta Zemanta Zemanta Zemanta
Tags
Government and politics, North America, United States, General news,
Social affairs, Social issues, Illinois, Same sex marriage, Marriage, Family
issues, Gay rights, Human rights and civil liberties, National governments,
Chicago, Supreme courts, National courts, Courts, Judiciary, Women's
rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Abortion controversy, Reproductive rights
Comments
Associated Press Associated Press Associated Press Associated Press

Gay marriage's latest frontier: state courts
Associated Associated Associated Associated Press Press Press Press
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says Supreme Court justices should
work as long as they can and should not manipulate their retirement
so a like-minded president can appoint their successor - @AP
Gay marriage's win streak tested in higher court
UN human rights office unveils gay-rights campaign
Senate OKs gay rights bill banning discrimination
Advertisement
Controversial "Skinny Pill" Sweeps the Nation

redirecter.org redirecter.org redirecter.org redirecter.org
10 Secret Celebrity Marriages
celebritygossip.com celebritygossip.com celebritygossip.com celebritygossip.com
Do You Have What It Takes To Market Yourself In Today's Social
Media World?
simplygreater.org simplygreater.org simplygreater.org simplygreater.org
AP News | 2014 Associated Press
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Official - Subject to Final Review
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, ET AL., :
Petitioners : No. 12-144
v. :
KRISTIN M. PERRY, ET AL. :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
The above-entitled matter came on for oral
argument before the Supreme Court of the United States
at 10:07 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
CHARLES J. COOPER, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of
Petitioners.
THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of
Respondents.
DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR., ESQ., Solicitor General,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for United
States, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondents.
1
Alderson Reporting Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
case, and you said it in other cases, the Skinner case,
for example.
Marriage is put on a pro- -- equal footing
with procreational aspects. And your -- this Court is
the one that has said over and over again that marriage
means something to the individual: The privacy,
intimacy, and that it is a matter of status and
recognition in this --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom
line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one
that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that
marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions
could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with
respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that
could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and
child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can
accept that the State has probably an overbearing
interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of
age to marry, but what's left?
MR. OLSON: Well, you've said -- you've said
in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy
issue, multiple marriages raises questions about
exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to
taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely
different thing. And if you -- if a State prohibits
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct.
If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens
from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise
of a right based upon their status. It's selecting them
as a class, as you described in the Romer case and as
you described in the Lawrence case and in other cases,
you're picking out a group of individuals to deny them
the freedom that you've said is fundamental, important
and vital in this society, and it has status and
stature, as you pointed out in the VMI case. There's
a -- there's a different --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Is there any way to
decide this case in a principled manner that is limited
to California only?
MR. OLSON: Yes, the Ninth Circuit did that.
You can decide the standing case that limits it to the
decision of the district court here. You could decide
it as the Ninth Circuit did --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: The problem -- the problem
with the case is that you're really asking, particularly
because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to
go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that
metaphor, there's a wonderful destination, it is a
cliff. Whatever that was.
(Laughter.)
47
More Heat Than Light:
A Critical Assessment of the
Gay Parenting Literature, 19952010
By Douglas W. Allen
April 2012
ABSTRACT
The vast majority of gay parenting studies conclude that children
raised by gay parents perform as well, if not better, than their coun-
terparts in heterosexual families. This conclusion, which may or may
not be true, is not scientically warranted due to various limitations:
some results are misreported; the entire literature is exploratory in
nature and made up of small qualitative samples, biased data, and
other research design failures; the studies concentrate almost ex-
clusively on lesbian families; and outcome measures have been lim-
ited. Although these problems prevent scientic generalizations, so-
cial scientists have treated the preliminary, non-conclusive research
as authoritative. Quite naturally, those within public policy circles
have adopted this unwarranted position. Regardless of what science
ultimately demonstrates about same-sex family structure, it is im-
portant to safeguard the research process from political pressures:
either anti-gay marriage or pro-gay rights.
Burnaby Mountain Professor of Economics, Simon Fraser University. Thanks to Charles Craw-
ford, Dean Lueck, Joe Price, and Simon Woodcock for comments.
Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by hetero-
sexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research support-
ing this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the eld of developmental
psychology.
[Justice Vaughn Walker, section 70, Perry v. Schwarzenegger]
1. Introduction
Within the past forty years a small empirical literature has developed to study
the eects on children of growing up within a gay household.
1
Despite the various
dierences in each study, the vast majority have the same conclusion: children of gay
parents perform at least as well as children from heterosexual families: there is no-
dierence in child outcomes based on family structure. This conclusion has played a
major role in legal cases, legislation, and professional opinions on gay family rights.
2
For several reasons the literature is unlike many others within social science. First,
it partly arose from, and was strongly inuenced by, legal cases in which lesbian
mothers were denied custody of their children based on their sexual orientation.
Second, for the most part it is written by individuals with strong personal world
views that sympathize with those studied. Third, the focus of the literature is often
on soft measures of child and family performance that are not easily veriable
by third party replication, and which dier substantially from measures used in
other family studies.
3
And nally, almost all of the literature on gay parenting
1
A note on nomenclature. The non-heterosexual world is varied, loosely dened, uid, and
evolving in terms of labels for various sexual orientations. This makes it cumbersome to nd a
word(s) to describe this community as a class of people. The word homosexual might seem to t
as an umbrella term, but it is seldom used within the literature and no doubt carries a pejorative
tone. Some monikers are long and awkward, and often over/under inclusive for a specic context.
Here I follow the convention of using the word gay to have a double meaning. I will use it to
describe the entire class of individuals who fall outside the heterosexual norm, and use it to describe
male homosexuals. The context should make it clear which meaning is intended. When speaking of
a specic class I will use lesbian, bi-sexual, and so on.
2
For example, it forms the basis for the American Psychological Associations position supporting
gay marriage.
3
By soft measures I refer to things like self reports on attitudes, awareness, and adjustments
(e.g., McNeill et al. (1998)); self reports on parenting quality and socio-emotional child development
is based on weak designs, biased samples, and low powered tests. The result is
a nascent literature that falls far short of standard social science research. At its
best, the literature contains interesting exploratory studies that raise provocative
questions and observations. At its worst, it is advocacy aimed at legislators and
judges which may explain why, despite its weak scientic nature, the literature
is characterized by strong recommendations for policy and legal changes to family
regulations.
This paper provides a critical assessment of the gay parenting literature, based
on the standards of empirical work found throughout the social sciences.
4
An at-
tempt was made to be exhaustive in the selection of reviewed papers between 1995
2010, but no doubt some studies have been missed, especially in the case of early
studies. The emphasis on more recent work is for two reasons: i) critical surveys
of earlier work already exist,
5
and ii) the more recent work is of a higher quality
standard than the earlier work. In total, fty-two studies of various methodologies
are covered in this review, and are listed in Table 1 in the appendix.
I argue that the aws within the current literature are fatal in terms of any abil-
ity to make generalizations regarding the population of gay parents, and therefore
it is impossible and irresponsible to use the literature to advance any recommen-
dations regarding gay family legislation. Such a claim should go without saying,
and yet professional bodies have made claims based on this research that are not
(e.g., Golombok et al. (1997)); self reports on psychological well-being, identity, and relationships
(e.g., Tasker et al. (1995)); self reports on family closeness, parental legitimacy, child bonding (e.g.,
Gartrell et al. (1999)); and self reports on stigma and self-esteem (e.g., Gershon et al. (1999)).
In contrast, by hard measures I refer to things like self reported sexual orientation and family
characteristics (e.g., Golombok and Tasker (1996) or Bailey et al. (1995)); government reported
divorce statistics (e.g., Andersson et al. (2006)); grade retention (Rosenfeld (2010)); or the execution
of legal documents and the performance of a marriage ceremony (e.g., Oswald et al. (2008)). One of
the odd characteristics of this literature is the lack of consistency of measures across time. Subsequent
studies seldom test for measures that were used in previous studies. This no doubt reects the
diculty in replicating and comparing soft measures. It also does not appear to be the practice
within this literature to post data on line in order for other scholars to replicate ndings.
4
My particular eld is law and economics.
5
See Nock (2001).
2
warranted. The purpose of this review is to highlight the pitfalls of this literature
for those within the current public policy debate surrounding same-sex marriage.
The bottom line is that until large probability samples are developed to properly
test various theories of the family, it is not possible to make general claims about
same-sex parenthood. As a result, all claims about the unknown population statis-
tics should be read with caution, and understood within the context of the current
policy debate.
2. Various Sources of Bias
To be human is to be biased. Everyone holds opinions about life, and these
world views inuence how information is collected and interpreted. Statistical work
contains its own technical sources of bias, especially in the social sciences where
laboratory-like experiments are often dicult to perform. In a mature and di-
versied discipline these biases are mitigated by various checks and balances that
distinguish good social science: replication of empirical ndings, public availability
of data and testing procedures, outlets for comments and opposing views, a focus
on understanding and testing, the use of reliable and operational measures, and
a wide body of research done by people with competing opinions. None of these
conditions are met within the gay parenting literature. As a result, the literature
is seriously awed in terms of bias from a number of sources. These forms of bias
make virtually all of the general claims within this literature unreliable.
2.1. Data Bias
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a street light and
asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under
the street light together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he
lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, that he lost them in the park. The
policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, this is where the
light is.
[Freedman, 2010]
Anyone trained in social science statistical methods cannot help be slightly taken
aback by the data standards used within the gay parenting literature. Typically
3
a social scientist develops a model that yields specic predictions given a set of
assumptions. These predictions are then tested through various methods using large
probability samples usually random samples where the probability of a study
participant is known. Randomness in the sample selection is extremely important.
When a sample is not random, and when the source of bias is not understood,
then the results of the data experiment have no generality, and nothing should be
inferred from the biased data because such inferences will not reect the true nature
of the population. The point cannot be over stated. A proper probability sample is a
necessary condition for making any claim about an unknown population. Within the
gay parenting literature the street lamp eect abounds. Researchers have studied
only those community members who are convenient to study. This means that the
results lack the integrity and validity that lead to any truth statements regarding
out of sample gay parents, and their children.
This is not to say that qualitative studies those that involve an in depth
analysis of a non-random biased sample are of no value. Indeed, such studies
can provide a wealth of information about the subjects of the study. Furthermore,
such studies may lead to conjectures about the population in general, and may help
researchers design more advanced studies. For example, within the gay parenting
literature a number of potential dierences between children raised by gay and non-
gay parents have been observed: children of gay parents are more likely to engage
in same-sex relations, same-sex fantasies, and identify as gay; lesbian couple house-
holds are less stable than gay male households or opposite-sex married households;
and lesbian households are more likely to divide household tasks evenly than het-
erosexuals. Whether or not these ndings are generally true or not is not known,
and cannot be known absent the use of probability samples. It is simply wrong to
draw conclusions about an unknown population from a biased sample, regardless of
how in-depth the qualitative analysis is.
This point has been raised by many others regarding the literature on gay par-
enting, including many within the literature.
6
Of the fty-two studies reviewed here,
6
Andersson et al. (2006) note:
4
only ve used probability samples.
7
All of the other studies arrived at their sam-
ples through means that introduced various levels of bias. Some studies recruited
individuals from sperm bank data sources or other types of reproduction technol-
ogy providers.
8
Other studies used Internet surveys where the respondents were
recruited by various methods: parent forums, gay and lesbian web-sites, and online
advocacy organizations.
9
Many studies recruited through LGBT events, bookstore
and newspaper advertisements, word of mouth, networking, youth groups, and the
like.
10
A common method of recruitment was to use a combination of the above
methods to form a sample base, and then recruit friends of the base.
11
One set of
The lack of representative samples is the most fundamental problem in quantita-
tive studies on gays and lesbians, which commonly rely on self-recruited samples
from an unknown population.
[p. 81]
Sweets (2009) survey nds: 1) Less than 20 studies met her scientic selection criteria; 2) in all
cases the tests had limited power and tended to accept the null of no dierence between same-sex
and opposite sex parenting; 3) most studies were not done in the U.S.; and 5) all studies had very
small sample sizes, especially when broken down by gender. Stacey and Biblarz (2001) are more
pessimistic and state the issues quite bluntly:
... it is impossible to gather reliable data on such basic demographic questions
as how many lesbians and gay men there are in the general population, how
many have children, or how many children reside (or have substantial contact)
with lesbian or gay parents. ... there are no studies of child development based
on random, representative samples of such families. ... Although scholars often
acknowledge some of these diculties, few studies explicitly grapple with these
denitional questions.
[pp. 164166, 2001]
7
These were Rosenfeld (2010), Wainright, Russell and Patterson (2007), and Wainright and
Patterson (2006, 2008), and Golombok et al. (2003). Two others used samples drawn from a
population: Rothblum et al. (2008) and Andersson et al. (2008).
8
For example: Bos et al. (2007); Bos and Van Balen (2008); Chan, Brooks, Raboy, and Patterson
(1998); Brewaeys et al. (1997); and Chan, Raboy, and Patterson (1998).
9
For example: Lehmiller (2010); Bos (2010); or Power et al. (2010).
10
For example: Wright and Perry (2006); Oswald et al. (2008); Lehmiller (2010); Goldberg
(2007); Bailey et al. (1995); Flaks et al. (1995); Fairtlough (2008); Dundas and Kaufman (2000);
Power et al.. or Fulcher et al. (2008).
11
For example: Balsam et al. (2008); Golombok et al. (2003).
5
studies that was collectively called the Bay Area Families Study noted Recruit-
ment began when the author contacted friends, acquaintances, and colleagues who
might be likely to know eligible lesbian mother families.
12
Still other studies failed
to even mention how their samples were arrived at.
13
Each dierent procedure
has a dierent and unknown source of bias. Studies of lesbians are well known to
contain subjects who are predominantly white, well educated, and high income
reecting the demographics of the authors. Other characteristics that are less ob-
servable (e.g., willingness to speak openly about their families, political aliations,
etc.) may also be over or under represented. Although most studies acknowledge
the non-representativeness of their biased samples, seldom is there any mention of
the direction of the bias, never is anything done about it, and with few exceptions
does the bias prevent the authors from drawing sweeping policy recommendations
for practitioners, law makers, and judges.
14
As mentioned, over the past decade a few studies attempt to use randomsamples
to analyze gay parenting, and each of these recognizes the value of a probability
sample. Unfortunately, most of these studies are still lacking in either power or
design execution. Rosenfeld (2010) is by far the best attempt to date to use a large
random sample. He uses the 2000 Census to measure child outcomes. The only
12
Patterson, p. 94, 2001.
13
For example: Stacey (2004, 2005) or Chrisp (2001).
14
For example, Bos (2010) received 36 responses from an Internet mail-list of 1000 names, and
compared parental stress and child psychological well-being with 36 straight fathers recruited from
an elementary school. After concluding there was no dierences found, and that the study had
several serious limitations, she concludes:
Our ndings have important practical implications: they underscore that although
gay fathers do not dier from heterosexual fathers, there is a negative eect of
minority stress (reected in rejection) on the lives of gay fathers and their children.
It would therefore be erroneous for family therapists to overlook or minimise the
potential impact of rejection for being a gay father and they should support coping
responses in dealing it.
[p. 367, 2010]
What is erroneous is to draw conclusions about all fathers from a small biased sample.
6
measure of child performance within the census is a childs grade progression, and
so he tests to see if children from same-sex partnerships are more likely to fail a
grade in school compared to other household types. Rosenfeld nds a statistically
insignicant eect of same-sex parenting on grade failure, and if this result were
true, it would be the only solid evidence that child performance did not depend on
the sexual orientation of the parents. Unfortunately, the Rosenfeld study is seriously
awed.
15
First, his results are misreported. What he actually nds is that child
performance in same-sex households is not statistically dierent from any type of
15
See Price, Pakaluk, and Allen (forthcoming), for a detailed discussion of Rosenfelds paper.
One indirect source of bias that results from the census is that it does not directly identify sexual
orientation. Hence, Rosenfeld is forced to indirectly identify same-sex couples by tagging respondents
who claim they are married or common law and living with someone of the same sex. On the one
hand, this is likely to over sample same-sex households because it picks up many non-sexual same-sex
relations (e.g., brothers, cousins, roommates, etc.), and because it relies on respondents to accurately
answer a combination of questions. The Williams Institute has recently completed a study of the
2010 census and notes that the bias works both ways: same-sex couples get coded as opposite sex
couples, and opposite sex couples get coded as same-sex couples. They state:
the total national error rate is approximately 0.25% ((0.2%*0.74)+(0.4%*0.26)).
... This measurement problem means that Census tabulations of same-sex couples
may be biased too high, yielding an over-count. However, there is also reason to
believe that Census procedures can undercount same-sex couples. Gates (2010)
estimates that at least 15% of same-sex couples are not counted in Census Bu-
reau tabulations either because they identied themselves as something other than
husband/wife or unmarried partner or neither partner was Person 1 in the
household. Some same-sex couples are unwilling to identify themselves as such on
the Census due to concerns about condentiality. Same-sex couples may experi-
ence stigma and discrimination and consider it too risky to identify as spouses or
unmarried partners on a government survey like the Census. Instead, they may
choose to call themselves roommates or unrelated adults. Couples where neither
partner is Person 1 cannot be identied on the Census since identication relies
upon knowing the relationship between Person 1 and others in the household. ...
OConnell and Gooding 2007 found evidence that the over-count and undercount
may eectively oset each other. If this is true, then Census same-sex couple
tabulations may be a fairly accurate. However, the presence of the miscoded
dierent-sex couples within the identied same-sex couples could seriously bias
the reported rates of male versus female couples, child-rearing, and the overall
geographic distribution of same-sex couples across a state.
[Williams Institute, 2011]
This is not to suggest that the census is disqualied for use in studying children in same sex house-
holds. Rather, it suggests there is a known bias that should be, but was not controlled for.
7
household including ones that are known to be unhealthy for children. Second,
the reason why his study lacks the precision to nd any statistical eect is because
he decided to drop 680,425 observations from his sample (45% of the data) in order
to eliminate children who had not lived in the same location for ve years. This
turns out to introduce a strong bias in the results since this variable is strongly
correlated with grade failure. Price, Pakaluk, and Allen (forthcoming) show that
once the sample is restored and location is properly controlled for through the use
of dummy variables, children from same-sex households are 35% more likely to fail a
grade compared to children in opposite-sex two parent families. The actual nding
by Price et al. is neither here nor there. The point is that a proper control of bias
can lead to a dramatic reversal of an empirical nding.
The ve remaining random sample studies face a dierent problem. Most no-
table here are the three studies by Wainright and Patterson.
16
These are not three
independent studies, but rather they are three separate publications utilizing the
same data source. The data come from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adoles-
cent Health, a random survey of school aged children conducted in the 94-95 school
year. Like the Rosenfeld study, the authors were forced to identify gay parenting
households indirectly, which likely leads to similar respondent coding errors as in
Census data. However, an additional problem is that the survey is too small to
adequately identify small minorities like gay parents. Although the Health survey
contains 12,105 households, Wainright and Patterson are only able to identify 6 gay
households and 44 lesbian ones. The 44 lesbian households represent 0.33 of one
percent of all households in the survey, and is too small to generate any power in
testing. This fraction is similar to that found by Golombok et al. (2003). This
latter study uses the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children a local
British study. Here they nd only 18 lesbians, which amount to .22 of one percent
of all mothers in the survey.
17
Again, the number of responding households is too
16
Wainright and Patterson (2004, 2008) and Wainright, Russell, and Patterson (2006).
17
Rivers et al. (2008) uses a British survey similar to that used by Wainright and Patterson, and
end up with a sample of 18 lesbian households.
8
small to adequately identify the group of interest, and too small to generate enough
statistical power to identify the eect of household structure on child performance.
When lesbians make up between .51% of the population, surveys must contain
upwards to half a million respondents before any reasonable lesbian sample size
can be reached.
18
Wainright and Patterson proceed with their small sample which
does not have enough power to distinguish dierences across dierent households.
Golombok et al.. use snowball methods to add to their sample and bring their
numbers up to 39 lesbians.
19
Of course, this number remains too small, and adding
cases in this fashion introduces unknown bias and so their study ends up like the
others.
One nal type of data consists of proprietary longitudinal surveys that give
an impression of random sampling. Perhaps the most important example is the
National Lesbian Longitudinal Family Survey. Despite its name, it is not national.
The survey was begun in 1986 when it recruited 84 lesbian families from announce-
ments at lesbian events, in womens bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers. The
families are urban (from Boston, DC, and San Francisco), well educated, and over-
whelmingly white. These same families are interviewed at several stages, and the
various publication titles give the impression of a national random sample.
20
Other
studies use the same rhetorical device. The Toronto Lesbian Family Study turns
out not to be a study representing lesbian families in Toronto, but rather a survey of
16 families recruited by word of mouth, networking, or through their involvement
in a lesbian mothers support group in Toronto. These studies, like the others,
18
The fraction of lesbians and gays within the population is a number in some dispute, and a
number that depends on how lesbians and gays are dened. Allen (2011) nds lesbians make up only
1/3 of one percent of the Canadian population. This estimate comes from the Canadian Community
health Survey. The CCHS is the only large, random, nationally represented data set, I know of, that
directly identies sexual orientation. Reliable estimates of lesbian numbers in the U.S. are typically
less than 2% of the population (Black et al. p. 54, 2007).
19
Snowballing is the practice of asking individuals within a study to recruit their friends and
associates to join the study.
20
For example, in a recent well publicized paper by Gartrell and Bos (2010), the title started US
National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study:...
9
contain serious unknown biases that render estimations of the population of gay
parents meaningless.
If sample bias is the fundamental data problem among lesbian family studies,
the second critical problem is data sample size.
21
Of the fty-two studies examined
here, only two had sample sizes larger than 500.
22
Much more common were sample
sizes between 30-60.
23
The problem with such small sample sizes is that the data
cannot generate any power for statistical testing. Statistical testing contains two
types of errors. A type I error is where the null hypothesis is rejected when it is in
fact true, and the probability of this type of error is called the level of signicance.
A type II error is where the null hypothesis is not rejected even though it is false.
The probability of this error is known as the power of the test. A powerful test
means there is a small chance of not rejecting a false null hypothesis. Power, in
part, comes from sample size: a small sample necessarily generates a weak test.
The very small sample sizes found in many of these studies creates a bias towards
accepting a null hypothesis of no eect in outcomes between gay and heterosexual
households. This is well recognized, but it is exacerbated in the context of gay
parenting because avenues through which these households are formed are many
and complicated. As noted by Stacey and Biblarz (2001, 2010), these families
often have experienced a prior divorce, previous heterosexual marriages, intentional
pregnancies, co-parenting, donor insemination, adoption, and surragacy. Empirical
21
Of the fty-two studies examined here, only a few dealt with gay male parents. Almost all of
the studies are done on lesbians. This is another source of bias that warrants caution in drawing
any conclusions about non-lesbian families.
22
These were Rosenfeld (2010) and Andersson et al. (2006). According to Nock (p. 37, 2001), to
properly test any hypothesis regarding gay parenting, a sample size of 800 is required.
23
Often the problem of small sample size comes from low response rates. Many of the fty-
two studies are silent on the question of response rates to their surveys, but when information is
provided it often shows that response rates are very low. For example, in Bos (2010) the gay males
were recruited from an Internet mail list for gay parents. Although the list had 1000 names, only
36 replied and participated in the study. This amounts to a 3.6% response rate. Other studies (e.g.,
Chan et al. and Fulcher et al.) have reductions in their samples similar in relative size to Rosenfeld.
Response rates lower than 60% are usually taken to mean the presence of a strong selection bias
even when the initial list is random.
10
work needs to control for the various selection eects that arise from the number
of parents, sexual identity, marital status, gender, and biological relationships with
children. That is, child performance is aected by all these channels and they need
to be statistically identied. To do this requires large amounts of data, and to date
almost no study has had the numbers to eectively sort this out.
24
Out of the fty-two studies reviewed here, only Andersson et al. (2006) met the
criteria of reliable data although as a study of divorce it is not technically a study
of parenting. These authors use the marriage and domestic partnership records
of Norway and Sweden to study family stability, and essentially calculate divorce
hazard rates over time.
25
The data set is large, veriable, replicable, longitudinal,
and based on the population. Ironically, this one study nds a number of results
inconsistent with the general thrust of the literature. First, relatively few gays and
lesbians appear interested in marriage since the incidence of same-sex marriage in
Norway and Sweden is not particularly impressive.
26
Second, gay men were 60%
more likely to marry compared to lesbians. And nally, there was a large dierence
in divorce rates between gays and lesbians, with lesbians twice as likely to divorce
as gays, and three times more likely to divorce than heterosexual married couples.
27
2.2. Researcher Bias
Public agencies are very keen on amassing statistics they collect them, add
them, raise them to the n
th
power, take the cube root and prepare wonderful
diagrams. But what you must never forget is that every one of those gures
24
In the odd case where the sample size was sucient (e.g., Rosenfeld) the instruments for testing
were not available.
25
Sweden adopted same sex marriage in 2009, and so Andersson et al. actually are comparing
divorce hazards between dierent types of unions.
26
Andersson et al. p. 86, 2006. Nor is it impressive in Canada where same-sex marriage has been
legal since 2005. According to Allen (2011) only 12.2% of lesbians, and 4.9% of gays, are married.
27
Andersson et al. p. 94, 2006. There is one other study that is particularly well done. Sarantakos
(1996) does not use a random sample, but rather draws on a longitudinal study and uses objective,
veriable, hard measures of performance that are not self-reported. he nds a dierence as well,
with children from gay households doing signicantly worse in mathematics, language, and other
school related matters. Interestingly, this study is not mentioned in any of the literature surveys.
11
comes in the rst instance from the village watchman, who just puts down what
he damn well pleases.
[Sir Josiah Stamp, 1929 pp. 258259]
For decades prior to the 1970s most psychological research on homosexuality
used a pathological model, and treated gay and lesbian sexual orientations as a
form of illness.
28
As a result, gay or lesbian parents often lost custody of children
in divorce disputes if one of the parents could be shown to be gay or lesbian. Thus,
since the mid 1970s empirical research often had the objective of showing that
gay and lesbian parents were on par with heterosexual parents.
29
From its start
then, researchers and participants in that research have had a social justice agenda
over and above the simple social science pursuit of understanding gay households.
30
From this starting point a type of researcher has emerged: mostly female (74 of
102 in the fty-two studies), often lesbian, and strongly feminist and supportive of
gay rights. Indeed, Stacey and Biblarz admit that few contributors to this [gay
parenting] literature personally subscribe to [a hetero-normative] view.
31
When
28
See Clarke, Kitzinger, and Potter, 2004 for a discussion.
29
Goldberg (p. 110 2010), cites the 1993 Virginia case of Bottoms v. Bottoms as a catalyst for
the literature. In the case, the court awarded custody of Sharon Bottoms son to her mother, Kay
Bottoms, on the grounds that her lesbian sexual orientation made her an unt mother.
30
Stacey and Biblarz (2001) note this:
... social science research on lesbigay (sic) family issues has become a rapid growth
industry that incites passionate divisions. For the consequences of such research
are by no means academic, but bear on marriage and family policies that encode
Western cultures most profoundly held convictions about gender, sexuality, and
parenthood.
[ pp. 159-160, 2001]
As does Goldberg:
Legal decisions such as this [Bottoms vs. Bottoms 1993] served as the catalyst
for a steady wave of research studies that compared lesbian and gay parents with
heterosexual parents to determine whether parental sexual orientation has impli-
cations for parent functioning.
[ p. 110, 2010]
31
Stacey and Biblarz, p. 160 2001.
12
the political stakes in research are high, it is important that contributors to that
research come from many dierent sides of the question in order to oset researcher
bias and serve the scientic process. Unfortunately, this has seldom been the case
within this literature.
A third party reader of the literature easily picks up on researcher bias, but
the case for this bias is also expressly found within the literature itself. Stacey and
Biblarz (2001) point out that the desire to show gay and lesbian parents on par with
heterosexual parents led sensitive scholars ... to tread gingerly around the terrain
of dierences.
32
In other words, although several scholars actually found some
dierences in children between the dierent types of parents, they either ignored,
downplayed, or did not follow up those issues. They state ... on some dimensions
particularly those related to gender and sexuality the sexual orientations of these
parents matter somewhat more for their children than the researchers claimed.
33
An even more fascinating case is revealed in Clarke, Kitzinger, and Potter
(2004). This paper deconstructs eleven interviews and eleven television documen-
taries on bullying in cases where the childs parent is either gay or lesbian. They
nd that, depending on the bias of the interviewer and the respondent, the con-
versation was directed to a pre-determined outcome. These authors argue that in
the case of bullying many sympathetic to gay and lesbian issues want to minimize
its relevance because it can be used as a ground for denying custody. Those more
hostile to gay issues often want to play the practice of bullying up for the same rea-
son. And so some work on lesbian and gay families maximizes the incidence and
impact of homophobic bullying ... much of the literature ... minimizes homophobic
bullying.
34
32
Stacey and Biblarz, p. 162, 2001.
33
Stacey and Biblarz, p. 167 2001.
34
Clarke, Kitzinger, and Potter, p. 533 2004. Furthermore ... many psychologists sympathetic
to lesbian and gay parenting are keen to emphasize that for most children in lesbian and gay families
homophobic bullying if it does occur is of little (psychological) consequence. p. 546.
13
Clarke et al. note that these interviews do not take place within a vacuum, and
as a result the accounts are often self serving and not objective. The respondents
are aware of the issues, and fully aware of the implications of their answers.
Indeed, they note that [l]esbian and gay researchers who conduct interview studies
with lesbian and gay men often report that many of their participants only agreed
to take part because the interviewers were also lesbian or gay.
35
In her 2010 book Goldberg discusses another case of researcher reporting bias.
She also notes that gays and lesbians are aware of the political issues surrounding
their cause and purposely use language that distorts what actually goes on within
the household. In particular, an analysis of division of labor studies revealed that
both lesbian and gay couples tended to describe the division of household labor
in ways that sometimes deviated from the objective, or observed, distribution of
tasks.
36
She notes as well that the researchers were also biased in their reporting:
... it is important to consider the possibility that researcher perspectives and
interpretations (e.g. the tendency to view shared labor divisions as egalitarian
and therefore nongendered and the tendency to view unequal labor division as
unegalitarian and therefore gendered) not necessarily mirror the experiences and
interpretations of lesbian and gay parents themselves.
37
The actual types of bias in these studies is not relevant for the purpose here.
The key point is that a homogeneous researcher bias exists. Researcher bias is a wild
35
Clarke, Kitzinger, and Potter, p. 535 2004. Ironically, some writers within this literature point
out the problem of researcher bias in the literature that opposes same-sex families:
The deeply rooted hetero-normative convictions about what constitutes healthy
and moral gender identity, sexual orientation, and family composition held by
contributors to this literature hinders their ability to conduct or interpret research
with reason, nuance, or care.
[Stacey and Biblarz, p. 162, 2001]
36
Goldberg, p. 101, 2010.
37
Goldberg, p. 102, 2010.
14
card in empirical research. It is hidden and unknown, and can swamp statistical
bias in terms of the results. The only practical solution for it is to have studies that
are both veriable and replicable by third parties. In almost all cases this is not
possible within this literature.
2.3. Theories of Parenthood
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
[Benjamin Disraeli]
The typical lesbian parent study recruits a small biased sample of lesbian par-
ents, and usually matches this sample with a similar sized sample of heterosexual
parents. Without exception in the fty-two cases studied here, there is never a de-
tailed discussion of how the comparison sample is selected, how ties in qualications
are handled, or why the specic selection criteria are used over others. The typi-
cal study then proceeds to ask a series of standardized questions. These questions
often relate to how the parent feels about some aspect of gay parenting; their under-
standing of their childs experience growing up in a gay household; their perceptions
of behavior, peer relations, and school performance; or their expectations of their
childs future. Some studies read diaries, watch play times, or listen to how young
children speak to each other. A few studies examine hard quantiable measures
of performance and adjustment, but they are the exception. The general rule is
to nd some type of soft measure of parenting of the fty-two studies, only
eleven dealt with hard objective measures. The typical study then does a simple
dierence of means test between the two groups to draw its conclusions.
38
What comes out of this is a steady stream of conrmations of a particular
type of parenting: a double dose of motherhood is best. For example, Bos et al.
(2007), using several subjective measures, claim that the social mother in a lesbian
household is a much better parent than a heterosexual father. They state:
38
Conducting a standard dierence of means, or any other type of standard statistical test, only
makes sense when the conditions of a probability sample are met. This condition is almost never
the case.
15
...lesbian social mothers are more eective and more committed than heterosexual
fathers as a parent. They show higher levels of support (e.g., more emotional
involvement and parental concern) and lower levels of control (less power assertion,
less structure, less limit-setting, and more respect for the childs autonomy).
[p. 45, 2007]
Indeed, the literature contains many sentiments that report better parenting by
lesbians over fathers. In a paper that notes children in opposite sexed parent house-
holds are more likely to commit gender transgressions (for example, the children
were more likely to think that boys should not wear ngernail polish and girls should
not play football), Fulcher et al. note:
... lesbian mothers had more liberal attitudes about gender related behavior
among children than did heterosexual parents.
[p. 336, 2008]
Children with parents with more liberal attitudes about gender and more egali-
tarian divisions of labor were more exible in their own gender stereotypes and in
their occupational aspirations.
[p. 338, 2008]
In heterosexual-parent ed families, fathers usually hold more conservative atti-
tudes about gender roles and gender-related activities than do mothers.
[p. 331, 2008]
They conclude that if parents, regardless of sexual orientation, organize their at-
titudes and behaviors in an egalitarian manner more common in lesbian couples,
children may have more exible attitudes about gender.
39
Dundas and Kaufman claim, based on their study of 27 lesbians recruited by
word of mouth, networking, or through their involvement in a lesbian mothers
39
Fulcher et al., p. 338, 2008. The same sentiments are driven home in Goldbergs book, in
lesbian families there is:
... greater sense of openness and communication within the family ... greater
tolerance for diversity, a greater sensitivity to discrimination, and growing up
in a loving environment. ... freedom from traditional models ... less gender-
stereotyped ideas.
[Goldberg, p. 97 2010]
16
support group, that lesbian households have several advantages over heterosexual
ones. Namely, they produce more tolerant children, there is more mother energy,
and parenting decisions are made more carefully.
40
Brewaeys et al. were not sur-
prised to nd that ...one striking dierence was found between lesbian and hetero-
sexual families: social mothers showed greater interaction with their children than
did fathers, even though the fathers were not present to represent themselves at
the interview.
41
In a meta study, Biblarz and Stacey (2010) conrm some femi-
nist stereotypes: women are more nurturing, less likely to work outside the home,
more egalitarian, more likely to play with children, less likely to discipline and use
punishment, less likely to conform to gender roles. This double dose of feminine
inuence can lead Heathers two mommies to be among the best ... coparenting
couples. (p.12).
42
Heterosexual fathers consistently come o as poor parents in these studies. For
example, based on a biased sample of 30 lesbian and 30 heterosexual households,
one study claimed:
... lesbian couples were more aware of the skills necessary for eective parenting
than were their heterosexual counterparts. Specically, the lesbian couples proved
40
Dundas and Kaufman, p. 74, 2000. In a similar vein, Wainright et al. (2004) claim that a
warm accepting style of parenting is related to optimal outcomes for adolescents... (p. 1887).
41
Brewaeys et al., p. 1356, 1997. Gartrell and Bos (2010), concluding on the performance of the
NLLFS children at age 17 state:
The lower levels of externalizing problem behavior among the NLLFS adolescents
may be explained by the disciplinary styles used on lesbian mother households.
The NLLFS mothers reported using verbal limit-setting more often with their chil-
dren. Other studies have found that lesbian mothers use less corporal punishment
and less power assertion than heterosexual fathers.
[p. 7, 2010]
42
Although the double dose also leads to competition between the mothers and an exacerbation
of the genetic asymmetry between the mothers and children, Biblarz and Stacey conclude that
gender trumps biology, and even marital status (two unmarried lesbians perform better than a
married heterosexual couple). That lesbian couples are also less stable than other types of families
is attributed to discrimination by others (p. 12).
17
to be superior in their ability to identify the critical issues in child-care situations
and to formulate appropriate solutions to the problems they noticed. With further
analysis, however, it was revealed that these dierences were related to the parents
gender rather than to their sexual orientation: Both heterosexual and lesbian
mothers demonstrated an awareness of parenting skills that was superior to that
of heterosexual fathers.
[Flaks, et al. p. 112, 1995]
Other studies suggest that heterosexual fathers contribute nothing to the welfare of
their children. Consider: ... being without a resident father from infancy does not
seem to have negative consequences for children.
43
This quote is from self reported
questionnaires of 25 lesbian families, 38 families headed by a single heterosexual
mother, and 38 two heterosexual parent families where the mothers answered the
questions.
Biblarz and Savci sum the literature up this way:
The picture painted by recent research is mostly a continuation of a story from
earlier research that families with two lesbian parents (biological, social, or
step) exhibited a number of strengths. ... lesbian parent couples have high levels
of shared employment, decision making, parenting, and family work. ... Lesbian
couples also averaged higher satisfaction with their relationships with each other
and with each others parenting. ... Lesbian DI mothers ... tended to equal or
surpass heterosexual married couples on time spent with children, parenting skill,
and warmth and aection.
[pp. 481-482, 2010]
All of this favor towards two mothers might suggest a reciprocal problem for gay
fathers: poorer performance on these dimensions given their double dose of mas-
culinity. However, in their review of the tiny gay male parenting literature Biblarz
and Savci note that Many studies indicated that when two gay men co-parented,
they did so in ways that seemed closer to that of women (lesbian and heterosex-
ual) than to married heterosexual men.
44
The only bad parent, apparently, is a
heterosexual father.
43
MacCallum and Golombok, p. 1407, 2004.
44
Biblarz and Savci, p. 487, 2010.
18
Seen together, what is apparent is the common theory of the family held by
the researchers. Again, to cite some introductory remarks in Biblarz and Savcis
survey:
Researchers were documenting what most social scientists already knew but what
much of the public, perhaps inundated by virtual social science, did not: that
sexual orientations and gender identities per se have almost nothing to do with
tness for family roles and relationships, including parenting.
[ p. 480, 2010]
The question is: how did the researchers already know the answer before they
collected data? The answer: because their theoretical world view led them to the
conclusion. The lesbian parenting literature is dominated by feminist theory, in
which heterosexual families are seen as patriarchal, oppressive, and hostile to many
people. Within the context of this world view the freedom to choose alternatives
necessarily leads to an institutional improvement.
45
Thus, even if the empirical
results found within the literature turn out to be true, as a matter of logic the
conclusions do not necessarily follow, but depend on a particular feminist view
45
An interesting tension arises in the context of lesbian families and feminist ideology: the raising
of sons. Chrisp (2001) provides an almost emotional account of the dilemma faced by a feminist
lesbian mother of a son:
Few mothers, I believe, would not want their sons to make their own decisions, to
be their own people, and to have the world full of opportunity for them. And yet,
we need them [the sons] to reject the patriarchal status quo that has inhibited our
own opportunities and will continue to do so for the women in their lives.
[p. 198, 2001]
These sentiments are repeated in Biblarz and Saveis 2010 survey:
Lesbian mothers raising sons may face unique tensions in wanting social and
socioeconomic success for their sons when that may mean colluding with cultural
ideas of hegemonic masculinity that encourage male achievement but involve the
subordination of women.
[p. 482, 2010]
Ironically, since lesbians using some type of sperm donor insemination want to maximize the prob-
ability of conception, they often inseminate on the day of ovulation which increases the chance of
having a son (Chrisp, p. 198, 2001).
19
of the family.
46
A dierent theoretical view of the family could draw a dierent
conclusion from the same data.
2.4. Self Reporting and Vertical Integration
42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
[Steven Wright]
Two nal features of the gay and lesbian literature on parenting lead to a concern
over biased and unreliable results. The st is that most results are self-reported.
Exceptions exist, but the bulk of studies have gay, lesbian, and heterosexual parents
report on their own performance as parents. Given that the respondents understand
the implications of their answers, and that no one is an independent observer of
their own behavior, one wonders what the actual meaning of the responses are. A
dramatic example of this is found in the fourth interview of the National Lesbian
Family Study. The interview included questions of child abuse, and the researchers
considered it a major nding that:
The prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among NLFS girls (5%) and boys (0%)
contrasts strikingly with national rates. ... None of the NLFS children had been
physically abused. Although the NLFS mothers were the informants and the
index children had not yet reached maturity, these data suggest that the absence
of adult heterosexual men in households may be protective against abuse and its
devastating psychological sequelae.
[Gartrell et al., p. 523, 2005]
46
One element of feminist theory that crops up within this literature is the irrelevance of biology
a major theoretical competitor to feminist theories of the family. The importance of gender over
sex has already been mentioned. Males can make good parents if they parent like a female. Another
area is in the role of social mother the mother not biologically related to the child. Goldberg
et al. (2008) claim that by the time a child is 3.5 years old, children are indierent between the
biological and social mother. Based on a biased sample of 30 couples and some very soft questions
they conclude: These women demonstrate the power of social motherhood in creating maternal
connections that transcend biological relatedness over time. (p. 432). Finally, an almost humorous
example is found in Goldberg (2010). After noting that birth mothers tend to specialize in the
household she quickly retorts: This is not to say that lesbian mothers are reproducing gender
relations along the lines of biology; rather it suggests that they are shaped by (and also shape)
broader social patterns and various structural and symbolic forces. (p. 99). Everything is a social
construct.
20
Although the authors recognize the lack of incentive a mother has in reporting her
own abusive behavior, they readily draw the conclusion that their result actually
reects the reality of abuse within these households. On the contrary, their result
does not allow for such a conclusion since it is much more reasonable to infer that
parents will not self report their own transgressions, especially when illegal.
When combined with the unveriable and subjective nature of many questions,
the self reporting format of these studies naturally leads to no dierences found
between households when both households have the same incentives to misreport
bad outcomes. Veriable measures like school performance, births out of wedlock,
tobacco use, or employment can overcome this problem, but the soft non-veriable
questions most often asked mean that the responses simply cannot be trusted.
Finally, given that national statistics agencies have neglected to identify sexual
orientation in their surveys, researchers in the eld of gay and lesbian parenting
have mostly had to rely on their own surveys. No doubt their budget and time
constraints have led to many of the problems identied thus far. These constraints
also necessitate the involvement of the researcher in both the collection and analysis
of the data. As noted in Clarke, Kitzinger, and Potter (2004), researchers often
implicitly and explicitly direct and guide the respondents to an answer that matches
their preconceived understanding. Whether this is intentional or not, separation of
the collection and analysis of data is a critical feature of social science research that
is generally absent in the gay parenting literature. This is likely to change over time
as government agencies establish surveys that identify sexual orientation. However,
in the meantime, it calls into question virtually the entire body of research done
thus far.
2.5. Inappropriate Conclusions
All of the above would be natural and expected in any new empirical liter-
ature. Individual exploratory studies invariably start with convenience samples,
anecdotes, and are laced with researcher bias. Such problems are even more likely
21
when the group under study has been socially stigmatized, and are often afraid to
reveal personal information related to their sexual orientation. The point of any
exploratory study is to simply begin an investigation that will hopefully turn up
ndings others are interested in. These ndings must then be later investigated
more thoroughly and with rigor in order for society at large to trust and use them.
Unfortunately, the gay parenting literature has generally skipped the second step,
and moved immediately from exploratory nding to staunch policy implications.
Some conclusions are like the ones pointed out by Biblarz and Stacey (2001),
where the authors go out of their way to misrepresent their ndings. For example,
Bailey et al. (1995) conduct a particularly poor study that recruited 55 gay fathers
through advertisements in homosexual publications with a phone number to call.
They asked the respondents about their sons, and then tried to contact the sons
to ask them about their sexual orientation. They got in touch with 43 of the sons,
most of whom did not answer the question regarding their sexual orientation. They
then ask the fathers, who responded that in their estimation close to 10% of the
sons were not heterosexual. After their recognition of the limitations of their study
they conclude that
The present study cannot denitively answer the basic question of whether sons
of gay fathers have elevated rates of homosexuality. It does, however, support
one conclusion that, although quite general, may also be important: The large
majority of sons of gay fathers are heterosexual.
[p.128, 1995]
Given that gay males make up less than one percent of the population, if it were
true that 10% of sons of gay fathers were also gay, then this would be a nding
of enormous importance. On the contrary, no one would expect growing up with
a gay father to determine sexual orientation, and so a nding of less than 100% is
hardly surprising. Therefore, the conclusion that the large majority of sons of gay
fathers are heterosexual is hardly noteworthy.
47
47
Nock, (p. 78, 2001), in his review of this study notes the inconsistency as well: [t]he authors
22
More common is the study where conclusions are tacked on to the ndings as
policy recommendations, even though these recommendations do not follow directly
from the ndings but are combined with unmentioned theories of the family. For
example, Bos et al. (2004) conduct a study to see if lesbian mothers are stressed.
Generally they nd that stress does not arise from being a lesbian, and [t]he
lesbian mothers in this sample generally reported low levels of rejection, perceived
stigma, and internalized homophobia.
48
In other words, the lesbian parents were
doing all right, and the stresses they faced mostly came from the normal stresses of
parenthood. Nonetheless, they conclude that
Our ndings underscore the importance of the eect of minority stress on the lives
of lesbian mothers and their children. Health care providers working with lesbian
families, but also teachers with children from lesbian mothers in the classroom,
should appreciate the eect of minority stress and should learn to support those
coping and dealing with minority stress. On the other hand, granting legal rights
and respect to lesbian parents and their children should lessen the stigma some
of them now suer.
[ p. 301, 2004]
It may be true that stress is important and that legal rights might alleviate it, but
none of these conclusions follow from their narrow study.
This practice of inferring policy implications beyond what the data allow is
found throughout Goldbergs recent 2010 book. This book is essentially a large
survey of the gay parenting literature. At the beginning there is a nod given to
small sample issues, dicult problems of denitions, bias, and the like, but all is
soon forgotten. Almost every chapter ends not with a conclusion but a section on
recommendations for lawyers, practitioners, and legislators that promote same-
sex families. The point is not whether the recommendations have merit or not, but
rather that none of them follow from the empirical ndings. For example, at the
appear unwilling to accept the ndings of their own study and go to lengths to explain why the
results should not be interpreted on their face. The misplaced emphasis is understandable given
their following remark: The available evidence, including this study, fails to provide empirical
grounds for denying child custody to gay or lesbian parents because of concern about their childrens
sexual orientation. (p. 128).
48
Bos et al., pp 299-300, 2004.
23
end of Chapter Four Goldberg authoritatively claims The research on lesbian and
gay parents strongly indicates that they are no less equipped to raise children than
their heterosexual counterparts.
49
This claim is then used as a launching pad for
a series of policy interventions:
...therapists, practitioners, and educators should be aware of the ways in which
social inequities and institutional heterosexism shape the parenting practices and
experiences of sexual minority parents. ... Therapists and practitioners should
support lesbian and gay parents in anticipating and handling disclosure issues ....
Workplaces can play a signicant role in supporting lesbian and gay parents ....
Finally, it is essential that policymakers and court ocials rely on the existing
research as opposed to stereotypes and morally driven arguments in making
custody and adoption decisions that involve lesbian and gay parents.
[pp. 121122, 2010]
One wonders why, if the parents are no less equipped and the children are per-
forming at the same or better level, any policy needs to be implemented to advance
gay households further? But the point is this: these conclusions are based on world
views and do not follow from any of the results discussed in her chapter. Indeed,
given the weak scientic nature of the studies, these opinions are based on stereo-
types and morally driven arguments. Social science research should never develop
like this.
3. Conclusion
Once, in 1919, I reported to him [Adler] a case which to me did not seem particu-
larly Adlerian, but which he found no diculty in analyzing in terms of his theory
of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I
asked him how he could be so sure. Because of my thousandfold experience, he
replied; whereupon I could not help saying: And with this new case, I suppose,
your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.
[Karl Popper, p. 35, 1989]
A consistent remark found within the gay parenting literature relates to how
large and growing it is. New studies are said to conrm many past studies, and
49
Goldberg, p. 120, 2010. As noted throughout, this cannot be concluded for the lesbian studies,
and certainly cannot be concluded for gay parents, for whom there is almost nothing known.
24
there is a general impression that, like a snowball rolling down a hill, the evidence is
mounting and becoming unchallenable. This, of course, is not a scientic conclusion.
A series of weak research designs and exploratory studies do no amount to a growing
body of advanced research. Nock (2001) provided the rst critical assessment of this
literature. He stated then that the only acceptable conclusion at this point is that
the literature on this topic does not constitute a sold body of scientic evidence.
50
Although the best studies have been done recently, Table 1 shows that the majority
of latest studies have the same structural aws found fteen years earlier. Nocks
conclusion still stands.
I have focused on an examination of bias within the literature; however, a few
other characteristics of this literature should be mentioned. First, several papers
use the same data set over and over again, and although they might investigate
dierent issues, they tend to draw the same conclusions. As mentioned, the three
papers by Wainright and Patterson and their coauthor Russell use the same small
data set from the Adolescence Health survey. The three papers by Chan, Raboy,
and Patterson and their co-authors Brooks and Fulcher all use a data sample that
comes from a sperm bank in California. Bos et al. (2008) and Vanfraussen et
al. (2002) use a data set that was, in part, used by Brewaeys et al. (1997) and
MacCallum and Golombok (2004). Stacey (2004) and (2005) use the same data set.
Of course, the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Survey uses the same sample
in each wave. There is nothing wrong with using a data set over again to answer
separate questions or to follow individuals through time. However, one must keep
in mind that the number of independent studies is less than the total number of
studies. Given that each study uses a small sample, this reduction in independent
studies is critical.
A related observation is the dominant role of several researchers. Charlotte
Patterson is a co-author of ten of the fty-two studies, Henny Bos a co-author of
50
Nock, p. 47, 2001.
25
six, Nanette Gartrell a co-author of ve, Judith Stacey and Abbie Goldberg the
co-authors of four, and a few others are co-authors three times. Often they are co-
authors with each other. Again, there is nothing wrong with a scholar dominating
a eld or working with others. However, it once again points to the reduction in
independent studies, and leads to the repetition of specic claims. Three survey
papers have Timothy Biblarz as a co-author which no doubt also helps to create
the impression of a unied body of research. Karl Poppers warning needs to be
heeded.
Finally, as an economist looking in from the outside on psychological, sociolog-
ical, and feminist studies, I was struck by the rhetorical style of the papers. Paper
titles were long and scientic sounding, lending an impression of advanced re-
search. Along the same lines, papers often had many authors, even though almost
all of the papers were short. Many of the secondary authors were likely research
assistants given their general lack of graduate degrees and academic positions. This
practice mimics the tradition found in the physical sciences where every member of
a laboratory is considered an author of a study. And lastly, almost all of the papers
conducted simple dierence of means, Chi-squared, or other testing procedures that
only have meaning when the conditions of a probability sample are met which
they never are. They give the visual impression of hard science where there is none.
An outsider is led to ask: what is the purpose of such a rhetorical style? The
answer can only be that the intended audience of this research is not the scientic
community which sees through it but the community of lawyers, judges, and
politicians who will, and do, decide the fates of gay and lesbian rights. If this is
true, then this very community needs to be aware of the methodological shortfalls
within this literature.
26
References
Allen, D.W. The Grounds For Marriage: Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, and Heterosex-
ual Couples (unpublished working paper, 2011).
Andersson, G., T. Noack, A. Seierstad, and H. Weedon-Fekjaer. The Demograph-
ics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden Demography, 43(1) 2006.
Bailey, J.M., D. Bobrow, M. Wolfe, and S. Mikach. Sexual Orientation of Adult
Sons of Gay Fathers Developmental Psychology vol 31(1), 1995.
Balsam, K., T. Beauchaine, E. Rothblum, and S. Solomon. Three-Year Follow-Up
of Same-Sex Couples Who Had Civil Unions in Vermont, Same-Sex Couples Not
in Civil Unions, and Heterosexual Married Couples Developmental Psychology
44(1) 2008.
Barrett, H. and F. Tasker. Growing up with a gay parent: Views of 101 gay fathers
on their sons and daughters experiences Educational and Child Psychology
18(1) 2001.
Biblarz, T. and J. Stacey How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72 February 2010.
. and E. Savci. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Families Journal
of Marriage and Family 72 June 2010.
Bos H. Planned Gay Father Families in Kinship Arrangements Australia and New
Zealand Journal of Family Therapy December 2010.
27
., and F. van Balen. Children in planned lesbian families: Stigmatisation, psy-
chological adjustment and protective factors. Culture, Health, and Sexuality,
10(3) April 2008a.
., ., and D. van den Boom Child Adjustment and Parenting in Planned
Lesbian Parent Families American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(1) 2007.
., ., ., and Th. Sandfort. Minority Stress, Experience of parenthood
and Child Adjustment in Lesbian Families. Journal of Reproductive and Infant
Psychology, 22(4) 2004.
., ., N. Gartrell, H. Peyser, and T. Sandfort. Children in Planned lesbian
Families: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between the United States and the
Netherlands American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 78(2) 2008b.
Brewaeys, A., I. Ponjaert, E.V. Van Hall, and S. Golombok. Donor Insemina-
tion: Child Development and Family Functioning in Lesbian Mother Families
Human Reproduction, Vol 12(6), 1997.
Chan, R., R. Brooks, B. Raboy, C. Patterson. Division of Labor Among Lesbian
and Heterosexual Parents: Associations With childrens Adjustment Journal
of Family Psychology, Vol 12(3), September 1998a.
. B. Raboy, and C. Patterson. Psychosocial Adjustment among Children
Conceived via Donor Insemination by Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers Child
Development, 69(2) April 1998b.
Chrisp, J. That Four Letter Word-Sons: Lesbian Mothers and Adolescent Sons
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 5(1-2) 2001.
Clarke, V., C. Kitzinger, and J. Potter. Kids Are Just Cruel Anyway: Lesbian
and Gay Parents talk about Homophobic Bullying British Journal of Social
Psychology 43, 2004 .
28
Cloughessy, K. Sorry, But Youre Not a Mother: An Examination of the Validity of
the Defacto Threshold in Determning Motherhood for the Non-birth Mother in
Lesbian-Parented Families Gay& Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 6(2)
2010.
Dundas, S. and M. Kaufman. The Toronto Lesbian Family Study Journal of
Homosexuality 40 2000.
Fairtlough, A. Growing up with a lesbian or gay parent: young peoples perspec-
tives Health and Social Care in the Community 16(5) 2008.
Flaks, D., I. Ficher, F. Masterpasqua, and G. Joseph. Lesbians Choosing Moth-
erhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents and Their
Children Developmental Psychology 31(1) 1995 .
Freedman D. Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us. (New York: Little, Brown and
Company, 2010).
Fulcher, M., E. Sutn, C. Patterson. Individual Dierences in Gender Develop-
ment: Associations with Parental Sexual Orientation, Attitudes, and Division
of Labor Sex Roles 58, 2008.
., R. Chan, B. Raboy, and C. Patterson. Contact with Grandparents Among
Children Conceived Via Donor Insemination by Lesbian and heterosexual Moth-
ers Parenting: Science and Practice 2(1), 2002 .
Gartrell, N. and H. Bos. US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psy-
chological Adjustment of 17 Year Old Adolescents Pediatrics June 7, 2010.
., A. Deck, C. Rodas, and H. Peyser. The National Lesbian Family Study 4:
Interviews With the 10-year Old Children American Journal of Orthopsychia-
try, 75(4) 2005.
29
., A. Banks, N. Reed, J. Hamilton, C. Rodas, and A. Deck. The National
Lesbian Family Study 3: Interviews With Mothers of ve-Year Olds American
Jouranl of Orthopsychiatry, 70(4) 2000.
., , , , , and H. Biship. The National Lesbian Family Study:
2. Interviews with Mothers of Toddlers American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
69(3) July 1999.
Gershon, T., J. Tschann, and J. Jemerin. Stigmatization, Self-Esteem, and Coping
Among the Adolescent Children of Lesbian Mothers. Journal of Adolescent
Health 24, 1999.
Goldberg, A. Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family
Life Cycle (American Psychological Association, Washington D.C, 2010).
. (How) does It Make a Dierence? Perspectives of Adults With Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Parents American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 77(4) 2007.
., J. Downing, C. Sauck. Perceptions of Childrens Parental Preferences in
Lesbian Two-Mother Households Journal of Marriage and Family 70 May 2008.
Golombok, S., B. Perry, A. Burston, C. Murray, J. Mooney-Somers, M. Stevens
, and J. Golding. Children With Lesbian Parents: A Community Study
Developmental Psychology 39(1) 2003.
. and F. Tasker. Do Parents Inuence the Sexual Orientation of Their Chil-
dren? Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families Developmental
Psychology 32(1) 1996.
., and C. Murray. Children raised in Fatherless Families from Infancy:
Family Relationships and the Socioemotional Development of Children of Les-
bian and Single Heterosexual Mothers Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry 38, 1997.
30
Lehmiller, J. Dierences in relationship investments between gay and heterosexual
men Personal Relationships 17(1) 2010.
Leung, P., S. Erich, H. Kanenberg. A Comparison of Family Functions in Gay/Lesbian,
Heterosexual and Special Needs Adoptions Children and Youth Services Review
27, 2005.
Summary
Lev, A. More than Surface Tension: Femmes in Families Journal of Lesbian
Studies, 12(2-3) 2008.
Lewin, E. Book Review: The Family of Woman: Lesbian Mothers, Their Children
and the Undoing of Gender by Maureen Sullivan Theory and Society, 35, 2006.
MacCallum, F., and S. Golombok. Children Raised in Fatherless Families from
Infancy: A Follow-up of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers at
Early Adolescence Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45(8) November
2004.
McNeill, K. and B. Rienzi. Families and Parenting: A comparison of Lesbian and
Heterosexual Mothers Psychological Reports 82, 1998.
Nock, S. L. Sworn adavit of Stephen Lowell Nock. Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. Between Hedy Halpern et al.. and the Attorney General of Canada et
al..: Court File No. 684/00, 2001.
Oswald, R., A. Goldberg, K. Kuvalanka, and E. Clausell. Structural and Moral
Commitment Among Same-Sex Couples: Relationship Duration, Religiosity,
and Parental Status Jouranl of Family Psychology 22(3) 2008.
Patterson, C. Families of the Lesbian Baby Boom: Parents Division of Labor and
Childrens Adjustment Developmental Psychology 31(1) 1995.
31
. Families of the Lesbian Baby Boom: Maternal Mental health and Child
Adjustment Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 4(3/4) 2001.
., S. Hurt and C. Mason. Families of the Lesbian Baby Boom: Childrens
Contact with Grandparents and Other Adults American Journal of Orthopsy-
chiatry 68(3) July 1998.
., C., E. Sutn, and M. Fulcher. Division of Labor Among Lesbian and Het-
erosexual Parenting Couples: Correlates of Specialized Versus Shared Patterns
Journal of Adult Development, 11(3), July 2004.
Price, J., C. Pakaluk, and D.W. Allen. Nontraditional Families and Childhood
Progress through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld Demography (forthcom-
ing).
Popper, K. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientic Knowledge (5th
edition) (London: Routledge, 1989)
Power, J., A. Perlesz, R. Brown, M. Schoeld, M. Pitts, R. Mcnair, and A. Bick-
erdike. Diversity, Tradition and Family: Australian Same Sex Attracted Par-
ents and their Families Gay& Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 6(2)
2010.
Rivers, I., V.P. Poteat, and N. Noret. Victimization, Social Support, and Psy-
chosocial Functioning Among Children of Same-Sex and opposite-Sex Couples
in the United Kingdom. Developmental Psychology 44(1) 2008.
Rothblum, E., K. Balsam, and S. Solomon. Comparison of Same-Sex Couples who
were married in Massachusetts, Had Domestic Partnerships in California, or
Had Civil Unions in Vermont Journal of Family Issues 29(1) January 2008.
Rosenfeld, M. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School
Demography, August 2010.
32
Stacey, J. The Families of Man: Gay Male Intimacy and Kinship in a Global
Metropolis Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3) 2005.
. Cruising to Familyland: Gay Hypergamy and Rainbow Kinship Current
Sociology 52(2) March 2004.
. and T. Biblarz (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?
American Sociological Review 66, 2001.
Sarantkos, S. Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Devel-
opment. Children Australia 21, 1996.
Scheib, J., M. Riordan, and S. Rubin. Adolescents with Open-Identity Sperm
Donors: Reports From 12-17 Year Olds Human Reproduction 20(1), 2005.
Stamp, J. Some Economic Factors in Modern Life (London: P. S. King & Son,
1929).
Sweet, M. The Science of Unisex Parenting: A Review of Published Studies
(unpublished manuscript, 2009).
F. Tasker and S. Golombok. Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65(2), April 1995.
Vanfraussen, K., I Ponjaert-Kristoersen, and A. Brewaeys. What Does it Mean
for youngsters to Grow up in a Lesbian Family Created by Means of Donor
Insemination? Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 20(4), 2002.
Wainright, J. and C. Patterson. Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use
Among Adolescents With Female Same Sex Parents Journal of Family Psy-
chology 20(3) 2006.
. and . Peer Relations Among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex Par-
ents Developmental Psychology 44(1), 2008.
33
., S. Russell, and C. Patterson. Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes,
and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same sex Parents Child De-
velopment November 2004.
Williams Institute. Census Snapshot: 2010 Methodology adjustment procedures
for same-sex couple data. At http://services.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/
pdf/AdjustmentProcedures.pdf, accessed August 29, 2011.
Wright, E. and B. Perry. Sexual Identity Distress, Social Support, and the Health
of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth Journal of Homosexuality 51(1) 2006.
34
APPENDIX
TABLE 1: Summaries of Gay Parenting Studies
Study Random Gay Content
Comparison Time Gay or

Sample Sample Group Size Series Lesbian
Size Data Study
Bailey et al. 1995 No 55 Hard None No G

Flaks et al. 1995 No 30 Soft 30 No L
Patterson 1995 No 26 Soft None No L
Tasker et al 1995 No 25 Soft 21 No L
Golombok et al. 1996 No 25 Hard 21 No L
Sarantakos 1996 No 58 Soft 116 Yes G&L
Brewaeys et al. 1997 No 30 Soft 68 No L
Golombok et al. 1997 No 30 Soft 83 Yes L
Chan et al. 1998a No 30 Soft 16 No L
Chan et al. 1998b No 55 Soft 25 No L
McNeill et al. 1998 No 24 Soft 35 No L
Patterson et al. 1998 No 37 Soft None No L
Gershon et al. 1999 No 76 Soft None No L
Gartrell et al. 1999 No 84 Soft None Yes L
Dundas et al. 2000 No 27 Soft None No L
Barrett et al. 2001 No 101 Soft None No G
Chrisp 2001 No 8 Soft None No L
Patterson 2001 No 37 Soft None No L
Fulcher et al. 2002 No 55 Soft 25 No L
Vanfraussen et al. 2002 No 24 Soft 24 No L
Golombok et al. 2003 No 39 Soft 134 No L
Bos et al. 2004 No 100 Soft None No L
Patterson et al. 2004 No 33 Hard 33 No L
Stacey 2004 No 50 Soft None No G
MacCallum et al. 2004 No 25 Soft 76 No L
Wainright et al. 2004 Yes 44 Hard 44 No L
Leung et al. 2005 No 47 Soft 111 No G& L
Scheib et al. 2005 No 12 Soft 17 No L
Stacey 2005 No 50 Soft None No G
Wainright et al. 2006 Yes 44 Hard 44 No L
Wright et al. 2006 No 156 Soft None No G
Bos et al. 2007 No 99 Soft 100 No L
Goldberg 2007 No 46 Soft None No G & L
Andersson et al. 2008 pop. 2819 Hard 220,949 Yes G & L
Balsam et al. 2008 No 281 Soft 55 No G & L
Cont.
35
APPENDIX
TABLE 1: Summaries of Gay Parenting Studies Cont.
Study Random Gay Content
Comparison Time Gay or

Sample Sample Group Size Series Lesbian
Size Data Study
Bos et al. 2008a No 63 Soft None No L

Bos et al. 2008b No 152 Soft None No L
Fairlough 2008 No 67 Soft None No G & L
Fulcher et al. 2008 No 33 Soft 33 No L
Goldberg et al. 2008 No 30 Soft None No L
Oswald et al. 2008 No 190 Hard None No G & L
Rothblum et al. 2008 pop. 475 Hard None No G,L& T
Rivers et al. 2008 Yes 18 Soft 18 No L
Sutn et al. 2008 No 29 Soft 28 No L
Wainright et al. 2008 Yes 44 Soft 44 No L
Bos 2010 No 36 Soft 36 No G
Gartrell et al. 2010 No 84 Hard 93 Yes L
Lehmiller 2010 No 68 Soft 86 No G
Power et al. 2010 No 455 Hard None No G & L
Rosenfeld 2010 Yes 3502 Hard > 700,000 No G & L
Hard implies the questions asked were potentially veriable, quantiable, and had observable
answers. Soft implies the opposite. Some studies included both and were classied as hard.
G= Gay, L= Lesbian, and T= Transgendered.
36
Same-sex parenting and childrens outcomes: A closer examination of
the American psychological associations brief on lesbian and gay parenting
Loren Marks
Louisiana State University, 341 School of Human Ecology, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 October 2011
Revised 8 March 2012
Accepted 12 March 2012
Keywords:
Same-sex parenting
Lesbian
Gay
a b s t r a c t
In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an ofcial brief on lesbian
and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: Not a single study has found children
of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any signicant respect relative to children
of heterosexual parents (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the
59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1)
homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group charac-
teristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of childrens outcomes studied, (6)
paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclu-
sion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically war-
ranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.
2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, differences have been observed between outcomes of children in marriage-based intact fam-
ilies and children in cohabiting, divorced, step, and single-parent families in large, representative samples.
1
Based on four
nationally representative longitudinal studies with more than 20,000 total participants, McLanahan and Sandefur conclude:
Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a
household with both of their biological parents. . .regardless of whether the resident parent remarries.
2
Differences have recurred in connection with myriad issues of societal-level concern including: (a) health,
3
mortality,
4
and
suicide risks,
5
(b) drug and alcohol abuse,
6
(c) criminality and incarceration,
7
(d) intergenerational poverty,
8
(e) education and/
or labor force contribution,
9
(f) early sexual activity and early childbearing,
10
and (g) divorce rates as adults.
11
These outcomes
represent important impact variables that inuence the well-being of children and families, as well as the national economy.
0049-089X/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006
Fax: +1 225 578 2697.

E-mail address: lorenm@lsu.edu
1
See Table 2; McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) and Wilcox et al. (2005).
2
McLanahan and Sandefur (1994), p. 1 (emphasis in original).
3
Waite (1995).
4
Gaudino et al. (1999) and Siegel et al. (1996).
5
Wilcox et al. (2005, p. 28) and Cutler et al. (2000).
6
Bachman et al. (1997), Flewelling and Bauman (1990), Horwitz et al. (1996), Johnson etal. (1996), Simon (2002), Waite and Gallagher (2000), Weitoft et al.
(2003), and Wilcox et al. (2005).
7
Blackmon et al. (2005), Harper and McLanahan (2004), Kamark and Galston (1990, pp. 1415), Manning and Lamb (2003), and Margolin (1992, p. 546).
8
Akerlof (1998), Blackmon et al. (2005), Brown (2004), Oliver and Shapiro (1997), Rank and Hirschl (1999).
9
Amato (2005), Battle (1998), Cherlin etal. (1998), Heiss (1996), Lansford (2009), Manning and Lamb (2003), McLanahan and Sandefur (1994), Phillips and
Asbury (1993), and Teachman et al. (1998).
10
Amato (2005), Amato and Booth (2000), Ellis et al. (2003), and McLanahan and Sandefur (1994).
11
Cherlin et al. (1995) and Wolnger (2005).
Social Science Research 41 (2012) 735751
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Social Science Research
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ ssr esear ch
By way of comparison, social science research with small convenience samples has repeatedly reported no signicant dif-
ferences between children from gay/lesbian households and heterosexual households. These recurring ndings of no signif-
icant differences have led some researchers and professional organizations to formalize related claims. Perhaps none of these
claims has been more inuential than the following from the 2005 American Psychological Association (APA) Brief on Les-
bian and Gay Parenting.
12,13
Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any signicant respect relative to
children of heterosexual parents.
Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that provides a context for children that is equivalent to the tra-
ditional marriage-based family? Many proponents of same-sex marriage contend that the answer is yes. Others are skeptical
and wondergiven that other departures from the traditional marriage-based family form have been correlated with more
negative long-term child outcomesdo children in same-sex families demonstrably avoid being disadvantaged in any sig-
nicant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents as the APA Brief asserts? This is a question with important
implications, particularly since the 2005 APA Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting has been repeatedly invoked in the cur-
rent same-sex marriage debate.
2. Statement of purpose
The overarching question of this paper is: Are the conclusions presented in the 2005 APA Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting
valid and precise, based on the cited scientic evidence?
14
In the present paper, seven questions relating to the cited scientic
evidence are posed, examined, and addressed.
15
Two portions of the APA Brief are of particular concern to us in connection with these questions: (a) the Summary of
Research Findings (pp. 522), and (b) the rst and largest section of the annotated bibliography, entitled Empirical Studies
Specically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children (pp. 2345). In the latter section (pp. 2345), the APA
references 67 manuscripts. Eight of these studies are unpublished dissertations.
16
The 59 published studies are listed in
Table 1 of this paper, providing clear parameters from which to formulate responses to the seven outlined questions, next.
2.1. Question 1: how representative and culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse were the gay/lesbian households in the
published literature behind the APA brief?
In response to question 1, more than three-fourths (77%) of the studies cited by the APA brief are based on small, non-
representative, convenience samples of fewer than 100 participants. Many of the non-representative samples contain far
fewer than 100 participants, including one study with ve participants (Wright, 1998; see Table 1). As Strasser (2008) notes:
Members of the LGBT community. . .vary greatly in their attitudes and practices. For this reason, it would be misleading to
cite a study of gay men in urban southern California as if they would represent gay men nationally (p. 37).
By extension, it seems that inuential claims by national organizations should be based, at least partly, on research that is
nationally representative.
Lack of representativeness often entails lack of diversity as well.
17
A closer examination of the APA-cited literature from the
Empirical Studies (pp. 2345) section of the APA Brief reveals a tendency towards not only non-representative but racially
homogeneous samples. For example:
12
The APA Briefs stated objective was primarily to inuence family law. The preface states that the focus of the publication. . .[is] to serve the needs of
psychologists, lawyers, and parties in family law cases. . .. Although comprehensive, the research summary is focused on those issues that often arise in family
law cases involving lesbian mothers or gay fathers (APA Brief, 2005, p. 3). Redding (2008) reports that leading professional organizations including the
American Psychological Association have issued statements and that advocates have used these research conclusions to bolster support for lesbigay parenting
and marriage rights, and the research is now frequently cited in public policy debates and judicial opinions (p. 136).
13
Patterson, p. 15 (from APA Brief, 2005).
14
Kuhn (1970/1996) has stated that there is an insufciency of methodological directives, by themselves, to dictate a unique substantive conclusion to many
sorts of scientic questions (p. 3). To draw substantive conclusions, a socially and historically inuenced paradigm is needed. Research is then directed to the
articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies (p. 24). Indeed, paradigmatic biases, and other inuences, can make us
vulnerable to discrepancies between warranted and stated conclusions in the social sciences (Glenn, 1989, p. 119; see also Glenn, 1997).
15
Kuhn (1970/1996) has noted that when scientists disagree about whether the fundamental problems of their eld have been solved, the search for rules
gains a function that it does not ordinarily possess (p. 48).
16
These unpublished dissertations include: Hand (1991), McPherson (1993), Osterweil (1991), Paul (1986), Puryear (1983), Rees (1979), Sbordone (1993), and
Steckel (1985). An adapted portion of one of these dissertations (Steckel, 1985) was eventually published (Steckel, 1987) and is included in the present
examination; the other unpublished work is not included in Table 1 of this paper.
17
Of the 59 published Empirical Studies Specically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children, no studies mention African-American, Hispanic,
or Asian-American families in either their titles or subtitles. The reference list in the APA Briefs Summary of Research Findings (pp. 1522) is also void of any
studies focusing on African-American, Hispanic, or Asian-American families. None of the Empirical Studies Specically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and
Their Children (pp. 2345) holds, as its focus, any of these minorities. (Note: Three years after the 2005 APA Brief, Moore (2008) published a small but
pioneering study on AfricanAmerican lesbians.)
736 L. Marks / Social Science Research 41 (2012) 735751
Table 1
Publications Cited in APA brief on lesbian and gay parenting (pp. 2345).
Author and year GayLes N Hetero N Stat used Cohen
N
Stat
power
Outcome studied Hetero compar
group
Bailey et al. (1995) 55par; 82chl 0 T-test/Chi 393 N/A Sexual orientation None
Barrett and Tasker
(2001)
101 0 T-test/Chi 393 N/A Child responses to a gay parent None
Bigner and Jacobsen
(1989a)
33 33 T-test 393 No Parents reports of values of
children
Fathers
Bigner and Jacobsen
(1989b)
33 33 T-test 393 No Parent reports of parent behavior Fathers
Bos et al. (2003) 100 100 MANOVA 393 No Parental motives and desires Families
Bos et al. (2004) 100 100 MANOVA 393 No Parent reports of couple
relations
Families
Bozett (1980) 18 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Father disclosure of
homosexuality
None
Brewaeys et al. (1997) 30 68 ANOVA 393 No Emotional/gender development DI/Non-DI
Couples
Chan et al. (1998a) 30 16 Various 393 No Division of labor/child
adjustment
DI Couples
Chan et al. (1998b) 55 25 Various 393 Reported Psychosocial adjustment DI Couples
Ciano-Boyce and
Shelley-Sireci (2002)
67 44 ANOVA 393 No Division of child care Adoptive Parents
Crawford et al. (1999) 0 0 MANOVA 393 N/A 388 Psychologists attitudes N/A
Flaks et al. (1995) 15 15 MANOVA 393 No Cognitive/behavioral/parenting Married Couples
Fulcher et al. (2002) 55 25 T-test/Chi 393 Reported DI/adult-child relationships Parents
Gartrell et al. (1996) 154 0 Descript. N/A N/A Prospective Parent Reports None
Gartrell et al. (1999) 156 0 Descript. N/A N/A Reports on parenting issues None
Gartrell et al. (2000) 150 0 Descript. N/A N/A Reports on parenting issues None
Gartrell et al. (2005) 74 0 Descript. N/A N/A Health, school/education None
Gershon et al. (1999) 76 0 Reg. 390 N/A Adolescent coping None
Golombok et al. (1983) 27 27 T-test/Chi 393 No Psychosexual development Single mother
families
Golombok et al. (2003) 39 134 Various 393 No Socioemotional dev./relations Couples &
singles
Golombok and Rust
(1993)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Reliability testing of a pre-school
gender inventory
Golombok and Tasker
(1996)
25 21 Pearson 783 Reported Sexual orientation Children of
single mothers
Golombok et al. (1997) 30 83 MANOVA 393 No. Parentchild interactions Couples &
singles
Green (1978) 37 0 Descript. N/A N/A Sexual identity None
Green et al. (1986) 50par; 56chl 40par; 48chl Various 390 No Sexual identity/social relations Single mothers
Harris and Turner
(1986)
23 16 ANOVA/Chi 393 No Sex roles/relationship with child Single moth. &
fath.
Hoeffer (1981) 20 20 ANOVA 393 No Sex-role behavior Single mothers
Huggins (1989) 18 18 T-test 393 No Self-esteem of adolescent
children
Divorced
mothers
Johnson and OConnor
(2002)
415 0 Various N/A No Parenting beliefs/division of
labor/etc.
None
King and Black (1999) N/A N/A F 393 N/A 338 College students
perceptions
N/A
Kirkpatrick et al. (1981) 20 20 Descript. N/A No Gender development Single mothers
Koepke et al. (1992) 47 couples 0 MANOVA N/A N/A Relationship quality None
Kweskin and Cook, 1982 22 22 Chi-Sqr 785 No Sex-role behavior Single mothers
Lewis, 1980 21 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Child response to m. disclosure None
Lott-Whitehead and
Tully, 1993
45 0 Descriptive N/A N/A Adult reports of impacts on
children
None
Lyons, 1983 43 37 Descriptive N/A No Adult self-reports Divorced
mothers
McLeod et al., 1999 0 0 Mult. regr. N/A No 151 College student reports N/A
Miller, 1979 54 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Father behavior & f-child bond None
Miller et al., 1981 34 47 Chi-Sqr 785 No Mother role/home environment Mothers
Morris et al., 2002 2431 0 MANCOVA N/A N/A Adult reports on coming out None
Mucklow and Phelan,
1979
34 47 Chi-Sqr 785 No Behavior and self-concept Married mothers
OConnell, 1993 11 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Social and sexual identity None
Pagelow, 1980 20 23 Qual/Descr. N/A N/A Problems and coping Single mothers
Patterson (1994) 66 0 T-test 393 No Social/behavioral/sexual identity Available norms
Patterson (1995) 52 0 T-test/Chi/F 393 No Division of labor/child
adjustment
None
(continued on next page)
L. Marks / Social Science Research 41 (2012) 735751 737
1. All of [the fathers in the sample] were Caucasian (Bozett, 1980, p. 173).
2. Sixty parents, all of whom were White comprised the sample (Flaks et al., 1995, p. 107).
3. [All 40] mothers. . .were white (Hoeffer, 1981, p. 537).
4. All the children, mothers, and fathers in the sample were Caucasian (Huggins, 1989, p. 126).
5. The 25 women were all white (Rand et al., 1982, p. 29).
6. All of the women. . .[were] Caucasian (Siegenthaler and Bigner, 2000, p. 82).
7. All of the birth mothers and co-mothers were white (Tasker and Golombok, 1998, p. 52).
8. All [48] parents were Caucasian (Vanfraussen et al., 2003, p. 81).
Many of the other studies do not explicitly acknowledge all-White samples, but also do not mention or identify a single
minority participantwhile a dozen others report almost all-white samples.
18
Same-sex family researchers Lott-Whitehead
and Tully (1993) cautiously added in the discussion of their APA Brief-cited study:
Results from this study must be interpreted cautiously due to several factors. First, the study sample was small (N = 45)
and biased toward well-educated, white women with high incomes. These factors have plagued other [same-sex parent-
ing] studies, and remain a concern of researchers in this eld (p. 275).
Similarly, in connection with this bias, Patterson (1992), who would later serve as sole author of the 2005 APA Briefs
Summary of Research Findings on Lesbian and Gay Families, reported
19
:
Despite the diversity of gay and lesbian communities, both in the United States and abroad, samples of children [and par-
ents] have been relatively homogeneous. . .. Samples for which demographic information was reported have been
described as predominantly Caucasian, well-educated, and middle to upper class.
In spite of the privileged and homogeneous nature of the non-representative samples employed in the studies at that
time, Pattersons (1992) conclusion was as follows
20
:
Despite shortcomings [in the studies], however, results of existing research comparing children of gay or lesbian parents
with those of heterosexual parents are extraordinarily clear, and they merit attention. . . There is no evidence to suggest
that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that
among offspring of heterosexual parents.
Table 1 (continued)
Author and year GayLes N Hetero N Stat used Cohen
N
Stat
power
Outcome studied Hetero compar
group
Patterson (2001) 66 0 Various 393 No Maternal mental health/child
adjustment
None
Patterson et al., 1998 66 0 Various 393 No Contact w/grandparents & adults None
Rand et al. (1982) 25 0 Correlations 783 No Mothers psychological health None
Sarantakos, 1996 58 116 F-test 393 N/A Childrens educational/social
outcomes
Married/non-
married
Siegenthaler and Bigner,
2000
25 26 T-test 393 No Mothers value of children Mothers
Steckel (1987) (Review) N/A N/A N/A No Psychosocial development of
children
None
Sullivan, 1996 34 couples 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Division of labor None
Tasker and Golombok,
1995
25 21 Pearson/T 783 No Psychosocial/sexual orientation Single mothers
Tasker and Golombok
(1997)
27 27 Various 393 Reported Psychological outcomes/family
rel.
Single mothers
Tasker and Golombok
(1998)
15 84 ANCOVA/
Chi
785 N/A Work and family life DI & NC couples
Vanfraussen et al.
(2003)
24 24 ANOVA 393 No Donor insemination/family
funct.
Families
Wainwright et al. (2004) 44 44 Various 393 No Psychosocial/school/romantic Couples
Wright (1998) 5 0 Qualitative N/A N/A Family issues/processes/
meaning
None
N/A = Not applicable (e.g., In connection with statistical power, qualitative studies and studies without heterosexual comparison groups are coded as N/A).
18
Examples of explicit or implicitly all-White (or nearly all-White) samples include, but are not limited to: Bigner andJacobsen (1989a,b), Bozett (1980), Flaks
et al. (1995), Green (1978), Green etal. (1986), Hoeffer (1981), Huggins (1989), Koepke et al. (1992), Rand et al. (1982), Siegenthaler and Bigner (2000), Tasker
and Golombok (1995, 1998), Vanfraussen et al. (2003).
19
Patterson (1992, p. 1029).
20
Patterson (1992, p. 1036) (emphasis added).
Pattersons conclusion in a 2000 review was essentially the same
21
:
[C]entral results of existing research on lesbian and gay couples and families with children are exceptionally clear. . .. [The]
home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are just as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to
enable psychosocial growth among family members.
Although eight years had passed, in this second review, Patterson (2000) reported the continuing tendency of same-sex
parenting researchers to select privileged lesbian samples. Specically, she summarized, Much of the research [still] in-
volved small samples that are predominantly White, well-educated [and] middle-class (p. 1064).
22
Given the privileged,
homogeneous, and non-representative samples of lesbian mothers employed in much of the research, it seems warranted
to propose that Patterson was empirically premature to conclude that comparisons between gay or lesbian parents and het-
erosexual parents were extraordinarily clear
23
or exceptionally clear.
24
There is an additional point that warrants attention here. In Pattersons statements above, there are recurring references
to research on children of gay men/parents. In 2000, Demo and Cox reported that children living with gay fathers was a
rarely studied household conguration.
25
In 2005, how many of the 59 published studies cited in the APAs list of Empirical Stud-
ies Specically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children (pp. 2345) specically addressed the outcomes of children
from gay fathers? A closer examination reveals that only eight studies did so.
26
Of these eight studies, four did not include a het-
erosexual comparison group.
27
In three of the four remaining studies (with heterosexual comparison groups), the outcomes
studied were:
(1) the value of children to. . .fathers (Bigner and Jacobsen, 1989a, p. 163);
(2) parenting behaviors of. . .fathers (Bigner and Jacobsen, 1989b, p. 173);
(3) problems and relationship with child (Harris and Turner, 1986, pp. 1078).
The two Bigner and Jacobsen (1989a,b) studies focused on fathers reports of fathers values and behaviors, not on chil-
drens outcomesillustrating a recurring tendency in the same-sex parenting literature to focus on the parent rather than
the child. Harris and Turner (1986) addressed parentchild relationships, but their studys male heterosexual comparison
group was composed of two single fathers. Although several studies have examined aspects of gay fathers lives, none of
the studies comparing gay fathers and heterosexual comparison groups referenced in the APA Brief (pp. 2345) appear to
have specically focused on childrens developmental outcomes, with the exception of Sarantakos (1996), a study to which
we will later return.
In summary response to question 1 (How representative and culturally, ethnically, and economically diverse were the
gay/lesbian households in the published literature behind the APA Brief?), we see that in addition to relying primarily
on small, non-representative, convenience samples, many studies do not include any minority individuals or families. Fur-
ther, comparison studies on children of gay fathers are almost non-existent in the 2005 Brief. By their own reports, social
researchers examining same-sex parenting have repeatedly selected small, non-representative, homogeneous samples of
privileged lesbian mothers to represent all same-sex parents. This pattern across three decades of research raises signicant
questions regarding lack of representativeness and diversity in the same-sex parenting studies.
2.2. Question 2: how many studies of gay/lesbian parents had no heterosexual comparison group?
Of the 59 publications cited by the APA in the annotated bibliography section entitled Empirical Studies Specically
Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children (pp. 2345), 33 included a heterosexual comparison group. In direct
response to question 2, 26 of the studies (44.1%) on same-sex parenting did not include a heterosexual comparison group. In
well-conducted science, it is important to have a clearly dened comparison group before drawing conclusions regarding
differences or the lack thereof. We see that nearly half of the Empirical Studies Specically Related to Lesbian and Gay Par-
ents and Their Children referenced in the APA Brief allowed no basis for comparison between these two groups (see Table
1). To proceed with precision, this fact does not negate the APA claim. It does, however, dilute it considerably as we are left
with not 59, but 33, relevant studies with heterosexual comparison groups.
2.3. Question 3: when heterosexual comparison groups were used, what were the more specic characteristics of those groups?
We now turn to a question regarding the nature of comparison samples. Of the 33 published Empirical Studies Specif-
ically Related to Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children (APA Brief, pp. 2345) that did directly include a heterosexual
21
Patterson (2000, , p. 1064) (emphasis added).
22
Patterson (2000, p. 1064).
23
Patterson (1992, p. 1036).
24
Patterson (2000, p. 1064).
25
Demo and Cox (2000, p. 890).
26
Bailey et al. (1995), Barrett and Tasker (2001), Bigner and Jacobsen (1989a,b), Bozett (1980), Harris and Turner (1986), Miller (1979), Sarantakos (1996).
27
Bailey et al. (1995), Barrett and Tasker (2001), Bozett (1980), Miller (1979).
comparison group, what were the more specic characteristics of the groups that were compared? The earlier examination and
response related to question 1 documented that, by Pattersons reports, Despite the diversity of gay and lesbian communi-
ties. . .in the United States,
28
the repeatedly selected representatives of same-sex parents have been small samples [of lesbi-
ans] that are predominantly White, well-educated [and] middle-class (p. 1064).
29
In spite of homogeneous sampling, there is considerable diversity among gay and lesbian parents. Considerable diversity
exists among heterosexual parents as well. Indeed, the opening paragraph of the present article noted recurring differences
in several outcomes of societal concern for children in marriage-based intact families compared with children in cohabiting,
divorced, step, and single-parent families.
30
Many of the cited ndings are based on probability samples of thousands (see
Table 2).
Because children in marriage-based intact families have historically fared better than children in cohabiting, divorced,
step, or single-parent families on the above outcomes, the question of what groups researchers selected to represent het-
erosexual parents in the same-sex parenting studies becomes critical. A closer examination of the 33 published same-sex
parenting studies (APA Brief, pp. 2345) with comparison groups, listed chronologically, reveals that:
1. Pagelow (1980) used single mothers as a comparison group (p. 198).
2. Hoeffer (1981) used heterosexual single mothers (p. 537).
3. Kirkpatrick et al. (1981) used single, heterosexual mothers (p. 545).
4. Kweskin and Cook (1982) used women from Parents without Partners (p. 969).
Table 2
Brief overview of 15 intact/divorce/step/single family studies.
(N) Number of reported participants
Probability Is the study based on a probability sample?
Comp Grp Is a probability sample used as a comparison group?
Long Does the study employ measurements across time?
Key ! = Yes; X = No
(N) Probability Comp Grp Long
Amato (1991) 9643 ! ! !
Aquilino (1994) 4516 ! ! !
Brown (2004)
a
35,938 ! ! X
Chase-Lansdale et al. (1995)
b
17,414 ! ! !
Cherlin et al. (1998)
c
11,759 ! ! !
Ellis et al. (2003) 762 ! ! !
Harper and McLanahan (2004)
d
2846 ! ! !
Hetherington and Kelly (2002)
e
1400 ! ! !
Jekielek (1998) 1640 ! ! !
Lichter et al. (2003)
f
7665 ! ! X
Manning and Lamb (2003) 13,231 ! ! X
McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) (based on four data sets)
PSID
g
2900 ! ! !
NLSY
h
5246 ! ! !
HSBS
i
10,400 ! ! !
NSFH
j
13,017
k
! ! !
Mitchell et al. (2009)
l
4663 ! ! !
Nock (1998)
m
3604 ! ! !
Page and Stevens (2005)
n
2023 ! ! !
Total 148,667
a
National Survey of Americas Families (NSAF).
b
United Kingdom study and sample.
c
United Kingdom study and sample.
d
National Longitudinal Survey of Young Men and Women (NLSY).
e
Virginia Longitudinal Study (VLS).
f
National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG).
g
Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID).
h
i
The High School and Beyond Study (HSBS).
j
National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH).
k
This is the total original sample. The sub-sample is unlisted but is likely smaller.
l
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health).
m
n
Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID).
28
Patterson (1992, p. 1029).
29
Patterson (2000, p. 1064).
30
See Footnotes 210 for documentation.
5. Lyons (1983) used heterosexual single mothers (p. 232).
6. Golombok et al. (1983) used single-parent households (p. 551).
7. Green et al. (1986) used solo parent heterosexual mothers (p. 175).
8. Harris and Turner (1986) used 2 male single parents and 14 female single parents (p. 105).
9. Huggins (1989) used divorced heterosexual mothers
31
(p. 123).
10. Tasker and Golombok (1995) used heterosexual single mothers (p. 203).
11. Tasker and Golombok (1997) used single heterosexual mothers (p. 38).
We see that in selecting heterosexual comparison groups for their studies, many same-sex parenting researchers have not
used marriage-based, intact families as heterosexual representatives, but have instead used single mothers (see Table 1).
Further, Bigner and Jacobsen used 90.9 percent single-father samples in two other studies (1989a, 1989b).
32
In total, in at
least 13 of the 33 comparison studies listed in the APA Briefs list of Empirical Studies (pp. 2345) that include heterosexual
comparison groups, the researchers explicitly sampled single parents as representatives for heterosexual parents. The re-
peated (and perhaps even modal) selection of single-parent families as a comparison heterosexual-parent group is noteworthy,
given that a Child Trends (2002) review has stated that children in single-parent families are more likely to have problems than
are children who live in intact families headed by two biological parents.
33
Given that at least 13 of the 33 comparison studies listed in the APA Briefs list of Empirical Studies (pp. 2345) used
single-parent families as heterosexual comparison groups, what group(s) did the remaining 20 studies use as heterosexual
representatives? In closely examining the 20 remaining published comparison group studies, it is difcult to formulate pre-
cise reports of the comparison group characteristics, because in many of these studies, the heterosexual comparison groups
are referred to as mothers or couples without appropriate specicity (see Table 1). Were these mothers continuously
marriedor were they single, divorced, remarried, or cohabiting? When couples were used, were they continuously mar-
riedor remarried or cohabiting? These failures to explicitly and precisely report sample characteristics (e.g., married or
cohabiting) are signicant in light of Browns (2004) nding based on her analysis of a data set of 35,938 US children and
their parents, that regardless of economic and parental resources, the outcomes of adolescents (1217 years old) in cohab-
iting families. . .are worse. . .than those. . .in two-biological-parent married families.
34
Because of the disparities noted by
Brown and others, scientic precision requires that we know whether researchers used: (a) single mothers, (b) cohabiting moth-
ers and couples, (c) remarried mothers, or (d) continuously married mothers and couples as heterosexual comparison groups.
Due to the ambiguity of the characteristics of the heterosexual samples in many same-sex parenting studies, let us frame
a question that permits a more precise response, namely: How many of the studies in the APA Briefs Empirical Studies section
(pp. 2345) explicitly compare the outcomes of children from intact, marriage-based families with those from same-sex families? In
an American Psychologist article published the year after the APA Brief, Herek (2006) referred to a large, national study by
McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) comparing the children of intact heterosexual families with children being raised by a sin-
gle parent. Herek then emphasized that this [large scale] research literature does not include studies comparing children
raised by two-parent same-sex couples with children raised by two-parent heterosexual couples.
35
Isolated exceptions exist
with relatively small samples (as discussed shortly in response to question 4 and as listed in Table 1), but they are rare.
Given what we have seen regarding heterosexual comparison group selection, let us revisit three related claims. First, in
1992, Patterson posited that
36
:
[N]ot a single study has found children of gay and lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any respect relative to children
of heterosexual parents.
Pattersons (2000) claim was similar
37
:
[C]entral results of existing research on lesbian and gay couples and families with children are exceptionally clear. . ..
[The] home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are just as likely as those provided by heterosexual par-
ents to enable psychosocial growth among family members.
Lastly, and most signicantly, we turn to the APA Briefs Summary of Research Findings on Lesbian and Gay Parenting,
also single-authored by Patterson (see p. 5)
38
:
Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any signicant respect relative to
children of heterosexual parents.
31
Four of the 16 [divorced] heterosexual mothers were either remarried or currently living with a heterosexual lover (p. 127).
32
Of the 66 respondents, six were married, 48 were divorced, eight were separated, and four had never been married (Bigner and Jacobsen (1989a, p. 166).
This means the sample was 90.9% single.
33
Moore et al. (2002); for an extensive review, see Wilcox et al. (2011).
34
Brown (2004, p. 364) (emphasis added).
35
Herek (2006, p. 612).
36
37
38
Patterson, p. 15 (from APA Brief, 2005), (emphasis added).
In all three of these claims (including that latter from the 2005 APA Brief), Patterson uses the broad and plural term het-
erosexual parents, a term that includes marriage-based, intact families. This broad claim is not nuanced by the information
that, with rare exceptions, the research does not include studies comparing children raised by two-parent, same-sex couples
with children raised by marriage-based, heterosexual couples. Further, no mention is made that in at least 13 of the 33 ex-
tant comparison studies referenced in the Brief (pp. 2345), the groups selected to represent heterosexual parents were
composed largely, if not solely, of single parents. We now move to another related examination of the APA Brief.
2.4. Question 4: does a scientically-viable study exist to contradict the conclusion that not a single study has found children of
lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged?
There is at least one notable exception
39
to the APAs claim that Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay
parents to be disadvantaged in any signicant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.
40
In the Summary of Find-
ings section, the APA Brief references a study by Sarantakos (1996),
41
but does so in a footnote that critiques the study (p. 6,
Footnote 1). On page 40 of the APA Briefs annotated bibliography, a reference to the Sarantakos (1996) article is offered, but
there is no summary of the studys ndings, only a note reading No abstract available.
Upon closer examination, we nd that the Sarantakos (1996) study is a comparative analysis of 58 children of heterosex-
ual married parents, 58 children of heterosexual cohabiting couples, and 58 children living with homosexual couples that
were all matched according to socially signicant criteria (e.g., age, number of children, education, occupation, and so-
cio-economic status).
42
The combined sample size (174) is the seventh-largest sample size of the 59 published studies listed
in the APA Briefs Summary of Research Findings on Lesbian and Gay Parenting (see Table 1). However, the six studies with
larger sample sizes were all adult self-report studies,
43
making the Sarantakos combined sample the largest study (APA Brief, pp.
2345) that examined childrens developmental outcomes.
Key ndings of the Sarantakos study are summarized below. To contextualize these data, the numbers are based on a tea-
cher rating-scale of performance ranging from 1 (very low performance), through 5 (moderate performance) to 9 (very high
performance).
44
Based on teacher (not parent) reports, Sarantakos found several signicant differences between married fam-
ilies and homosexual families.
45
Language Achievement Married 7.7, Cohabiting 6.8, Homosexual 5.5
Mathematics Achievement Married 7.9, Cohabiting 7.0, Homosexual 5.5
Social Studies Achievement Married 7.3, Cohabiting 7.0, Homosexual 7.6
Sport Interest/Involvement Married 8.9, Cohabiting 8.3, Homosexual 5.9
Sociability/Popularity Married 7.5, Cohabiting 6.5, Homosexual 5.0
School/Learning Attitude Married 7.5, Cohabiting 6.8, Homosexual 6.5
Parent-School Relationships Married 7.5, Cohabiting 6.0, Homosexual 5.0
Support with Homework Married 7.0, Cohabiting 6.5, Homosexual 5.5
Parental Aspirations Married 8.1, Cohabiting 7.4, Homosexual 6.5
a
a
Sarantakos, 1996, pp. 2427.
Sarantakos concluded, Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school
in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting and homosexual couples.
46
The APAs decision to de-emphasize the Sarantakos (1996) study was based, in part, on the criticism that nearly all indi-
cators of the childrens functioning were based on subjective reports by teachers.
47
The Sarantakos study was based, in part,
on teacher reports. However, teacher reports included tests and normal school assessment (p. 24). Subsequently, it may be
39
Other arguably contradictory studies are reviewed by Schumm (2011).
40
41
Among the diverse types of gay/lesbian parents there are at least two major categories that warrant scholarly precision: (a) two lesbian or gay parents
raising an adopted or DI (donor insemination) child from infancy with these and only these two parents; and (b) two lesbian or gay parents raising a child who
is the biological offspring of one of the parents, following a separation or divorce from a heterosexual partner. The Sarantakos sample is of the latter (b) type. In
terms of scholarly precision, it is important to differentiate and not draw strong implications from a to b or b to a. Indeed, the author would posit that
adopted versus DI children may also warrant separate consideration. The core issue is that precision is essential and overextension of ndings should be
avoided. This same issue is of serious concern in connection with the tendency to overextend ndings regarding lesbian mothers to apply to gay fathers (see
Regnerus, this volume).
42
Sarantakos (1996, p. 23).
43
In order, these six studies include: (1) Morris et al., 2002 (N = 2431), who addressed adults reports of coming out; (2) Johnson and OConnor (2002)
(N = 415), who addressed adults reports of parenting beliefs, division of labor, etc.; (3) Crawford et al. (1999) (N = 388), who addressed psychologists self-
reports of gay adoption; (4) King and Black (1999) (N = 338), who addressed college students perceptions of gay parents; (5) Bos et al. (2003) (N = 200), who
addressed parental motives and desires; and (6) Bos et al. (2004) (N = 200), who addressed parental reports of couple relations. These foci are not childrens
outcomes.
44
45
Social Studies Achievement is signicant at the p = .008 level; the eight other differences are signicant at the p = .000 level.
46
47
APA Brief (2005), Footnote 1, p. 6 (emphasis added).
argued that Sarantakos decision not to rely solely or extensively on parent reports, as is done in most same-sex parenting stud-
ies, is a strength, given parents tendencies towards bias when reporting on their own children.
48
Sarantakos
49
also drew data
from school aptitude tests and observations, thereby modeling a research ideal of triangulation of sources.
50
In fact, the study
integrated not only three data sources to triangulate; it featured at least four (i.e., teachers, tests, observations, and child re-
ports). Further, the study controlled for education, occupation, and socio-economic status and then, based on teacher reports,
compared marriage-based families with gay/lesbian families and found nine signicant differenceswith children from mar-
riage-based families rating higher in eight areas. By objective standards, compared with the studies cited by the APA Brief,
the 1996 Sarantakos study was:
(a) The largest comparison study to examine childrens outcomes,
51
(b) One of the most comparative (only about ve other studies used three comparison groups),
52
and
(c) The most comprehensively triangulated study (four data sources) conducted on same-sex parenting.
53
Accordingly, this study deserves the attention of scientists interested in the question of homosexual and heterosexual
parenting, rather than the footnote it received.
As we conclude the examination of question 4, let us review a portion of APAs published negation of Sarantakos (1996)
study
54
:
[Children Australia, the journal where the article was published] cannot be considered a source upon which one should
rely for understanding the state of scientic knowledge in this eld, particularly when the results contradict those that
have been repeatedly replicated in studies published in better known scientic journals.
For other scientists, however, the salient point behind the Sarantakos ndings is that the novel comparison group of mar-
riage-based families introduced signicant differences in childrens outcomes (as opposed to the recurring no difference
nding with single-mother and couple samples). We now turn to the fth question.
2.5. Question 5: what types of outcomes have been investigated?
With respect to the APA Briefs claim that not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to [have] dis-
advantaged [outcomes], what types of outcomes have been examined and investigated? Specically, how many of the same-
sex parenting studies in Table 1 address the societal concerns of intergenerational poverty, collegiate education and/or labor
force contribution, serious criminality, incarceration, early childbearing, drug/alcohol abuse, or suicide that are frequently
the foci of national studies on children, adolescents, and young adults, as discussed at the outset of this paper?
Anderssen and colleagues cataloged the foci of same-sex parenting studies in a 2002 review and reported
55
:
Emotional functioning was the most often studied outcome (12 studies), followed by sexual preference (nine studies),
gender role behavior (eight studies), behavioral adjustment (seven studies), gender identity (six studies), and cognitive
functioning (three studies).
Examination of the articles cited in the 2005 APA Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting yields a list of studied outcomes that
are consistent with Anderssens summary, including: sexual orientation
56
; behavioral adjustment, self-concepts, and
sex-role identity
57
; sexual identity
58
; sex-role behavior
59
; self-esteem
60
; psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal
61
;
socioemotional development
62
; and maternal mental health and child adjustment.
63
48
It is well replicated that individuals tend to rate the group with which they most identify more positively than they do other groups. This positive bias
includes within-family ratings Roese and Olson (2007).
49
Sarantakos is the author of several research methods textbooks (2005, 2007b) and the author/editor of a four-volume, 1672-page work in Sage Publications
Benchmarks in Social Research Series (2007a).
50
Triangulation is a means of checking the integrity of the inferences one draws. It can involve the use of multiple data sources, . . .multiple theoretical
perspectives, multiple methods, or all of these (Schwandt, 2001, p. 257). In effect, the standard of triangulation is advocacy for checks and balances.
51
Six of the 59 studies listed in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 2345) had larger samples, but, as discussed earlier, they all focused on adult reports of adult
perceptions and outcomes.
52
For example, Brewaeys et al. (1997), Golombok et al. (2003, 1997), MacCallum and Golombok (2004), and Tasker and Golombok (1998).
53
In spite of the strong design with respect to triangulation, the Sarantakos study does not appear to be based on a true probability sample, nor is it or a large
sample (although it is a subsample of a 900-plus study). The study is rigorous by comparison to other same-sex parenting studies, but is limited compared with
most of the nationally representative studies on intact families listed in Table 2.
54
Patterson (2005) in APA Brief, p. 7, Footnote 1.
55
Anderssen et al. (2002, p. 343).
56
Bailey et al. (1995) and Golombok and Tasker (1996).
57
Patterson (1994).
58
Green (1978).
59
Hoeffer (1981) and Kweskin and Cook (1982).
60
Huggins (1989).
61
Golombok et al. (1983).
62
Golombok et al. (1997).
63
Patterson (2001).
With these focal outcomes identied, it is noteworthy that all of the aforementioned outcomes of societal-level concern
are absent from the list of most often studied outcome(s) as identied by Anderssen et al.
64
In response to the present arti-
cles question 5 (what types of outcomes have been investigated for children of gay/lesbian families?), it may be concluded: In
the same-sex parenting research that undergirded the 2005 APA Brief, it appears that gender-related outcomes were the dom-
inant research concern. To be more precise, Table 1 lists several categories of information regarding the 59 published empirical
studies; one of these categories is the outcome studied. More than 20 studies have examined gender-related outcomes, but
there was a dearth of peer-reviewed journal articles from which to form science-based conclusions in myriad areas of societal
concern.
65
One book-length empirical study
66
entitled Same-Sex Couples (Sarantakos, 2000, Harvard Press) did examine several issues
of societal concern. In connection with the questions raised in the present article, this study:
(1) includes a diverse sample of lesbian and gay parents instead of focusing on privileged lesbian mothers (question 1);
(2) uses not only one but two heterosexual comparison samples; one married parent sample and one cohabitating parent
sample (questions 2 and 3);
(3) examines several outcomes of societal concern (question 5); and
(4) is unique in presenting long-term (post-18 years old) outcomes of children with lesbian and gay parents (question 6,
addressed later).
This studys conclusion regarding outcomes of gay and lesbian parents reads, in part:
If we perceive deviance in a general sense, to include excessive drinking, drug use, truancy, sexual deviance, and criminal
offenses, and if we rely on the statements made by adult children (over 18 years of age). . .[then] children of homosexual
parents report deviance in higher proportions than children of (married or cohabiting) heterosexual couples (Sarantakos,
2000, p. 131).
The 2005 APA Brief does not cite this study, again leaving us to more closely examine the claim that Not a single study
has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any signicant respect relative to children of heterosex-
ual parents (p. 15).
The Sarantakos (2000) study also includes the report that the number of children who were labeled by their parents as
gay, or identied themselves as gay, is much higher than the generally expected proportion (p. 133). However, the study
also notes areas of no signicant heterosexualhomosexual differences (i.e., Physical and emotional well-being, p. 130),
consistent with the 2005 APA Briefs claims. All of these ndings warranted attention in the 2005 APA Brief but were over-
looked. Of most interest to us here, however, is the novel attention of Sarantakos (2000) on multiple concerns of societal
importance, including drug and alcohol abuse, education (truancy), sexual activity, and criminality.
In any less-developed area of empirical inquiry it takes time, often several decades, before many of the central and most
relevant questions can be adequately addressed. This seems to be the case with same-sex parenting outcomes, as several
issues of societal concern were almost entirely unaddressed in the 2005 APA Brief.
2.6. Question 6: what do we know about the long-term outcomes of children of lesbian and gay parents?
In the preceding response to question 5, the outcomes of intergenerational poverty, criminality, college education and/or
labor force contribution, drug/alcohol abuse, suicide, early sexual activity, early childbearing, and eventual divorce as adults
were mentioned. Close consideration reveals that the majority of these outcomes are not child outcomes. Indeed, most of
these outcomes are not optimally observable until (at the earliest) mid-late adolescence or early adulthood (and in the case
of divorce, not until middle adulthood). As discussed in question 5, virtually none of the peer-reviewed, same-sex parenting
comparison studies addressed these outcomes.
67
Additionally, of the 59 published studies cited by the APA 2005 Brief (pp. 2345), it is difcult to nd comparison studies
of any kind that examine late adolescent outcomes of any kind. The few that utilize comparison groups have comparison
groups of 44 or fewer.
68
Let us further explore the importance of a lack of data centered on adolescents and young adults.
Table 2 identies 15 of the hundreds of available studies on outcomes of children from intact families (as contrasted with
comparison groups such as cohabiting couples and single parents). One of these studies included a data set of 35,938 chil-
drenone of the largest. . .nationally representative survey[s] of US children and their parents.
69
Based on analysis of this
64
65
Including: intergenerational poverty, criminality, college education and/or labor force contribution, drug/alcohol abuse, suicide, sexual activity and early
childbearing, and eventual divorce.
66
This study is a later, larger, and more detailed report on the earlier mentioned Sarantakos (1996) study. The sample of that study was larger than the other
comparison samples in Table 1.
67
Gartrell and colleagues (1999, 2000, 2005) have commenced to do so, but in 2005 they were reporting on children who were only 10 years old (with a
sample size of 74 and no heterosexual comparison group).
68
I.e. Wainwright et al. (2004).
69
Brown (2004), p. 355.
nationally representative sample, Susan Brown emphasized, The ndings of this study. . .demonstrate the importance of sep-
arately examining children and adolescents. She then explained
70
:
Although the outcomes of children (611 years old) in cohabiting families. . .are worse. . .than those of children in two-
biological-parent married families, much of this difference. . .is economic. . .. In contrast, regardless of economic and
parental resources, the outcomes of adolescents (1217 years old) in cohabiting families. . .are worse. . .than those. . .in
two-biological-parent married families.
In short, in the case of cohabiting families and two-biological-parent married families the differences in childrens out-
comes increase in signicance as the children grow older. The likelihood of signicant differences arising between children
from same-sex and married families may also increase across timenot just into adolescence but into early and middle
adulthood. For example, research indicates that [d]aughters raised outside of intact marriages are. . .more likely to end
up young, unwed mothers than are children whose parents married and stayed married, and that [p]arental divorce in-
creases the odds that adult children will also divorce.
71
Longitudinal studies that follow children across time and into adulthood to examine such outcomes are comparatively
rare and valuable. We briey turn to a key nding from one such study that followed children of divorce into middle adult-
hood. Based on a 25-year longitudinal study, Wallerstein and colleagues (2001) state:
Contrary to what we have long thought, the major impact of divorce does not occur during childhood or adolescence.
Rather, it rises in adulthood as serious romantic relationships move center stage. When it comes time to choose a life
mate and build a new family, the effects of divorce crescendo (p. xxix).
Wallersteins research, like nearly all of the studies in the same-sex parenting literature, is based on a small, non-repre-
sentative sample that should not be generalized or overextended. Her longitudinal work does, however, indicate that effects
[can] crescendo in adulthood. Did any published same-sex parenting study cited by the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 2345) track the
societally signicant long-term outcomes into adulthood? No. Is it possible that the major impact of same-sex parenting
might not occur during childhood or adolescence. . .[but that it will rise] in adulthood as serious romantic relationships
move center stage? Is it also possible that when it comes time to choose a life mate and build a new family that the effects
of same-sex parenting will similarly crescendo as they did in Wallersteins study of divorce effects? In response to this or
any question regarding the long-term, adult outcomes of lesbian and gay parenting we have almost no empirical basis for
responding. An exception is provided by the ndings from self-reports of adult children (18 + years of age) in Sarantakos
(2000) book-length study, but those results not encouraging. This is a single study howevera study that, like those cited by
the APA Brief, lacks the statistical power and rigor of the large, random, representative samples used in marriage-based fam-
ily studies (see Table 2). We now move to a nal related empirical question regarding the same-sex parenting literature.
2.7. Question 7: have the studies in this area committed the type II error and prematurely concluded that heterosexual couples and
gay and lesbian couples produce parental outcomes with no differences?
The Summary of Research Findings in the APA brief reads, As is true in any area of research, questions have been raised
with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (p. 5). However, neither statistical power nor
the related concern of Type II error is further explained or addressed. This will be done next.
In social science research, questions are typically framed as follows: Are we 95% sure the two groups being compared are
different? (p < .05). If our statistics seem to conrm a difference with 95% or greater condence, then we say the two groups
are signicantly different. But what if, after statistical analysis, we are only 85% sure that the two groups are different? By
the rules of standard social science, we would be obligated to say we were unable to satisfactorily conclude that the two
groups are different. However, a reported nding of no statistically signicant difference (at the p < .05 level; 95%-plus cer-
tainty) is a grossly inadequate basis upon which to offer the science-based claim that the groups were conclusively the
same. In research, incorrectly concluding that there is no difference between groups when there is in fact a difference is
referred to as a Type II error. A Type II error is more likely when undue amounts of random variation are present in a study.
Specically, small sample size, unreliable measures, imprecise research methodology, or unaccounted for variables can all
increase the likelihood of a Type II error. All one would have to do to be able to come to a conclusion of no difference
is to conduct a study with a small sample and/or sufcient levels of random variation. These weaknesses compromise a
studys statistical power (Cohen, 1988).
It must be re-emphasized that a conclusion of no signicant difference means that it is unknown whether or not a dif-
ference exists on the variable(s) in question (Cohen, 1988). This conclusion does not necessarily mean that the two groups
are, in fact, the same on the variable being studied, much less on all other characteristics. This point is important with same-
sex parenting research because Patterson (1992, 2000) and the 2005 APA Brief seemto drawinferences of sameness based on
the observation that gay and lesbian parents and heterosexual parents appear not to be statistically different from one an-
other based on small, non-representative samplesthereby becoming vulnerable to a classic Type II error.
70
Brown (2004), p. 364.
71
Wilcox et al. (2011), p. 11.
To make the APA Briefs proposition of sameness more precarious, in a review published one year after the APA Brief in
the agship APA journal, American Psychologist, Herek (2006) acknowledged that many same-sex parenting studies have
utilized small, select convenience samples and often employed unstandardized measures.
72
Anderssen et al. (2002) simi-
larly indicated in their review of same-sex parenting studies, The samples were most often small, increasing the chance to con-
clude that no differences exist between groups when in fact the differences do exist. This casts doubt on the external validity of
the studies.
73
With these limitations noted, the 2005 APA Brief explicitly claimed that ndings of non-signicant differences
between same-sex and heterosexual parents had been repeatedly replicated (p. 7, Footnote 1).
Reasons for skepticism regarding the APA Briefs claim that ndings have been repeatedly replicated rest in Neumans
(1997) point that the logic of replication implies that different researchers are unlikely to make the same errors.
74
How-
ever, if errors (e.g., similarly biased sampling approaches employing small, select convenience samples
75
and comparison
groups) are repeated by different researchers, the logic behind replication is undermined. As has been previously detailed in
the response to question 1 in this article, same-sex parenting researchers have repeatedly selected White, well-educated, mid-
dle- and upper-class lesbians to represent same-sex parents. This tendency recurred even after this bias was explicitly identied
by Patterson (1992, 2000).
76
Further, repeated sampling tendencies in connection with heterosexual comparison groups (e.g.,
single mothers), were documented in response to Question 3 in this paper. These repeated (convenience) sampling tendencies
across studies that employed different measures do not seem to constitute valid scientic replication.
An additional scientic question raised by the above information regarding small, select convenience
77
samples is
framed by Stacey and Biblarz (2001) who reveal that many of these [comparative same-sex parenting] studies use conventional
levels of signicance. . .on miniscule samples, substantially increasing their likelihood of failing to reject the null hypothesis.
78
Was the APAs claim that Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged. . .
79
based on
clear scientic evidence or (perhaps) Type II errors? In response, we now turn to the APA-acknowledged but unexplained cri-
tique of low statistical power in these studies (p. 5).
The last three editions of the APA Publication manual (1994, 2001, 2010) have urged scholars to report effect sizes and to
take statistical power into consideration when reporting their results. The APA 5th Publication manual (2001) in use at the
time of APAs 2005 Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting stated:
Take seriously the statistical power considerations associated with your tests of hypotheses. Such considerations relate to
the likelihood of correctly rejecting the tested hypotheses, given a particular alpha level, effect size, and sample size. In
that regard, you should routinely provide evidence that your study has power to detect effects of substantive interest
(e.g., see Cohen, 1988). You should be similarly aware of the role played by sample size in cases in which not rejecting
the null hypothesis is desirable (i.e., when you wish to argue that there are no differences [between two groups]). . .
(p. 24).
This awareness of statistical power in cases when you wish to argue that there are no differences bears directly on
same-sex comparative research. The APA 5th Publication manual (2001) continues:
Neither of the two types of probability [alpha level or p value] directly reects the magnitude of an effect or the strength
of a relationship. For the reader to fully understand the importance of your ndings, it is almost always necessary to
include some index of effect size or strength of relationship in your Results section (p. 25).
Let us review three statements from the APA 5th Publication Manual for emphasis:
(1) The APA urges researchers to: Take seriously the statistical power considerations and routinely provide evidence
(p. 24).
(2) The APA identies a specic concern with sample size and statistical power in connection with cases where authors
wish to argue that there are no differences between compared groups (p. 24).
(3) The APA concludes: It is almost always necessary to include some index of effect size or strength of relationship in
your Results section (p. 25).
The APAs rst highlighted exhortation is that an author should routinely provide evidence that your study has sufcient
power. . .(e.g., see Cohen, 1988) (p. 24). The reference cited here by the APA is the volume Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) by the late psychometrician Jacob Cohen, who has been credited with foundational work in sta-
tistical meta-analysis (Borenstein, 1999). In his APA-cited volume, Cohen states:
72
Herek (2006), p. 612.
73
Anderssen et al. (2002), p. 348.
74
Neuman (1997), p. 150.
75
Herek (2006), p. 612.
76
Further, single mothers have been repeatedly selected to represent heterosexual parents as documented in this papers response to question 3.
77
Herek (2006), p. 612.
78
Stacey and Biblarz (2001, p. 168), Footnote 9.
79
Most psychologists of whatever stripe believe that samples, even small samples, mirror the characteristics of their parent
populations. In effect, they operate on the unstated premise that the law of large numbers holds for small numbers as
well. . .. [Citing Tversky and Kahneman] The believer in the law of small numbers has incorrect intuitions about signif-
icance level, power, and condence intervals. Signicance levels are usually computed and reported, but power and con-
dence levels are not. Perhaps they should be.
But as we have seen, too many of our colleagues have not responded to [this] admonition. . .. They do so at their
peril (p. xv).
Let us contextualize the law of small numbers with respect to the same-sex parenting studies cited in the APA Brief. The
combined non-representative sample total of all 59 same-sex parenting studies in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 2345) is 7800
80
(see Table 1). By comparison, Table 2 lists 15 prominent studies that contrast childrens outcomes in intact, single-parent, di-
vorced, and/or step-family forms using large probability samples and comparison groups.
81
The average sample size in these
studies is 9911
82
a gure larger than all 59 same-sex parenting studies combined (7800).
We now turn to another question relating to Cohens statements: How many of the published same-sex parenting studies
with a heterosexual comparison group cited in APAs Brief (pp. 2345) provide[d] evidence of statistical power, consistent
with APAs Publication Manual and the admonition of Jacob Cohen who is cited in the APA manual? An examination of the
studies indicates that only four of the 59 did so.
83
In addition to Cohens (1988) statement that statistical power is ignored at our own peril, he offered several tables in his
volume for researchers to reference. Employing these tables, statistical experts Lerner and Nagai (2001) computed the sam-
ple sizes required for a power level of .80, or a Type II error rate of .20, or one in ve ndings (p. 102). At this power level,
the minimum number of cases required to detect a small effect size
84
is 393 for a T-test or ANOVA, or 780-plus for Chi-Square
or Pearson Correlation Coefcient tests.
85
In Table 1 of this report, the 59 published same-sex parenting studies cited in the APA
Brief (pp. 2345) are compared against these standards. A close examination indicates that not a single study, including the few
that reported power, meets the standards needed to detect a small effect size. Indeed, it appears that only two of the comparison
studies (Bos et al., 2003, 2004) have combined sample sizes of even half of the minimum number of cases.
86
In their book-length examination of same-sex parenting studies, Lerner and Nagai (2001) further indicate that 17 of the
22 same-sex parenting comparison studies they reviewed had been designed in such a way that the odds of failing to nd a
signicant difference [between homo- and hetero-sexual groups] was 85% or higher.
87
Indeed, only one of the 22 studies they
analyzed revealed a probability of Type II error below 77 percent, and that study did nd differences.
88
These methodological
concerns (and others) were raised and explained in Lerner and Nagais monograph (see pp. 95108), and in an 81-page report by
Nock (2001) preceding the APA Brief.
89
Nock concluded:
All of the [same-sex parenting] articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal aw of design or execution. Not a single one
was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientic research. . .. [I]n my opinion, the only acceptable
conclusion at this point is that the literature on this topic does not constitute a solid body of scientic evidence (Nock,
2001, pp. 39, 47).
80
This gure (7800) includes same-sex parents and their children, as well as heterosexual comparison samples (1404), psychologists (388), and college
students perception reports (489).
81
Table 2 lists 15 studies that contrast childrens outcomes in intact families compared with other family forms using large, probability samples and
comparison groups. The focal topics of these studies are not sexual preference, gender role behavior. . .[and] gender identity (Anderssen et al., 2002, p. 343),
but outcomes such as educational attainment, labor force attachment, and early childbearing (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994, pp. 2021 ), as
recommended in the earlier examination of question 5. Further, all but two of the 15 studies employ longitudinal designs, as recommended in the earlier
examination of question 6.
82
This gure is the result of 148,667 divided by 15 studies.
83
These include Chan et al. (1998b), Fulcher et al. (2002), Golombok and Tasker (1996), and Tasker and Golombok (1997).
84
By way of context, in a 67 study meta-analysis of the average differences in outcomes between children with divorced and continuously marriedparents,
Amato (2001) reported an average weighted effect size of between 0.12 and 0.22 (a 0.17 average) with an advantage in all ve domains considered to
children of continuously married parents (p. 360). These effect sizes of about .20, although statistically robust, would be classied by Cohen (1992) as small
effect sizes. Even so, based on the data, most family scholars would agree that children whose parents remain continuously married tend to fare slightly to
moderately better than when parents divorce. However, large numbers were needed to determine this small but important effect. Indeed, most effect sizes in
social science research tend to be small. Rigorous and sound social science tends to include and account for many inuential factors that each has a small but
meaningful effect size. In social science, detecting a novel large effect from a single variable (whether it is divorce, remarriage, or same-sex parenting), is a
comparatively rare occurrence. If we are to examine possible effects of same-sex parenting with scientic precision and rigor, related examinations would, like
Amatos work, be designed and rened to detect small effect sizes.
85
Cohen (1988) proposes a relatively high power of .90 for cases where one is trying to demonstrate the r [difference] is trivially small (p. 104). If the .90
power were applied, the required sample sizes would further increase. However, because none of the studies in Table 1 of the present report approach the .80
power levels, .90 calculations are unnecessary here.
86
The minimum number of cases is 393. The two Bos et al. studies both have combined samples of 200. Four other larger samples are not comparison
studies Crawford et al. (1999), Johnson and OConnor (2002), King and Black (1999), and Morris et al. (2002).
87
Lerner and Nagai (2001, p. 103).
88
The single exception was Cameron and Cameron (1996) with a comparatively low probability error rate of 25%. This study, like the Sarantakos (1996) study
mentioned earlier, did report some signicant differences between children of heterosexual and homosexual parents but, like Sarantakos (1996), was not
addressed in the body of the 2005 APA brief but was instead moved to a footnote on p. 7. See Redding (2008) for additional discussion (p. 137).
89
For similar critiques preceding the 2005 APA brief, seeNock (2001), Schumm (2004), Wardle (1997), and Williams (2000). For similar critiques post-dating
the 2005 APA brief, see Byrd (2008), Schumm (2010a,b, 2011), and Redding (2008, p. 138).
More specically, Nock identied: (a) several aws related to sampling (including biased sampling, non-probability sam-
pling, convenience sampling, etc.); (b) poorly operationalized denitions; (c) researcher bias; (d) lack of longitudinal studies;
(e) failure to report reliability; (f) low response rates; and (g) lack of statistical power (pp. 3940).
90
Although some of these
aws are briey mentioned in the 2005 APA Summary of Research Findings on Lesbian and Gay Parenting, many of the signif-
icant concerns raised by Nock or Lerner and Nagai are not substantively addressed.
91
Indeed, the Lerner and Nagai volume and
the Nock report are neither mentioned nor referenced.
To restate, in connection with the APAs published urging that researchers: Take seriously the statistical power consid-
erations and routinely provide evidence, the academic reader is left at a disadvantage.
92
Only a few comparison studies
specically reported statistical power at all and no comparison study approached the minimum sample size of 393 needed
to nd a small effect.
The authors response to question 7 has examined how comparisons have been made from a research methods stand-
point. In summary, some same-sex parenting researchers have acknowledged that miniscule samples
93
signicantly in-
crease the chance to conclude that no differences exist between groups when in fact the differences do existthereby
casting doubt on the external validity of the studies.
94
An additional concern is that the APA Briefs claim of repeatedly rep-
licated ndings of no signicant difference rested almost entirely on studies that were published without reports of the APA-
urged effect sizes and statistical power analyses.
95
This inconsistency seems to justify scientic skepticism, as well as the effort
of more closely assessing the balance, precision, and rigor behind the conclusions posed in the 2005 APA Brief.
3. Conclusion
The 2005 APA Brief, near its outset, claims that even taking into account all the questions and/or limitations that may
characterize research in this area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from that which will be
summarized (p. 5). The concluding summary later claims, Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments
provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable childrens
psychosocial growth (p. 15).
96
We now return to the overarching question of this paper: Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that
provides a context for children that is equivalent to the traditional marriage-based family? Even after an extensive reading
of the same-sex parenting literature, the author cannot offer a high condence, data-based yes or no response to this
question. To restate, not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 2345; see Table 1) compares a large,
random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of
married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are
insufcient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make
a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are neededmany of them (e.g., Table 2).
Some opponents of same-sex parenting have made egregious overstatements
97
disparaging gay and lesbian parents.
Conversely, some same-sex parenting researchers seem to have contended for an exceptionally clear
98
verdict of no differ-
ence between same-sex and heterosexual parents since 1992. However, a closer examination leads to the conclusion that
strong, generalized assertions, including those made by the APA Brief, were not empirically warranted.
99
As noted by Shiller
(2007) in American Psychologist, the line between science and advocacy appears blurred (p. 712).
The scientic conclusions in this domain will increase in validity as researchers: (a) move from small convenience sam-
ples to large representative samples; (b) increasingly examine critical societal and economic concerns that emerge during
adolescence and adulthood; (c) include more diverse same-sex families (e.g., gay fathers, racial minorities, and those without
middle-high socioeconomic status); (d) include intact, marriage-based heterosexual families as comparison groups; and (e)
90
Four of these seven issues are addressed in the present paper. The exceptions include researcher bias, failure to report reliability, and low response rates.
91
The 2005 APA Briefs Summary on Research Findings acknowledges criticisms of same-sex parenting research including: (a) non-representative sampling,
(b) poorly matched or no control groups, (c) well-educated, middle class [lesbian] families, and (d) relatively small samples (p. 5). The respective
responses to these criticisms in the APA brief are: (a) contemporary research on children of lesbian and gay parents involves a wider array of sampling
techniques than did earlier studies; (b) contemporary research on children of lesbian and gay parents involves a wider array of research designs (and hence,
control groups) than did earlier studies; (c) contemporary research on children of lesbian and gay parents involves a greater diversity of families than did
earlier studies; and (d) contemporary research has beneted from such criticisms (p. 5). The APA Brief does not challenge the validity of these research
criticisms but notes that improvements are being made.
92
See Schumm (2010b) for more comprehensive, article-length treatment of these statistical issues.
93
Stacey and Biblarz (2001, p. 168).
94
95
Schumm (2010b).
96
The APA Brief also states that the existing data are still limited, and any conclusions must be seen as tentative. Also, that it should be acknowledged that
research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent (p. 15). For some scientists, these salient points seem to
be overridden by the APA Briefs conclusions.
97
This reality has been disapprovingly documented by Shiller (2007).
98
Patterson (1992).
99
In 2006, the year following APAs release of the brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting, former APA president Nicholas Cummings argued that there has been
signicant erosion of the APAs established principle (Shiller (2007), p. 712). . .that when we speak as psychologists we speak from research evidence and
clinical experience and expertise (Cummings (2006), p. 2).
constructively respond to criticisms from methodological experts.
100
Specically, it is vital that critiques regarding sample
size, sampling strategy, statistical power, and effect sizes not be disregarded. Taking these steps will help produce more meth-
odologically rigorous and scientically informed responses to signicant questions affecting families and children.
References
Akerlof, G., 1998. Men without children. Economic Journal 108, 287309.
Amato, P., 1991. Parental absence during childhood and depression in later life. Sociological Quarterly 32, 543556.
Amato, P., 2001. Children of divorce in the 1990s: an update of the Amoato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology 15, 355370.
Amato, P., 2005. The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children 15,
7596.
Amato, P., Booth, A., 2000. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., Ytteroy, E.A., 2002. Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: a review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal
of Psychology 43, 335351.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (forth ed.), 1994. APA, Washington, DC.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (fth ed.), 2001. APA, Washington, DC.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (sixth ed.), 2010. APA, Washington, DC.
Aquilino, W.S., 1994. Impact of childhood family disruption on young adults relationships with parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, 295313.
Bachman, J.G. et al, 1997. Smoking, Drinking and Drug Abuse in Young Adulthood. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., Mikach, S., 1995. Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Developmental Psychology 31, 124129.
Barrett, H., Tasker, F., 2001. Growing up with a gay parent: views of 101 gay fathers on their sons and daughters experiences. Educational and Child
Psychology 18, 6277.
Battle, J., 1998. What beats having two parents?: educational outcomes for AfricanAmerican students in single- versus dual-parent families. Journal of
Black Studies 28, 783801.
Bigner, J.J., Jacobsen, R.B., 1989a. The value of children to gay and heterosexual fathers. Journal of Homosexuality 19, 163172.
Bigner, J.J., Jacobsen, R.B., 1989b. Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. Journal of Homosexuality 19, 173186.
Blackmon, L., Clayton, O., Glenn, N., Malone-Colon, L., Roberts, A., 2005. The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature
Review. Institute for American Values, New York.
Borenstein, M., 1999. Jacob Cohen, PhD, 19231998. Archives of General Psychiatry 56, 581.
Bos, H.M.W., van Balen, F., van den Boom, D.C., 2003. Planned lesbian families: their desire and motivation to have children. Human Reproduction 10, 2216
2224.
Bos, H.M.W., van Balen, F., van den Boom, D.C., 2004. Experience of parenthood, couple relationship, social support, and child-rearing goals in planned
lesbian mother families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, 755764.
Bozett, F.W., 1980. Gay fathers: how and why they disclose their homosexuality to their children. Family Relations 29, 173179.
Brewaeys, A., Ponjaert, I., Van Hall, E.V., Golombok, S., 1997. Donor insemination: child development and family functioning in lesbian mother families.
Human Reproduction 12, 13491359.
Brown, S.L., 2004. Family structure and child well-being: the signicance of parental cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family 66, 351367.
Byrd, A.D., 2008. Conjugal marriage fosters healthy human and societal development. In: Wardle, L. (Ed.), Whats the Harm? Does Legalizing Same-Sex
Marriage Really Harm Individuals, Families or Society? University Press, Lanham, MD, pp. 326.
Cameron, P., Cameron, K., 1996. Homosexual parents. Adolescence 31, 757776.
Chan, R.W., Brooks, R.C., Raboy, B., Patterson, C.J., 1998a. Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: associations with childrens adjustment.
Journal of Family Psychology 12, 402419.
Chan, R.W., Raboy, B., Patterson, C.J., 1998b. Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual
mothers. Child Development 69, 443457.
Chase-Lansdale, P.L., Cherlin, A.J., Kiernan, K.K., 1995. The long-term effects of parental divorce on the mental health of young adults: a developmental
perspective. Child Development 66, 16141634.
Cherlin, A.J. et al, 1995. Parental divorce in childhood and demographic outcomes in young adulthood. Demography 32, 299318.
Cherlin, A.J., Chase-Lansdale, P.L., McRae, C., 1998. Effects of parental divorce on mental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review 63,
239249.
Ciano-Boyce, C., Shelley-Sireci, L., 2002. Who is mommy tonight? Lesbian parenting issues. Journal of Homosexuality 43, 113.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, second ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cohen, J., 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112, 155159.
Crawford, I., McLeod, A., Zamboni, B.D., Jordan, M.B., 1999. Psychologists attitudes toward gay and lesbian parenting. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice 30, 394401.
Cummings, N.A., 2006. The APA and psychology need reform. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (August
12). New Orleans, LA.
Cutler, D.M. et al., 2000. Explaining the rise in youth suicide. Working Paper 7713. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.
Demo, D.H., Cox, M.J., 2000. Families with young children: a review of research in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 876895.
Ellis, B.J. et al, 2003. Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development 74, 801821.
Flaks, D., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F., Joseph, G., 1995. Lesbians choosing motherhood: a comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their
children. Developmental Psychology 31, 104114.
Flewelling, R.L., Bauman, K.E., 1990. Family structure as a predictor of initial substance use and sexual intercourse in early adolescence. Journal of Marriage
and the Family 52, 171181.
Fulcher, M., Chan, R.W., Raboy, B., Patterson, C.J., 2002. Contact with grandparents among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and
heterosexual mothers. Parenting: Science and Practice 2, 6176.
Gartrell, N., Hamilton, J., Banks, A., Mosbacher, D., Reed, N., Sparks, C.H., Bishop, H., 1996. The national lesbian family study: 1. Interviews with prospective
mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 66, 272281.
Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Hamilton, J., Reed, N., Bishop, H., Rodas, C., 1999. The national lesbian family study: II. Interviews with mothers of toddlers. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry 69, 362369.
Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Reed, N., Hamilton, J., Rodas, C., Deck, A., 2000. The national lesbian family study: III. Interviews with mothers of ve-year olds.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 70, 542548.
Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., Banks, A., 2005. The national lesbian family study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year old children. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 75, 518524.
Gaudino, J.A. et al, 1999. No fathers names: a risk factor for infant mortality in the state of Georgia. Social Science and Medicine 48, 253265.
100
At least one such study (Rosenfeld, 2010) has emerged in the years since the 2005 APA brief was issued. This study features a very large sample but has also
received criticism (Schumm, 2011).
Gershon, T.D., Tschann, J.M., Jemerin, J.M., 1999. Stigmatization, self-esteem, and coping among the adolescent children of lesbian mothers. Journal of
Adolescent Health 24, 437445.
Glenn, N.D., 1989. What we know, what we say we know: discrepancies between warranted and stated conclusions in the social sciences. In: Eulau, H. (Ed.),
Crossroads of Social Science. The ICPSR 25th Anniversary Volume. Agathon Press, New York, pp. 119140.
Glenn, N.D., 1997. A reconsideration of the effect of no-fault divorce on divorce rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family 59, 10231025.
Golombok, S., Rust, J., 1993. The pre-school activities inventory: a standardized assessment of gender role in children. Psychological Assessment 5, 131136.
Golombok, S., Tasker, F., 1996. Do parents inuence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families.
Developmental Psychology 32, 311.
Golombok, S., Spencer, A., Rutter, M., 1983. Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 24, 551572.
Golombok, S., Tasker, F., Murray, C., 1997. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socioemotional development of
children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38, 783791.
Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-Somers, J., Stevens, M., Golding, J., 2003. Children with lesbian parents: a community study.
Developmental Psychology 39, 2033.
Green, R., 1978. Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents. American Journal of Psychiatry 135, 692697.
Green, R., Mandel, J.B., Hotvedt, M.E., Gray, J., Smith, L., 1986. Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and
their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior 7, 175181.
Harper, C., McLanahan, S., 2004. Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence 14, 369397.
Harris, M.B., Turner, P.H., 1986. Gay and lesbian parents. Journal of Homosexuality 12, 101113.
Heiss, J., 1996. Effects of African American family structure on school attitude and performance. Social Problems 43, 246267.
Herek, G.M., 2006. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science perspective. American Psychologist 61, 607621.
Hetherington, M., Kelly, J., 2002. For Better or for Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. Norton, New York.
Hoeffer, B., 1981. Childrens acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian mother families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 5, 536544.
Horwitz, A.V., White, H.R., Howell-White, S., 1996. Becoming married and mental health: a longitudinal study of a cohort of young adults. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 58, 895907.
Huggins, S.L., 1989. A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. Journal of
Homosexuality 18, 123135.
Jekielek, S., 1998. Parental conict, marital disruption, and childrens emotional well-being. Social Forces 76, 905936.
Johnson, S.M., OConnor, E., 2002. The Gay Baby Boom: The Psychology of Gay Parenthood. NYU Press, New York.
Johnson, R.A. et al, 1996. The Relationship Between Family Structure and Adolescent Substance Abuse. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Rockville,
MD.
Kamark, E.C., Galston, W.A., 1990. Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s. Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, DC.
King, B.R., Black, K.N., 1999. College students perceptual stigmatization of the children of lesbian mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 69, 220
227.
Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C., Roy, R., 1981. Lesbian mothers and their children: a comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 51, 545551.
Koepke, L., Hare, J., Moran, P., 1992. Relationship quality in a sample of lesbian couples with children and child-free lesbian couples. Family Relations 41,
224229.
Kuhn, T.S., 1970/1996. The Structure of Scientic Revolutions, third ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kweskin, S.L., Cook, A.S., 1982. Heterosexual and homosexual mothers self-described sex-role behavior and ideal sex-role behavior in children. Sex Roles 8,
967975.
Lansford, J.E., 2009. Parental divorce and childrens adjustment. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4, 140152.
Lerner, R., Nagai, A., 2001. No Basis: What the Studies Dont Tell us About Same-Sex Parenting. Marriage Law Project, Washington, DC.
Lewis, K.G., 1980. Children of lesbians: Their point of view. Social Work, 198203.
Lichter, D.T., Graefe, D.R., Brown, J.B., 2003. Is marriage a panacea? Union formation among economically disadvantaged unwed mothers. Social Problems
50, 6086.
Lott-Whitehead, L., Tully, C.T., 1993. The family lives of lesbian mothers. Smith College Studies in Social Work 63, 265280.
Lyons, T.A., 1983. Lesbian mothers custody fears. Women & Therapy 2, 231240.
MacCallum, F., Golombok, S., 2004. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at
early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, 14071419.
Manning, W.D., Lamb, K.A., 2003. Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family 65, 876893.
Margolin, L., 1992. Child abuse by mothers boyfriends: why the overrepresentation? Child Abuse and Neglect 16, 541551.
McLanahan, S., Sandefur, G., 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
McLeod, A.C., Crawford, I., Zecheister, J., 1999. Heterosexual Undergraduates Attitudes Toward Gay Fathers and their Children. Journal of Psychology and
Human Sexuality 11, 4362.
Miller, B., 1979. Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator 28, 544552.
Miller, J.A., Jacobsen, R.B., Bigner, J.J., 1981. The childs home environment for lesbian versus heterosexual mothers: a neglected area of research. Journal of
Mitchell, K.S., Booth, A., King, V., 2009. Adolescents with nonresident fathers: are daughters more disadvantaged than sons? Journal of Marriage and Family
71, 650662.
Moore, M.R., 2008. Gendered power relations among women: a study of household decision making in Black, lesbian step families. American Sociological
Review 73, 335356.
Moore, K.A., Jekielek, S.M., Emig, C.E., 2002. Marriage From a Childs Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It?
Child Trends Research Brief, Washington, DC.
Morris, J.F., Balsam, K.F., Rothblum, E.D., 2002. Lesbian and bisexual mothers and non-mothers: demographics and the coming out process. Journal of Family
Psychology 16, 144156.
Mucklow, B.M., Phelan, G.K., 1979. Lesbian and traditional mothers responses to adult responses to child behavior and self concept. Psychological Reports
44, 880882.
Neuman, W.L., 1997. Social Research Methods, third ed. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Nock, S.L., 1998. Marriage in Mens Lives. Oxford University Press, New York.
Nock, S., 2001. The Afdavit of Steven Nock, Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct. of Justice).
OConnell, A., 1993. Voices from the heart: the developmental impact of a mothers lesbianism on her adolescent children. Smith College Studies in Social
Work 63, 281299.
Oliver, M.L., Shapiro, T.M., 1997. Black Wealth/White Wealth. Routledge, New York.
Page, M.E., Stevens, A.H., 2005. Understanding racial differences in the economic costs of growing up in a single-parent family. Demography 42, 7590.
Pagelow, M.D., 1980. Heterosexual and lesbian single mothers: a comparison of problems, coping, and solutions. Journal of Homosexuality 5, 198204.
Patterson, C.J., 1992. Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development 63, 10251042.
Patterson, C.J., 1994. Children of the lesbian baby boom: Behavioral adjustment, self-concepts, and sex-role identity. In: Greene, B., Herek, G. (Eds.),
Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Psychology: Theory, Research, and Application. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 156175.
Patterson, C.J., 1995. Families of the lesbian baby boom: parents division of labor and childrens adjustment. Developmental Psychology 31, 115123.
Patterson, C.J., 2000. Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 10521069.
Patterson, C.J., 2001. Families of the lesbian baby boom: maternal mental health and child adjustment. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy 4 (3/4),
91107.
Patterson, C.J., 2005. Lesbian and gay parents and their children: summary of research ndings. Lesbian and Gay Parenting: American Psychological
Association, pp. 522.
Patterson, C.J., Hurst, S., Mason, C., 1998. Families of the lesbian baby boom: childrens contacts with grandparents and other adults. American Journal of
Phillips, C.P., Asbury, C.A., 1993. Parental divorce/separation and the motivational characteristics and educational aspirations of African American university
students. The Journal of Negro Education 62, 204210.
Rand, C., Graham, D.L.R., Rawlings, E.I., 1982. Psychological health and factors the court seeks to control in lesbian mother custody trials. Journal of
Rank, M.R., Hirschl, T.A., 1999. The economic risk of childhood in America: estimating the probability of poverty across the formative years. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 61, 10581067.
Redding, R., 2008. Its really about sex: same-sex marriage, lesbigay parenting, and the psychology of disgust. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 15, 128
193.
Roese, N.J., Olson, J.M., 2007. Better, stronger, faster self-serving judgment, affect regulation, and the optimal vigilance hypothesis. Perspectives on
Psychological Science 2, 124141.
Rosenfeld, M.J., 2010. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography 47, 755775.
Sarantakos, S., 1996. Children in three contexts: family, education, and social development. Children Australia 21, 2331.
Sarantakos, S., 2000. Same-Sex Couples. Harvard Press, Sydney.
Sarantakos, S., 2005. Social Research, third ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sarantakos, S., 2007a. Data analysis, vol. 4. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sarantakos, S., 2007b. Tool Kit for Quantitative Data Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.
Schumm, W.R., 2004. What was really learned from Tasker and Golomboks (1995) study of lesbian and single parent mothers? Psychological Reports 94,
422424.
Schumm, W.R., 2010a. Comparative relationship stability of lesbian mother and heterosexual mother families: a review of evidence. Marriage & Family
Review 46, 499509.
Schumm, W.R., 2010b. Statistical requirements for properly investigating a null hypothesis. Psychological Reports 107, 953971.
Schumm, W.R., 2011. Child outcomes associated with lesbian parenting: Comments on Biblarz and Stacys 2010 report. Journal of Human Sexuality 3, 35
80.
Schwandt, T., 2001. Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Shiller, V.M., 2007. Science and advocacy issues in research on children of gay and lesbian parents. American Psychologist 62, 712713.
Siegel, C. et al, 1996. Mortality from intentional and unintentional injury among infants of young mothers in Colorado, 19821992. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine 150, 10771083.
Siegenthaler, A.L., Bigner, J.J., 2000. The value of children to lesbian and non-lesbian mothers. Journal of Homosexuality 39, 7391.
Simon, R.W., 2002. Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and mental health. American Journal of Sociology 107, 10651096.
Stacey, J., Biblarz, T.J., 2001. (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review 66, 159183.
Steckel, A., 1985. Separation-Individuation in Children of Lesbian and Heterosexual Couples. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Wright Institute
Graduate School, Berkeley, CA.
Steckel, A., 1987. Psychosocial development of children in lesbian mothers. In: Bozett, F.W. (Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Parents. Praeger, New York, pp. 7585.
Strasser, M., 2008. The alleged harms of recognizing same-sex marriage. In: Wardle, L. (Ed.), Whats the Harm? Does Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Really
Harm Individuals, Families or Society? University Press, Lanham, MD, pp. 2746.
Sullivan, M., 1996. Rozzie and Harriett? Gender and family parents of lesbian coparents. Gender and Society 10, 747767.
Tasker, F.L., Golombok, S., 1995. Adults raised as children in lesbian families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65, 203215.
Tasker, F.L., Golombok, S., 1997. Growing Up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development. Guilford, New York.
Tasker, F.L., Golombok, S., 1998. The role of co-mothers in planned lesbian-led families. Journal of Lesbian Studies 2, 4968.
Teachman, J.R. et al, 1998. Sibling resemblance in behavioral and cognitive outcomes: the role of father presence. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60,
835848.
Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., Brewaeys, A., 2003. Family functioning in lesbian families created by donor insemination. American Journal of
Wainright, J.L., Russell, S.T., Patterson, C.J., 2004. Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex
parents. Child Development 75, 18861898.
Waite, L., 1995. Does marriage matter? Demography 32, 483507.
Waite, L., Gallagher, M., 2000. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially. Doubleday, New York.
Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J.M., Blakeslee, S., 2001. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. Hyperion, New York.
Wardle, L.D., 1997. The potential impact of homosexual parenting on children. University of Illinois Law Review 1997, 833919.
Weitoft, G.R. et al, 2003. Mortality, severe morbidity, and injury in children living with single parents in Sweden: a population-based study. The Lancet 361,
289295.
Wilcox, W.B. et al, 2005. Why Marriage Matters, second ed. Institute for American Values, New York.
Wilcox, W.B. et al, 2011. Why Marriage Matters, third ed. Institute for American Values, New York.
Williams, R.N., 2000. A critique of the research on same-sex parenting. In: Dollahite, D.C. (Ed.), Strengthening Our Families. Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, UT, pp.
325355.
Wolnger, N.H., 2005. Understanding the Divorce Cycle: The Children of Divorce in their Own Marriages. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Wright, J.M., 1998. Lesbian Stepfamilies: An Ethnography of Love. Harrington Park, New York.

Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted
in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents
were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no
conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-
being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive
parents.

Carol Emig Kristin A. Moore, Ph.D.
President Senior Scholar
Child Trends Child Trends

Marriage from a Childs Perspective: How Does Family Structure
Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?
By Kristin Anderson Moore, Ph.D., Susan M. Jekielek, M.A., and Carol Emig, M.P.P. June 2002
O
verview Policies and proposals to promote marriage have been in the public eye for several years,
driven by concern over the large percentages of American children growing up with just one parent.
The Bush Administration has proposed improving childrens well-being as the overarching purpose of
welfare reform, and its marriage initiative is one of its chief strategies for doing so. In this context,
what does research tell us about the effects of family structure and especially of growing up with two
married parents on children?
This brief reviews the research evidence on the effects of family structure on children, as well as key
trends in family structure over the last few decades. An extensive body of research tells us that children
do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. At the same time,
research on how to promote strong, low-conflict marriages is thin at best. This brief also discusses
promising strategies for reducing births outside of marriage and promoting strong, stable marriages.
This brief is one of a series prepared by
researchers at Child Trends to help inform
the public debate surrounding this years
reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the
centerpiece of the 1996 welfare law.
Family Structure and
Child Well-Being
Research findings linking family structure and
parents marital status with childrens well-being
are very consistent. The majority of children who
are not raised by both biological parents manage to
grow up without serious problems, especially after
a period of adjustment for children whose parents
divorce.
1
Yet, on average, children in single-parent
families are more likely to have problems than are
children who live in intact families headed by two
biological parents.
Children born to unmarried mothers are more
likely to be poor, to grow up in a single-parent
family, and to experience multiple living
arrangements during childhood. These factors,
in turn, are associated with lower educational
attainment and a higher risk of teen and
nonmarital childbearing.
2
Divorce is linked to academic and behavior
problems among children, including depression,
antisocial behavior, impulsive/hyperactive
behavior, and school behavior problems.
3
Men-
tal health problems linked to marital disruption
have also been identified among young adults.
4
Children growing up with stepparents also have
lower levels of well-being than children growing
up with biological parents.
5
Thus, it is
not simply the presence of two parents, as
some have assumed, but the presence of
4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20008
Phone 202-362-5580 Fax 202-362-5533 www.childtrends.org
RESEARCH BRIEF
two biological parents that seems to support
childrens development.
Of course, the quality of a marriage also affects
children. Specifically, children benefit from a
low-conflict marriage. Children who grow up in
an intact but high-conflict marriage have worse
emotional well-being than children whose par-
ents are in a low-conflict marriage.
6
Indeed,
domestic violence can be very destructive to
childrens development.
7
Although research is limited, when researchers
have compared marriage to cohabitation, they
have found that marriage is associated with bet-
ter outcomes for children. One reason is that
cohabiting unions are generally more fragile
than marriage. This fragility means that chil-
dren born to unmarried, cohabiting parents are
likely to experience instability in their living
arrangements, and research shows that multiple
changes in family structure or living arrange-
ments
8
can undermine childrens development.
9
Thus research clearly finds that different family
structures can increase or decrease childrens
risk of poor outcomes, for a variety of reasons.
For example, families are more likely to be poor
or low-income if they are headed by a single par-
ent. Beyond this heightened risk of economic
deprivation, the children in these families have
poorer relationships with their parents, particu-
larly with their biological father, and receive
lower levels of parental supervision and monitor-
ing.
10
In addition, the conflict surrounding the
demise and breakup of a marriage or relationship
can be harmful to children.
Trends in Family Structure
and Childrens Living
Arrangements
Given these consequences for children, it is a
source of concern that an increasing percentage
of children have been growing up with just one
parent over recent decades. This circumstance
has occurred for a variety of reasons, including
rising rates of divorce, nonmarital childbearing,
and cohabitation.
Rising divorce rates accounted for the
initial increase in single parenthood dur-
ing the latter half of the twentieth century.
Single-parent families formed by widowhood
were the initial impetus for providing welfare
and Social Security benefits for children in the
1930s. In the 1970s, however, divorce began to
supplant widowhood as the primary cause of sin-
gle-parent families.
11
Divorce rates continued
to increase into the 1970s and early 1980s, before
stabilizing and then declining in the late 1980s
and 1990s.
12
Births to unmarried women increased
steadily during the post-war decades,
accelerating in the 1980s. This trend also
contributed to an increase in single parenthood.
Over the last 40 years, an historic shift occurred
in the percentage of children living with a parent
who has never married. In the early 1960s, less
than 1 percent of children lived with a parent
who had never married. By 2000, nearly one in
ten children lived with a never-married parent.
13
In addition, today nearly one-third of all births
occur to unmarried women (including never-
married, divorced, and widowed women),
accounting for more than a million births
annually.
14
Contrary to popular perceptions, teenagers
account for less than three in ten nonmarital
births, with women in their twenties accounting
for more than half.
15
Moreover, nonmarital
births are not all first births. Only about half of
all nonmarital births in 1998 were first births,
16
and more than one-third of unmarried mothers
already have children by an earlier partner.
17
Recent data indicate that the nonmarital birth
rate stabilized during the late 1990s. While this
development has been hailed as good news, a
closer examination of the data reveals a more
complex picture. The overall decline in the non-
marital birth rate has been driven by declining
2
birth rates among teens. Among women in their
twenties, the nonmarital birth rate continued to
increase in the late 1990s
18
(see Figure 1).
Cohabitation has increased markedly over
the last several decades. An unmarried par-
ent is not necessarily a parent without a partner.
The increase in families headed by a never-married
parent has been driven by a dramatic increase in
cohabiting couples men and women who, while
not legally married, nevertheless live together in a
marriage-like relationship. And many of these
couples have children. The percentage of adults
who have ever cohabited jumped from 33 percent
in 1987 to 45 percent in 1995, for example.
19
The proportion of children living with two
parents declined for several decades but
has recently increased slightly. The per-
centage of children in the United States living
with two parents decreased from about 88
percent in 1960 to 68 percent in 1996
20
(see Figure 2). There is some indication that
this trend might be reversing, as the percentage
of children living with two parents increased
slightly to 69.1 percent by the year 2000, and the
percentage of children living with just one par-
ent decreased from 27.9 percent in 1996 to 26.7
percent in the year 2000.
21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
c
b
a
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Age in Years
15-19 20-24 25-29
B
i
r
t
h
s

p
e
r

1
,
0
0
0

u
n
m
a
r
r
i
e
d

w
o
m
e
n
74.5
62.2
39.6
FI GUR E 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
Living with two parents Living with one parent
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
10
30
50
70
90
87.7%(1960)
9.1%(1960)
26.7%(2000)
27.9%(1996)
69.1%(2000)
68.0%(1996)
FI GUR E 2
3
Birth Rates for Unmarried Women by Age of Mother,
Women 15-29 Years Old
Percent of Children under 18 Years Old Living in Two-Parent
and One-Parent Families
Source: Martin, J.A., Hamilton, B.E, Ventura, S.J., Menacker F., & Park M.M. Births: Final Data for 2000, Table18.
National Vital Statistics Reports; Vol. 50, no. 5. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2000.
Source: Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 Years Old: 1960 to Present. U.S. Bureau of the Census, online.
Available: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabCH-1.xls; accessed 01/28/02.
Trend data are less available on whether or not
children in two-parent families are living with
both biological parents or in a stepfamily.
Recent data indicate that slightly less than two-
thirds of all children live with both biological
parents (63.6 percent in 1999, according to data
from the National Survey of Americas Families).
22
Welfare reform is only one factor
that might explain the slight decrease in
the percent of children living with only
one parent. The teen birth rate has been
declining since 1991, when it was at its peak, and
the nonmarital birth rate has been relatively sta-
ble since 1994. Also, low levels of unemployment
and the generally strong economy that charac-
terized much of the late 1990s probably made
many men more attractive marriage partners.
These same factors may have increased womens
economic independence, however, lessening their
financial need to marry. Also, changes in the
Earned Income Tax Credit have increased family
incomes, but the marriage penalty may discour-
age marriage. Rising male incarceration rates
have also been cited as contributing to a dimin-
ished pool of marriageable men.
23
Thus welfare reform is one of many factors that
may be contributing to changes in family struc-
ture, but it is not the only or even the most
important factor. Also, researchers will need to
follow this trend over time to determine whether
this recent, slight decline of children living in
single-parent families will continue.
Promoting Healthy Marriages
and Reducing Nonmarital
Childbearing
While research clearly indicates that children
benefit from growing up with both biological par-
ents in a low-conflict marriage, there has been
very little rigorous research on how to promote
and sustain healthy marriages. This is particu-
larly the case for disadvantaged populations,
such as parents likely to be affected by
welfare reform.
Approximately eight in ten pregnancies to teens
and never-married adults are unintended at the
time of conception,
24
and 63 percent of pregnan-
cies to formerly-married adults are unintend-
ed.
25
Helping couples avoid unintended pregnan-
cies is therefore one logical strategy for
increasing the likelihood that children are born
to two married parents who are ready to assume
the responsibilities of parenthood. However,
while there is a growing knowledge base about
how to discourage teen childbearing, there is
not yet an equivalent body of research about
how to reduce births outside of marriage by
adult partners.
Preventing Teen Pregnancy. Several preg-
nancy prevention programs targeted at teens
have been shown to be effective.
26
While purely
informational sex education does not seem to
change sexual behavior, education about preg-
nancy, contraception, and sexually transmitted
diseases is more effective when it meets certain
criteria: it is focused on specific behaviors; it is
based on theory; it gives a clear message; it pro-
vides basic, accurate information; it includes activ-
ities, participant involvement models, and prac-
tice; it uses a variety of teaching methods; it helps
teens develop communication skills; it uses trained
staff; and it uses approaches appropriate for the
age, culture, and experience of its students.
27
In addition, programs that combine youth devel-
opment and sexuality education, and service
learning approaches that provide a sense of con-
nectedness and positive alternatives such as
the Childrens Aid Society program in New York
City have reduced adolescent sexual activity or
childbearing in a number of sites. A similar
result is associated with two high-quality early
childhood intervention programs, notably the
Abecedarian program, which operated in North
Carolina, and the High/Scope Perry Preschool
Project of Ypsilanti, Michigan.
28
In light of this
evidence and strong public consensus for reduc-
ing teen childbearing, policy attention to such
approaches for preventing teen pregnancy are
likely to be fruitful.
29
4
Preventing Nonmarital Childbearing
among Adults. The majority of births outside
of marriage are to adults ages 20 and over, not
teens. At this point, though, other than provid-
ing contraceptive services, little is known about
how to reduce nonmarital pregnancy among
adults. Accordingly, it seems prudent to conduct
studies of varied approaches to reduce sexual
risk-taking, build relationships, and increase
contraceptive use among couples older than
twenty, as well as among teens.
Helping Unmarried Parents to Marry.
Nearly half of all the births that take place out-
side of marriage occur to cohabiting couples,
30
making them a likely target of opportunity for
marriage promotion efforts. Although many
cohabiting couples have one or more children,
the families they form are often fragile, with less
than half of these relationships lasting five years
or more.
31
Another kind of fragile family struc-
ture is what social scientists call a visiting rela-
tionship.
32
This refers to an unmarried mother
and father who, while not living together, are
romantically involved and have frequent contact.
Analyses of data from the Fragile Families and
Child Wellbeing Study provide insights into both
types of unions.
33
The study follows a group of
approximately 5,000 children born to mostly
unwed parents in urban areas at the turn of the
21st century. Of these children, half were born
to unmarried mothers who were living with the
father at the time of the birth, while another
third were in visiting relationships. In both situ-
ations, most fathers were highly involved during
the pregnancy and around the time of the birth,
and a majority of the couples were optimistic
about a future together.
34
Moreover, the study
found that many unmarried mothers and fathers
hold pro-marriage attitudes and want to marry
the other parent of their newborn children.
35
These insights suggest that unmarried parents
may be most receptive to marriage promotion
efforts immediately around the time of birth.
Successful efforts to increase employment and
education among disadvantaged adults may also
indirectly promote marriage. Non-experimental
analyses of data from the Fragile Families and
Child Wellbeing Study suggest that the ability of
either the mother or the father to get and keep a
job (as indicated by levels of education and
recent work experience) increases the likelihood
that an unmarried couple with a child will
marry. These same analyses also suggest that
the likelihood that a couple will marry decreases
if the mother has a child by a previous partner
36
another reason to discourage teen childbearing.
Eliminating or reversing the tax penalty for
married couples on the Earned Income Tax
Credit and in the income tax code may also
remove a disincentive to marriage.
37
Strengthening Existing Marriages and
Relationships. The research consensus is that
a healthy marriage and not just any
marriage is optimal for child well-being. Mar-
riages that are violent or high conflict are cer-
tainly unhealthy, for both children and
adults.
38
Research provides some guidance on
marital practices that are highly predictive of
divorce, including negative communication pat-
terns such as criticism, defensiveness, contempt,
stonewalling, and rejection of a wifes
influence.
39
At this point, though, researchers are only begin-
ning to understand how to promote strong, sta-
ble marriages. The knowledge gap is particular-
ly acute for highly disadvantaged couples, many
of whom have economic and social as well as
relationship problems. The Becoming a Family
Project is a rare instance of a marriage promo-
tion effort that has been rigorously evaluated
(though not for disadvantaged couples). Couples
were recruited for this project from the San
Francisco Bay Area. Results suggest that a pre-
ventive intervention can both enhance marital
stability and promote child well-being.
40
The
program was designed to support communication
5
between partners as they make the transition to
becoming parents (a period during which marital
satisfaction often declines).
Results of an experimental investigation revealed
that couples who took part in the program reported
less decline in marital satisfaction in the first two
years of parenthood than couples with no interven-
tion. There were no separations or divorces among
the parents participating in the couples groups until
the children were three, whereas 15 percent of the
couples without the intervention had already sepa-
rated or divorced.
41
The longer-term evaluation was
mixed. By the time the children completed kinder-
garten, there was no difference in divorce rate
between the experimental and control groups, but
the intervention participants who had stayed
together maintained their marital satisfaction over
the whole period, while satisfaction of couples in the
control group continued to decline. These results
suggest that the potential positive effects of an early
intervention for partners becoming parents might
be maintained longer with periodic booster
shots.
42
The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Pro-
gram (PREP) has received considerable attention in
policy circles, in part because it is at the heart of
Oklahomas much-publicized marriage promotion
efforts. PREP is an educational approach available
both to married and unmarried couples that empha-
sizes strategies that help marriages succeed. Non-
experimental studies of PREP suggest that couples
who plan to marry can be recruited to participate in
the program
43
and that such couples who complete
the program can improve their relationship
skills.
44
The National Institute of Mental Health is
currently funding a rigorous, large-scale evaluation
to test the programs effectiveness.
Providing Premarital Counseling. Unmarried
couples with plans to marry may be stronger targets
for strengthening relationships than those without
plans to marry. Compared to unmarried parents
with low expectations of marrying, unmarried par-
ents with a greater likelihood of marrying have
higher levels of agreement in their relationships,
regardless of their living arrangements. Both
groups, however, rate lower on agreement than
married couples. However, couples with plans to
marry are similar to married couples when it comes
to incidents of abuse and levels of supportiveness.
45
Relationship counseling might help couples decide
whether to marry and also help them to strengthen
their relationship. Finally, evidence that unmarried
couples who marry have higher levels of acquired
skills and education suggests that efforts to provide
job training and education for fathers, as well as
mothers, may enhance their marriage prospects.
Implications for Public Policy
Marriage, divorce, and childbearing (particularly
childbearing by teens and unmarried women) are
highly controversial social issues in the nation
today. They are also intensely personal and
profound individual decisions, with the potential to
alter for better or worse the life trajectories of
adults and children. Not surprisingly, then, there is
relatively little societal consensus on the role of
public policy the role of government in
this arena.
At least three conclusions drawn from research may
help shape a productive public dialogue on
these issues.
First, research clearly demonstrates that family
structure matters for children, and the family struc-
ture that helps children the most is a family headed
by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
Children in single-parent families, children born to
unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or
cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor
outcomes than do children in intact families headed
by two biological parents. Parental divorce is also
linked to a range of poorer academic and behavioral
outcomes among children. There is thus value for
children in promoting strong, stable marriages
between biological parents.
Second, while there may not be societal consensus
on nonmarital childbearing, there is consensus that
childbearing by teens is undesirable for the teen,
for her baby, and for the larger society. There is
also mounting evidence that a variety of programs
and interventions are effective at discouraging teen
6
pregnancy. While specific interventions (such
as sex education, abstinence education, and
the provision of contraceptives) may be con-
troversial, the knowledge that a variety of
effective approaches exist to prevent teen
childbearing should help parents, communi-
ties, and government make progress on this
front. In particular, programs that combine
youth development and sexuality education,
and community service approaches are effec-
tive.
46
Further, evidence indicates that high-
quality early childhood programs can prevent
adolescent childbearing a decade or more
later.
Finally, there is not yet a proven approach for
building strong marriages, particularly for dis-
advantaged unmarried couples only promis-
ing insights from research studies and exist-
ing programs. This is an area in which
carefully designed and rigorously evaluated
demonstration programs could inform both
private decisions and public policies.
Child Trends, founded in 1979, is an independ-
ent, nonpartisan research center dedicated to
improving the lives of children and families by
conducting research and providing science-
based i nf ormat i on t o t he publ i c and
decision-makers.
Child Trends gratefully acknowledges the John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for
support of our Research Brief series, and the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation for support
of this brief. Additional support for Child Trends
communications efforts is generously provided
by Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Editor: Harriet J. Scarupa
Research Assistant: Kristy Webber
Endnotes
1
Hetherington M.E. & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse:
Divorce reconsidered. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
2
Seltzer, J. (2000). Families formed outside of marriage. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1247-1268; McLanahan, S. &
Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3
Peterson, J.L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child
relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 48, 295-307. Amato, P. R. (2000). The con-
sequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62(4), 1269-1287.
4
Cherlin, A., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & McRae, C. (1998). Effect of
parental divorce on mental health. American Sociological Review,
63(2), 239-249.
5
Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating
remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62(4), 1288-1307.
6
Amato, P.R. (2000).
7
Domestic violence and children. The Future of Children, Winter
1999, 9(3). Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Founda-
tion.
8
Graefe, D.R. & D.T. Lichter. (1999). Life course transitions of
American children: Parental cohabitation, marriage and single
motherhood. Demography, 36(2), 205-217.
9
Wu, L. L. & Martinson, B.C. (1993). Family structure and the
risk of a premarital birth. American Sociological Review, 58, 210-
232; Wu, L.L. (1996). Effects of family instability, income, and
income instability on the risk of premarital birth. American Socio-
logical Review, 61(3), 386-406; Moore, K.A., Morrison, D.R., &
Glei, Dana A. (1995). Welfare and adolescent sex: The effects of
family history, benefit levels, and community context. Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, 16(2/3), 207-238.
10
Amato, Paul P.R. (2000).
11
Cherlin, A.J. (1992) Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
12
U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Statistical Abstract of the United
States. The National Data Book. Table Number 77;
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
13
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Indi-
cators of welfare dependence. Annual report to Congress 2001.
Table Birth 4. Washington, D.C.
14
Ventura, S., Backrach, C., Hill, L., Kaye, K., Holcomb, P., &
Koff, E. (1995). The demography of out-of-wedlock childbearing.
Report to Congress on out-of-wedlock childbearing. Hyattsville,
Maryland: Public Health Service.
15
Ventura S.J. & Bachrach, C.A. (2000). Nonmarital childbearing
in the United States, 1940-1999. National Vital Statistics Reports;
Vol. 48, no. 16. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for
Health Statistics.
16
Terry-Humen, E., Manlove, J., & Moore, K. A. (2001, April).
Births outside of marriage: Perceptions vs. reality. Research Brief.
Washington, DC: Child Trends.
17
Mincy R. & Huang, C. C. (2001). Just get me to the church:
Assessing policies to promote marriage among fragile families.
Paper prepared for the MacArthur Network Meeting.
18
Martin J.A., Hamilton B. E., Ventura S. J., Menacker F., & Park
M. M. (2000) Births: Final data for 2000, Table 18. National
Vital Statistics Reports; Vol. 50, no. 5. Hyattsville, Maryland:
National Center for Health Statistics.
19
Bumpass, L. & Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and
implications for childrens family contexts in the United States.
Population Studies, 45, 29-41.
20
Source: Living arrangements of children under 18 years old:
1960 to present. U.S. Bureau of the Census, online. Available:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabCH-1.xls;
accessed 01/28/02.
21
Ibid. See also Dupree, A. & Primus, W. (2001). Declining share
of children lived with single mothers in the late 1990s. Washing-
ton, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Acs, G. & Nel-
son, S. (2001) Honey, Im home: Changes in living arrangements
in the late 1990s. Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief, B-
38. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Cherlin, A. & Fomby,
P. (2002). A closer look at changes in living arrangements in low-
income families. Welfare, children, and families: A three-city
study. Working paper 02-01. Bavier, R. (2002). Recent increases
in the share of young children living with married mothers.
(Unpublished manuscript). Washington, DC: Office of Manage-
ment and Budget.
7
22
Vandivere, S., Moore, K.A., & Zaslow, M. (2000). Childrens family envi-
ronment. Snapshots of Americas families II: A view from the nation and
13 states. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute and Child Trends.
23
U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Statistical Abstract of the United States.
The National Data Book. Table Number 268.
24
Henshaw, S. (1998). Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Fami-
ly Planning Perspectives, 30(1), 24-29.
25
Henshaw, S. (1998).
26
Kirby, D. (2001a). Emerging answers. Washington, D.C.: National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
27
Kirby, D. (2001a).
28
Kirby, D. (2001b). Understanding what works and what doesnt in
reducing adolescent sexual risk-taking. Family Planning Perspectives,
33(6), 276-281.
29
Sawhill, I. (2002). Testimony before the Subcommittee on Human
Resources, Committee on Ways and Means. April 11, 2002.
30
Bumpass & Lu (2000).
31
Bumpass & Lu (2000).
32
McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., & Mincy, R.B. (2001). Fragile families,
welfare reform, and marriage. Welfare Reform and Beyond Policy Brief
#10, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.
33
This study is at the Center for Research on Child Wellbeing at Princeton
University and Columbia University.
34
McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., & Mincy, R.B. (2001).
35
Osborne, C. (2002). A new look at unmarried families: Diversity in
human capital, attitudes, and relationship quality. Center for Research on
Child Wellbeing working paper.
36
Mincy, R. & Huang, C. C. (2001)
37
Horn, W. & Sawhill, I. (2001). Fathers, marriage, and welfare reform. In
Blank, R. & Haskins, R. (Eds.), The new world of welfare. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
38
See, Domestic violence and children. The Future of Children, Winter
1999, 9(3). Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
39
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship between
marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swan-
son, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed
interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5-22.
40
Cowan, C. and Cowan, P. (2000). When partners become parents: The big
life change for couples. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates.
41
Schultz, M.S., & Cowan, C. P. (2001). Promoting healthy beginnings:
Marital quality during the transition to parenthood. Paper presented at
the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.
42
Schultz, M.S., & Cowan, C. P. (2001).
43
Halweg, K., Markman, H. Thurmaier, F., Engl, J., & Eckert, V. (1998).
Prevention of marital distress: Results of a German prospective longitudi-
nal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(4), 543-556.
44
Markman, H., Floyd, F., Stanley, S., & Storaasli, R. (1988). Prevention
of marital distress: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 210-217.
45
Osborne, C. (2002).
46
Child Trends (2002, May). Preventing teenage pregnancy, childbearing,
and sexually transmitted diseases: What the research shows. Research
Brief. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
2002 Child Trends
4 3 0 1 C o n n e c t i c u t A v e n u e , N W , S u i t e 1 0 0
W a s h i n g t o n , D C 2 0 0 0 8
R E T U R N P O S T A G E G U A R A N T E E D
N O N P R O F I T
U . S . P O S T A G E
P A I D
P e r m i t N o . 1 8 9 7
W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .

11/1/03 JMARRFAM 876 Page 1
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
11/1/03 J. Marriage & Fam. 876
2003 WLNR 12921714

Journal of Marriage & the Family
Copyright 2003 National Council on Family Relations

November 1, 2003

Volume 65; Issue 4

Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families

Manning, Wendy D
Lamb, Kathleen A

HEADNOTE

Cohabitation is a family form that increasingly includes children. We use the National Longitudinal Study of Ado-
lescent Health to assess the well-being of adolescents in cohabiting parent stepfamilies (N = 13,231). Teens living with
cohabiting stepparents often fare worse than teens living with two biological married parents. Adolescents living in
cohabiting stepfamilies experience greater disadvantage than teens living in married stepfamilies. Most of these dif-
ferences, however, are explained by socioeconomic circumstances. Teenagers living with single unmarried mothers
are similar to teens living with cohabiting stepparents; exceptions include greater delinquency and lower grade point
averages experienced by teens living with cohabiting stepparents. Yet mother's marital history explains these differ-
ences. Our results contribute to our understanding of cohabitation and debates about the importance of marriage for
children.

Key Words: adolescence, child well-being, cohabitation, family structure, marriage, stepfamilies.

An extensive literature exists that examines the importance of family structure (defined by marital status) for child
well-being. Marital status acts as an indicator of the potential number of caretakers and may imply certain character-
istics or qualities of the child's family life. This emphasis on marital status was perhaps more appropriate when rela-
tively few children lived in cohabiting unions. Recent estimates indicate that two fifths of children are expected to
spend some time in a cohabiting parent family (Bumpass & Lu, 2000), and 41% of cohabiting unions have children
present (Fields & Casper, 2000). Despite this shift in children's experience in cohabitation, research on the implica-
tions of cohabitation for children's lives is relatively sparse.

In this paper we examine the well-being of adolescents in cohabiting stepparent families. We use the term cohabiting
stepfamily to indicate living with one biological parent and the parent's partner (cohabiting stepfamily). We address
three key questions in this paper. First, do teenagers in cohabiting stepparent families have similar academic and
behavioral outcomes as teenagers living with two married biological parents? We begin with this question because
over half of the children in the United States live with two married biological parents (Fields, 2001), and most research
on family structure contrasts how children in specific family types fare compared with children living with married,
two-biological-parent families. Second, do children residing with cohabiting stepparents fare better or worse than
children living with single mothers? We focus on children living with unmarried mothers and determine how their
cohabitation status influences child well-being. Third, do adolescents in cohabiting stepfather families fare as well as
adolescents living in married stepfather families? We test whether children living with stepfathers fare better when
their mother is married, rather than cohabiting. For each question, we evaluate whether the effects of parental cohab-
itation are explained by socioeconomic circumstances, parenting, and family instability.

This paper builds on prior research and moves beyond previous work in several key ways. First, by employing a large
data source (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health), our analyses are based on a relatively large number
of adolescents in cohabiting stepfather families. Second, the rich nature of the data allows us to include potentially
important factors that represent family processes and may help account for some observed effects of family structure.
Third, we are not limited to a single indicator of well-being and focus on multiple measures of well-being that are
appropriate for teenagers. Finally, to better understand the implications of cohabitation on child well-being, we focus
on family-type comparisons based on similar household structure (stepfather presence; cohabiting stepfather vs.
married stepfather) or mother's marital status (unmarried mothers; cohabiting mother vs. single mother).

BACKGROUND

Cohabitation As a Family Structure

Children in the United States are increasingly likely to spend some of their lives residing in a cohabiting parent family.
Indeed, two fifths of cohabiting households include children (Fields & Casper, 2000). In 1999, 6% of children were
living with a cohabiting parent (Acs & Nelson, 2001). Bumpass and Lu (2000) estimate that two fifths of children in
the United States are expected to experience a cohabiting parent family at some point during their childhood, and
children born during the early 1990s will spend 9% of their lives living with parents who are in cohabiting unions.

Adolescents in cohabiting parent families typically are living with their mother and her cohabiting partner. Based on
the 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation, half (54%) of the children in cohabiting parent families lived
with one biological parent (Fields, 2001). Given the instability of cohabiting unions for children, older children in
cohabiting parent families primarily live with their mother and her partner who is not their biological parent (Manning,
Smock, & Majumdar, in press). Brown (2002) reports that almost all children over the age of 12 in cohabiting parent
families are living with only one biological parent. Thus, cohabitation for adolescents (unlike for young children)
represents a family that is structurally similar to a stepfamily.

Cohabitation and Family Life

Children in cohabiting parent families experience family life that differs from those raised with married or single
parents. Children raised in cohabiting couple families may experience different developmental outcomes, in part
because of the family environment or context in which children are raised. We discuss three potential contextual
mechanisms through which family structure, and specifically cohabiting parent families, may influence child
well-being: economic circumstances, instability, and parenting.

Economic status. Children raised in families with higher socioeconomic status experience more positive cognitive and
social developmental indicators of well-being (e.g., Carlson & Corcoran, 2001; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997;
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Indicators of both family income and mother's education exert positive effects on
child development, but income rather than mother's education seems to have a stronger influence on child outcomes
(Duncan & Brooks-Gunn). It appears that income typically does not explain the effects of family structure on child
well-being, but for some outcomes, it does reduce the effect of family structure (Carlson & Corcoran; Duncan &
Brooks-Gunn; Hill, Yeung, & Duncan, 2001; McLanahan & Sandefur). On average, children raised in cohabiting
parent families experience economic situations that are better than those of children in single-parent families (e.g.,
greater parental education and family earnings), but more stressful economic situations than children in married
couple families (e.g., greater poverty and food insecurity; Acs & Nelson, 2002; Manning & Lichter, 1996).

Family stability. Family stability is positively related to child and young adult behavior (Hao & Xie, 2001; Hill et al.,
2001; Wu & Martinson, 1993). At times family stability has a stronger influence on child outcomes than family
structure. It is argued that the stress of family change hinders normal developmental transitions among children (Hao
& Xie; Hill et al; Wu & Martinson). Family stability may be particularly important in assessments of the effect of
cohabitation because children born to cohabiting parents experience higher levels of instability than children born to
married parents (Manning et al., in press).

Parenting. Parental monitoring is important for keeping children's behavior on task and ensuring that children meet
their individual responsibilities. Empirical evidence supports the notion that parental monitoring has positive effects
on children. For example, McLanahan (1997) reports lack of supervision by parents is associated with poor school
performance among children in single and stepparent families. Another core feature of parenting is parental support,
which is positively related to desirable outcomes for children and adolescents (e.g., Baumrind, 1991). For instance,
interacting with children in positive ways has been shown to raise grade point averages and decrease externalizing
behaviors (e.g., O'Connor, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1997). Parent-child relationships that cross household
boundaries also influence children's development. Evidence suggests that closeness to nonresident fathers is positively
associated with child well-being (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; White & Gilbreth, 2001).

Parenting in cohabiting unions may have become easier as cohabitation moves toward social acceptance, but cohab-
iting unions with children present still do not benefit from legal and social recognition (e.g., Durst, 1997; Mahoney,
2002). Thus the responsibilities of cohabiting partners to children are not specified, creating sources of parenting
ambiguity in terms of obligations and rights of cohabiting partners to their partner's children. Research that distin-
guishes parenting behaviors of cohabitors from married couples or single parents supports the notion that slightly
more negative parenting practices occur among cohabiting parents (Brown, 2002; Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones, 2000;
Hofferth & Anderson, 2003; Thomson, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992). Yet parenting indicators do not explain the
effect of parental cohabitation on child well-being (Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones; Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan,
1994; White & Gilbreth, 2001).

Cohabitation and Child Outcomes

To date, a limited but growing number of studies examine the social well-being of children living in cohabiting parent
families (e.g., Brown, 2001; DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones, 2002; Hao & Xie, 2001; Nelson,
Clark, & Acs, 2001; Thomson et al., 1994). Often these researchers contrast the well-being of children in cohabiting
parent families with children living with two biological married parents. The focus of most of these studies is not
specifically on cohabitation but more broadly on how family structure influences child well-being. The results of these
studies indicate that children in cohabiting parent families fare worse than their counterparts in married,
two-biological-parent families.

A limitation of this approach is that it confounds the effects of marriage and living with two biological parents. Re-
search on family structure recognizes the importance of adults' biological ties to children and argues that children in
two-biological-parent families fare better than children living with a stepparent (see Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000).
Following this logic, the biological relationship of cohabiting partners should be considered in the analysis of child
well-being. Many of the children who are living in cohabiting parent families, particularly older children, are not
living with their biological father, making the traditional married stepparent family a more appropriate comparison
group. To better understand the influence of cohabitation, we argue that comparisons should be made across families
who share either the same biological relationships to parents (two biological parents or stepfamilies) or parental
marital status (married or unmarried), and differ in terms of the presence or absence of a cohabiting partner (Manning,
2002).

The findings from empirical work suggest that teenagers and children in cohabiting parent stepfamilies sometimes fare
worse in terms of behavior problems and academic performance than children in married stepparent families (Brown,
2001; Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1996; Morrison, 2000; White & Gilbreth, 2001). Other research suggests
that adolescents and children in cohabiting stepparent families share similar levels of behavior problems and academic
achievement as children in married stepparent families (Brown; Morrison, 1998, 2000). The findings seem to depend
on the gender and age of the child as well as the specific dependent or outcome variable (e.g., math scores vs. verbal
scores or internalizing vs. externalizing behavior).

Only a few studies contrast the well-being of children in unmarried mother families who have a cohabiting parent with
those who do not. Analysis of the 1999 National Survey of American Families (NSAF) suggests teenagers living in
single-mother and cohabiting stepparent families share similar levels of behavior problems (Acs & Nelson, 2002).
Work using longitudinal data and multivariate, fixed effects models finds that teenagers living with cohabiting
mothers and unmarried mothers share similar levels of behavior problems (Morrison, 1998).

Two shortcomings of prior work are limited samples and a narrow range of covariates. First, a few studies are re-
stricted only to children of divorce (Buchanan et al., 1996; Morrison, 1998, 2000). The implications of cohabitation
may differ among children who have lived with married biological parents compared with children who have never
lived with their biological father. In addition, other data sources (such as the National Survey of Families and
Households [NSFH]) have small numbers of children in cohabiting, two-biological-parent and cohabiting stepparent
families, and sample sizes become even smaller when two waves of data are used (e.g., Hao & Xie, 2001; White &
Gilbreth, 2001). Finally, data sources such as the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) include less than
optimal measures of parental cohabitation. Parental cohabitation is measured annually, so research using these data is
biased toward longer term cohabiting unions (more than 1 year; Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones, 2002; Morrison, 2000).
Thus, analyses using the NLSY may be underestimating the negative effects of cohabitation because only longer term
unions are included in the data.

A second shortcoming is that some research includes only a narrow set of independent variables. Thus, prior studies
cannot explore potential explanations about why children in cohabiting parent families fare differently than children in
other family types, disentangling the effects of family structure from other factors. First, a few studies include only
socioeconomic indicators, such as gender, parental education, and poverty (Hanson, McLanahan, & Thomson, 1997;
Nelson et al, 2001). Second, other research does not include measures of family instability or indicators of relationship
quality (Acs & Nelson, 2002; Thomson et al., 1994). The NSAF does not include questions about duration of the
parents' relationship or relational history (Acs & Nelson; Brown, 2001; Nelson et al., 2001). Other studies that include
measures of family stability do not incorporate measures of the resident parents' relationship quality (DeLeire & Kalil,
2002; Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones, 2002; Hao & Xie, 2001). Third, many studies do not include measures of par-
enting strategies when evaluating the effects of parental cohabitation on well-being (exceptions include Brown, 2001,
and Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones). Also, nonresident biological fathers are often ignored. Rarely have relationships
with non-resident fathers been considered in assessments of how children living with cohabiting parents fare, despite
the fact that this relationship may be advantageous to the child's well-being (White & Gilbreth, 2001).

CURRENT INVESTIGATION

Three broad questions are addressed in this paper. First, the literature shows that children are generally better off when
they live with two biological, married parents (e.g., Brown, 2002; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). In addition, in 1996
over 50% of the children in the United States were living in married, two-biological-parent families (Fields, 2001).
Therefore, a basic starting point is to demonstrate whether teenagers living with cohabiting stepparent families fare the
same or worse than children living with two married, biological parents.

Given the vast literature that supports the relative strength of the married, two-biological-parent family, of greater
interest in this analysis will be other family structure comparisons. Our second question is whether cohabitation pro-
vides any advantage for children living with unmarried mothers. Based on both social control and economic depri-
vation perspectives, children in single-parent families may fare worse than children in cohabitation because they lack
the benefits of income and parenting that a cohabiting partner may provide. As a result, we anticipate that children in
cohabiting-parent families will fare better than children in single-mother families. A competing hypothesis is that
children experience some disadvantages by living with a mother's unmarried partner who may not be a fully integrated
family member and may compete for their mother's time and attention. Family roles may not be as clearly established
in cohabiting stepfamilies, perhaps creating confusion over parenting responsibilities and weak child-stepparent re-
lationships. This hypothesis is consistent with the role ambiguity perspective used to understand stepfamilies. In this
case, adolescents in cohabiting stepfamilies would fare worse than adolescents in single-mother families. Finally, we
may find no effect of cohabitation as the benefits and costs of a cohabiting parent outweigh one another. The bulk of
research on stepfamilies indicates that children in stepfamilies and single-mother families share similar developmental
outcomes (Coleman et al., 2000). Thus we may find that adolescents who live in cohabiting stepfamilies fare as well as
children who reside with a single mother.

Third, do children experience any advantage by living in a married (or traditional) rather than in a cohabiting step-
parent family? We determine whether children in married stepparent families fare as well as children in cohabiting
stepparent families. Marriage provides the socioeconomic benefits and stability that cohabitation does not offer.
Moreover, family roles may be clearly defined and child-stepparent relationships more formalized in married than in
cohabiting stepparent families. We expect children in married stepfamilies to have better developmental outcomes
than children in cohabiting stepfamilies. Once we account for the parent's relationship with the child, family stability,
and socioeconomic characteristics, however, these differences according to marital status may no longer exist. These
findings may suggest that marriage itself does not create the advantage experienced by children in married stepparent
families. If differences persist, then such findings would indicate that some feature of cohabitation itself (i.e., role
ambiguity) may have negative consequences for children in this type of family structure.

Previous work provides some initial evidence about the effects of cohabitation on child well-being. In this project we
build on previous studies in four key ways. First, many of the previous studies do not distinguish between adolescents
and younger children. Our focus on adolescents limits our conclusions to one stage of childhood, but at the same time
allows us to detail the effects of family structure for a critical period of development. We examine outcomes that are
most salient for adolescents.

Second, most adolescents in cohabiting parent families are living with only one biological parent (Brown, 2001).
Thus, answers to questions about the effects of cohabitation require being specific about the family type contrasts. The
traditional approach is to compare the well-being of all children in cohabiting families with those in married,
two-biological-parent families. Yet, contrasting the well-being of adolescents in married and cohabiting stepfamilies
is more appropriate because these families share the same basic structure (biological mother and her cohabiting
partner).

Third, we include a range of indicators of well-being. For example, we do not rely on a single measure to indicate
academic achievement. We include measures of Peabody Picture Vocabulary Tests, grades in school, and college
expectations. As any one measure may suffer some shortcomings, taken together we have indicators of well-being that
tap several dimensions of adolescent behavior and academic well-being.

Fourth, we are able to include key variables that may explain some of the effects of family structure on child outcomes.
We include measures of parenting characteristics (closeness to mother and nonresident father, as well as monitoring);
socioeconomic status (mother's education and family income); and family stability (number of mother's marriages and
duration of relationship). Most prior work has accounted for one or more of these measures, but no study has ac-
counted for all of these factors simultaneously.

In addition to our measures of socioeconomic status, family stability, and parenting, we control for a number of
sociodemographic and child characteristics, including race and ethnicity, mother's age, child's age and sex, number of
children in the household, and importance of religion to the child. Although residing in a cohabiting or single-parent
family is increasingly common for all children, it is a more common feature of the life experiences of Black and
Hispanic children (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). We also control for mother's age; older mothers may be more skilled at
parenting, which in turn may result in increased attentiveness to children's needs. The number of one's siblings is
related negatively to academic achievement (e.g., Carlson & Corcoran, 2001), presumably because more children in
the household means parents possess fewer instrumental and emotional resources to invest in each child individually.
In terms of the characteristics of the adolescent, boys tend to experience more behavior problems than girls, and girls
tend to have higher academic achievement than boys (Carlson & Corcoran). We control for child's age, as older
children may experience fewer behavior problems as a function of maturity. We also control for the importance of
religion to the adolescent, as involvement with an institution that encourages adherence to particular moral standards
may act as an agent of social control to discourage deviant behavior in young people. Families who encourage reli-
gious attendance may also more closely monitor the actions of their children.

METHOD

Data

We draw on the first wave of the National Longitudinal Adolescent Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). The
Add Health is based on interviews with students in grades 7 through 12 and their parents in 1995. These data are based
on a sample of 80 high schools and 52 middle schools from the United States. We use the contractual data that include
in-home interviews administered to 18,924 students with a response rate of 78.2% (Udry, 1998). These sample schools
were selected with unequal probability of selection. Once design effects are taken into account, these data are na-
tionally representative of adolescents in the United States (see Bearman, Jones, & Udry, 1997). We use procedures in
a software package, STATA, to ensure our results are nationally representative with unbiased estimates (Chantala &
Tabor, 1999).

In this paper we use the first wave of the Add Health data. This cross-sectional analysis provides a basic starting point
for understanding whether parental cohabitation is associated with indicators of child well-being. Researchers often
emphasize how changes in family structure influence child outcomes without understanding whether and how specific
family structures are associated with child outcomes. Furthermore, fixed effects models do not allow for the analysis
of how core, fixed, sociodemographic variables such as race or gender influence adolescent outcomes.

The Add Health is appropriate because it contains a large number of adolescents living in cohabiting parent families,
includes key measures of consequential adolescent outcomes, and has rich measures of family processes that may
explain some of the observed differences in family structure. Other data sources, such as the National Survey of
American Families and Current Population Survey, provide information only about the current family situation and no
details about family stability. Yet the Add Health data do not include details about family structure histories.

Our analytic sample depends on the question that we address. Dividing the sample is necessary because not all of the
predictors used for analyses of married, two-biological-parent families can be applied to the unmarried and stepparent
families (e.g., number of mother's prior marriages and nonresident father closeness). We begin by contrasting the
well-being of children in cohabiting stepparent families to those living in married, two-biological-parent families,
including all possible family types. Our analytic sample consists of 13,231 adolescents. Our next analysis is limited to
teens living in stepfamilies and single-mother families. We make two sets of specific family comparisons. First, we
examine the well-being of adolescents living with unmarried mothers (single-mother vs. cohabiting-mother families)
so we can estimate the effect of cohabitation among unmarried mothers. Second, we focus on teenagers living with
stepfathers (married stepfather families vs. cohabiting stepfather families) so we can determine the influence of formal
marital status among children living with stepfathers. Our analysis of teens living with single mothers and stepfathers
is based on 5,504 respondents.

Dependent Variables

We include a range of indicators of well-being. The indicators of behavior problems are ever having been expelled or
suspended from school, experiencing trouble in school, and self-reported delinquency scores. The suspension or
expulsion measure is a dichotomous measure simply indicating whether the respondent ever received an out of school
suspension from school or an expulsion from school. This is coded such that 1 = yes and 0 = no. Unlike the other
outcomes, expulsion or suspension may occur prior to the formation of the current family, but provides a rough in-
dicator of problem behavior. The second measure, problems in school, assesses the respondent's difficulty in the
school context. The four items comprising the scale indicate the degree, since the start of the school year, the re-
spondent has had problems getting along with teachers, paying attention in school, getting homework done, and get-
ting along with other students. (All items are coded such that 0 = never, 1 = just a few times, 2 = about once a week, 3
= almost every day, and 4 = every day.) The responses are summed so the scores may range from 0 to 16. This measure
has a Cronbach [alpha] reliability of .69. The delinquency scale is composed of 15 items asking the frequency that
respondents engaged in a series of delinquent acts over the past 12 months, including painting graffiti or signs on
someone else's property or in a public place; deliberately damaging property; lying to parents or guardian about whom
respondent had been with; taking something from a store without paying for it; getting into a serious physical fight;
hurting someone badly enough to need medical care; running away from home; driving a car without the owner's
permission; stealing something worth more than $50; going into a house or building to steal something; using or
threatening to use a weapon to get something from someone; selling marijuana or other drugs; stealing something
worth less than $50; taking part in a fight where a group of friends was against another group; or being loud, unruly, or
rowdy in a public place. Responses (scored such that 0 = never, 1 = one or two times, 3 = three or four times, 3 = five
or more times) were summed such that the scores ranged from 0 to 45. After the items were summed, cases were
omitted from analysis when less than 75% (11 items) of the items had valid responses. Cases where 75% or more of
the items had valid data were given the mean of the scale on any items with missing data. This strategy allows us to
retain respondents in our sample and base delinquency scores on a minimum of 11 items. The delinquency measure
has a high Cronbach [alpha] reliability of .85.

Measures of cognitive development or academic achievement and expectations are student-reported grade point av-
erage, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and college expectations. Only one measure may not be an adequate indi-
cator of academic achievement. Low grade point average is a dichotomous measure indicating whether, of four subject
areas in school (English, mathematics, history or social studies, and science), the respondent received two or more
grades of D or lower. Respondents receiving two or more Dx or Fs were coded as 1, and respondents receiving one or
no Ds or Fs were coded as 0. We use this measure of poor academic performance because grading systems vary
considerably across schools, and student grades depend on the types of classes students attend (e.g., advanced
placement courses vs. a general curriculum). The second indicator is an abbreviated version of the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test. We use the age-standardized scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This is
considered a measure of verbal cognitive ability or development. The third indicator measures expectations for col-
lege. Respondents were asked how much they want to go to college (responses ranging from 1 = low to 5 = high). The
mean response on this question was high with a value of 4.

Independent Variables

Family structure. The key independent variable is family structure. Cohabitation family status is established by the
adolescent response in the household roster question and by the parent's response to relationship questions. If either
the adolescent or the parent reports that the parent has a cohabiting partner, then the family is coded as a cohabiting
parent family. We find very few adolescents live in two-biological-parent cohabiting families. This is consistent with
findings from other data (Brown, 2002). Thus, we limit our analyses of cohabitation to adolescents living with their
biological mother and her cohabiting partner (cohabiting stepfather families). Our family structure categories include
two married biological parents, single mother, married stepfather, and cohabiting stepfather. Table 1 shows the dis-
tribution of the independent variables according to each family type. Among adolescents living in stepfamilies, one
third live with cohabiting parents and two thirds live with married parents. Among adolescents living with unmarried
mothers, 13% are living with their mother and her cohabiting partner. The unmarried mothers may be never married,
divorced, or widowed. These findings mirror those reported in the NSAF and NSFH (Brown, 2002; Bumpass, 1994).

The remaining independent variables are divided into three categories: sociodemographic, parenting or socialization
variables, and family stability. The distribution for each of the independent variables is provided in Table 1.

Sociodemographic. Race and ethnicity respondents is based on their own response and coded into four categories:
Black, White, Latino, and Other. The "other" category includes groups that are too small to distinguish in analyses. In
both stepparent and unmarried mother families, the majority of the adolescents are White, whereas 15% are Black and
12% Latino. The family income measure is logged and the family income values are higher among teens in married
stepparent families than in the other family types. A shortcoming of the Add Health data is that a considerable share
(23%) of the sample has missing data on income. To avoid deleting all of these cases, respondents with missing in-
come are coded to the mean value of income and a dummy variable is included in the model that indicates which
respondents were missing on income. Mother's age is coded as a continuous variable, and the mean value is 32.
Mother's education is coded on an ordinal scale (1 = eighth grade or less; 2 = more than eighth grade, but did not
graduate from high school; 3 = went to a business, trade, or vocational school in place of high school; 4 = received a
GED; 5 = high school graduate; 6 = went to college but did not graduate; 7 = graduated from a college or university; 8
= had professional training beyond college). On average, single mothers have a high school education, and mothers in
married stepfamilies have the highest levels of education. Religiosity is measured by responses to questions about the
importance of religion in the life of the adolescent. The responses range from 1 to 4, with 1 indicating not at all im-
portant and 4 indicating very important. The mean response is 3.3, indicating religion is considered fairly important.
The mean age of the child is 15 and the ages range from 11 to 21. The sample is evenly split between boys and girls.
On average, about one other child lives in the household.

IMAGE TABLE

1

TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES, BY FAMILY STRUCTURE (N = 13,231)

Family stability. Indicators of family stability include mother's relationship history and duration of current relation-
ship. The number of mother's prior marriage-like relationships is included as a control variable. These relationships
are asked about in reference to the 18-year period prior to Wave I, or from 1977-1995, so these refer to changes in
mother's relationships during the course of the child's lifetime. Single mothers have been in, on average, only one
marriage-like relationship, and cohabiting and married mothers in this sample have been in, on average, two rela-
tionships. The following indicator of stability is applied only to the stepfamily analysis. Stability of the stepfamilies is
measured in terms of the duration of the parental relationship. The mean duration of the cohabiting stepfamilies is 4.4
years, and the mean duration of the married stepfamilies is 6.7 years. This is consistent with findings from the NSFH
(Hao & Xie, 2001).

Parenting. The parenting measures focus on control and support. Parental control is based on a seven-item scale with
high values indicating high control. The questions are coded dichotomously (0 = yes and 1 = no) and then summed.
Adolescent respondents are asked whether parents let them make their own decisions about the time they must be
home on weekend nights, the people they hang around with, what they wear, how much TV they watch, which TV
programs they watch, what time they go to bed on week nights, and what they eat. The [alpha] reliability of the scale is
.64. The mean level of control is 1.83, indicating a fairly low level of parental supervision.

Closeness to resident mother is an individual item, asking teens how close they feel to their mothers, coded 1 = not at
all, 2 = very little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = quite a bit, 5 = very much. The average closeness to mothers ranges between
quite a bit to very much. Unfortunately, the data do not include questions about closeness to cohabiting stepfathers.
For those respondents who report having a nonresident biological father, the same question is included as a predictor.
The average value is somewhat close. We also include a dummy variable measuring whether responses were missing
on closeness to nonresident father. This strategy allows us to retain the variable in our analyses; approximately one
quarter of the sample is missing on the indicator of closeness to nonresident father.

Design

We correct for design effects and the unequal probability of selection using STATA (Chantala & Tabor, 1999). The
analytic method depends on the nature of the dependent variables. Logistic regression is used for analyses of di-
chotomous dependent variables, whether the adolescent was expelled or suspended from school and whether the teen
received low grades. Ordinary least square regressions are estimated for all remaining outcomes.

Our analytic strategy is to estimate a series of models for each outcome. We first estimate a zero-order or bivariate
model that includes only the family structure variable. The second model we present adds the remaining factors,
including socioeconomic, parenting, and family stability measures. We also enter variables separately to assess how
they contribute to the fit of the models, but because of space constraints, we do not present the results in the tables.

RESULTS

Distribution of Adolescent Outcomes

Table 2 presents the mean and median values of the dependent variables according to each family type. This provides
information about the basic levels of the well-being indicators and shows the range of values for the measures of
well-being. Most teenagers, regardless of family type, were not expelled or suspended from school. Two fifths of the
adolescents in single-mother and cohabiting stepfather families were expelled or suspended, and three tenths of teens
living in married stepfather families experienced school suspension or expulsion. Delinquency levels range from 0 to
45, so those reported are quite low, and the mean values are highest for teens living in cohabiting stepfather families.
In terms of school problems, the values fall within a narrow range from 3.95 to 4.79, suggesting that the majority of
teenagers have just a few troubles in school. The measure of academic achievement shows that the vast majority of
teens in each family type have not received Ds or Fs in two or more subjects. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test is
an indicator of cognitive development, and the scores range from 98 to 104, with adolescents in married,
two-biological-parent families scoring best. Finally, most teens possess high expectations for attending college, and
there appears to be only slight variation according to family type.

Cohabiting Stepparent and Married, Two-Biological-Parent Families

Our first aim is to contrast the well-being of children in cohabiting stepfamilies to children living in married,
two-biological-parent families (reference category in Table 3). The inclusion of the entire sample for these analyses
prevents us from using the couple-level indicators (duration, relationship quality); number of mother's prior marriages;
and relationship with nonresident fathers in the models. We highlight the findings related to the well-being of teen-
agers living in cohabiting stepparent families. Notably, adolescents living in married, two-biological-parent families
generally fare better than teenagers living in any other family type.

IMAGE TABLE

2

TABLE 2. MEANS (STANDARD ERRORS) OF OUTCOME VARIABLES (N = 13,231)

The first three columns show that teens who reside in cohabiting stepfather families experience 122% (exponential
value of 0.80) higher odds of being expelled from school, greater levels of delinquency, and more school problems
than teenagers residing with two married, biological parents. The next three columns indicate that adolescents living
with cohabiting stepfathers are more likely to have a low grade point average or experience 90% (exponential value of
0.64) greater odds of low grades and score worse on the vocabulary lest. Teenagers living with cohabiting stepfathers
have similar expectations of going to college as teenagers living with two married, biological parents. At the bivariate
level, college expectations are lower among teens living with cohabiting stepfathers than teens living with two bio-
logical married parents. The effects of the other covariates vary across adolescent outcomes. We find that higher levels
of family income and mother's education are typically related to higher levels of child well-being. Girls appear to fare
better than boys. Younger children more often have higher levels of delinquency, school problems, low GPA, and lack
college expectations. Religiosity often is associated with higher levels of child well-being. Teenagers who are closer
to their mothers have fewer behavioral and academic problems.

Cohabiting Stepparent, Married Stepparent, and Single-Mother Families

The first row of Table 4 shows the effect of living with married rather than cohabiting stepparents on adolescent
problem behaviors. These sets of findings reflect the importance of formal marital status. The second row presents the
effect of living with a single mother rather than cohabiting stepparents on teenage problem behaviors. These results
indicate how mothers' cohabitation influences teenage well-being among unmarried mothers. The first model shows
the zero-order or bivariate effects, and the second model presents the effects of family structure, net of the other
variables. We present the family structure effects for each model and then discuss the effects of the remaining co-
variates.

The first column shows that at the bivariate level, teenagers living in married stepparent families have significantly
lower odds of being suspended or expelled from school than teens residing in cohabiting stepparent families. The
second model shows that this family structure effect can be explained by the other covariates. No single factor explains
the effect of family structure: Sociodemographic variables in conjunction with the parenting variables (closeness to
mother and monitoring) reduce the effect of marital status. Thus in the multivariate model teens living in married and
cohabiting stepparent families share similar odds of being suspended or expelled from school. We shift the reference
category to single mothers and find that children living in married stepfather families have similar odds of being
suspended or expelled as their counterparts living in single-mother families (results not shown). The next row indi-
cates that adolescents living with single mothers have similar odds of being expelled or suspended from school as
adolescents living with their mother and her cohabiting partner. This is true in both the bivariate and multivariate
models.

IMAGE TABLE

3

TABLE 3. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS ESTIMATES OF ADOLESCENT BEHAVIORAL AND ACADEMIC
OUTCOMES (N = 13.231)

IMAGE TABLE

4

TABLE 4. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS ESTIMATES OF ADOLESCENT BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES (N =
5,504)

In terms of delinquency, teens living in married stepfather families have significantly lower levels than teens living in
cohabiting stepfather families. The results in the next column suggest that the inclusion of the remaining covariates
reduces but does not fully explain the marital status effect. The multivariate model indicates that teenagers living in
married rather than cohabiting stepparent families have significantly lower delinquency scores. We also find that
teenagers living with married stepfathers have lower levels of delinquency than teens living with single mothers
(results not shown).

Delinquency is significantly lower among adolescents living with just their mother than those living with their mother
and her cohabiting partner. Yet the next column includes all of the covariates and shows that these differences are no
longer statistically significant. The effect of family structure on delinquency is primarily explained by the number of
mother's marriages.

The last two columns in Table 4 present the effects of the covariates on school problems. The bivariate and
mullivariate model results show that teenagers in cohabiting and married stepfather families have similar levels of
school problems. Further analyses indicate that married stepfathers and single mothers have similar school problems
(results not shown). The next row shows teenagers living with single mothers and cohabiting partners share similar
levels of trouble in school.

The remaining covariates in Table 4 operate in the expected direction and vary somewhat depending on the particular
outcome. Younger teenagers and boys consistently are more likely to experience problems. The indicator of im-
portance of religion is also negatively associated with problem behaviors. The greater the number of mother's mar-
riages, the higher the incidence of problem behaviors. Closeness to mother as well as closeness to nonresident father
are associated with fewer problem behaviors.

Further analyses of only teenagers living in stepfamilies reveal that duration of the parental relationship is usually not
associated with adolescent behavior problems (results not shown). We also tested whether the effects of family type
differ according to the duration of the parental relationship. Analyses of interaction effects indicate that the effects of
family type differ according to duration for only one outcome, school problems (results not shown). The effect of
marital status on school problems is greater early in the relationship and then diminishes at later union durations.

Table 5 shows the effects of cohabitation on academic well-being, and the table format mirrors Table 4. The first
column of Table 5 shows that teenagers living in married stepfather families have lower odds of earning low grades
than teens in cohabiting stepfather families. Yet the inclusion of the remaining covariates (income in particular) ex-
plains this difference. We also do not find statistical differences between teens living in married slepfamilies and
single-mother families (results not shown). The next row shows that adolescents living with unmarried mothers who
are cohabiting have higher odds of having low grades than teens living with single mothers. The inclusion of the
remaining covariates shifts the relationship between family structure and grades such that teens in cohabiting step-
parent and single-mother families share similar odds of having low grades. The family structure differences are ex-
plained by our indicator of family stability, the number of mother's marriages.

The next two columns present the effects of family structure on verbal ability. At the bivariate level, adolescents in
married stepfather families score higher on the vocabulary test than teens in cohabiting stepfather families. The effect
of cohabitation is reduced with the inclusion of the explanatory variables; however, the family effect is marginally
significant (p = .06). In contrast, teenagers living in married stepfather and single-mother families share similar levels
of verbal ability (results not shown). Adolescents living in unmarried mother families without cohabiting partners and
with cohabiting partners have statistically similar verbal ability scores, suggesting that teens' mother's cohabitation
status is not related to cognitive development.

The last two columns focus on college expectations. The bivariate results demonstrate that adolescents living in
married stepfather families possess higher college expectations than adolescents living in cohabiting stepfamilies. The
final column, however, shows that these family structure differences no longer persist when the remaining covariates
are included. The positive effect of marriage on college expectations reduces to nonsignificance when income or
mother's education is included in the model. Similarly, teenagers living with married stepfathers and single mothers do
not differ in terms of college expectations (results not shown). In both bivariate and multivariate models, youth living
in cohabiting stepfather families and single-mother families share similar expectations for college. Among children
living with unmarried mothers, the cohabiting parent does not appear to improve or worsen adolescents' school as-
pirations.

IMAGE TABLE

5

TABLE 5. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS ESTIMATES OF ADOLESCENT ACADEMIC OUTCOMES (N =
5,504)

In terms of the remaining covariates, we find minority youth more often have lower academic outcomes than Whites.
Mother's education, family income, and religiosity are associated with higher academic achievement. Boys have lower
college expectations and grades than girls. Closeness to mothers and nonresident fathers is related to higher college
expectations and grades. Additional analyses of just teenagers in stepfamilies show that the quality of parental rela-
tionships and duration of parental relationship are not associated with most adolescent academic outcomes. One ex-
ception is that duration of stepparent's relationship is positively tied to adolescent college expectations.

DISCUSSION

Recent debates have emerged about the advantage of marriage for adults and children (e.g., Waite & Gallagher, 2000).
Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family types
examined here, including single-mother, cohabiting stepfather, and married stepfather families. The advantage of
marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents. Our findings are con-
sistent with previous work, which demonstrates children in cohabiting stepparent families fare worse than children
living with two married, biological parents (e.g., Acs & Nelson, 2002; Brown, 2001; DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Hao &
Xie, 2001).

Researchers argue that we need to expand our traditional understanding of stepfamily life to include cohabiting
stepfamilies (Stewart, 2001). The marital status of men in stepfamilies appears to influence adolescent well-being.
Among adolescents living in stepfamilies, those living with married rather than cohabiting mothers are sometimes
advantaged, although this is not consistent across all outcomes. At the bivariate level, teenagers living with married
stepfamilies experience more positive behavioral and academic outcomes (except school problems), than teens living
in cohabiting stepfamilies. Yet, at the multivariate level, many of the observed family structure differences can be
explained by the covariates in our models. Differences in delinquency attributable to cohabitation and marital status,
however, cannot be explained by the factors included in our model. Additional data about the relationship between
cohabiting and married stepfathers' relationships to their wives and partners' children may help to explain this mar-
riage advantage. We lack measurement of role ambiguity, which may serve to distinguish parenting roles in cohabiting
and married stepfamilies. Married stepfathers may have a more clearly defined obligation to their stepchildren than
cohabiting stepfathers (Hofferth & Anderson, 2003). The act of remarriage may carry with it a more pronounced
expectation of stepfather involvement (e.g., spending time with stepchildren and contributing financially to their
upbringing) that has positive consequences for child well-being.

The results from this paper suggest that teenagers living with unmarried mothers do not seem to benefit from the
presence of their mother's cohabiting partner. We argued at the outset that it may be important to distinguish between
unmarried mothers who are cohabiting and those living alone. In terms of adolescent outcomes, we do not appear to
gain much by distinguishing between cohabiting stepfather and single-mother families. We do find differences at the
bivariate level, however, in terms of delinquency and low grades in school. Thus, as found in the stepfamily literature
(e.g., Coleman et al., 2000), men's presence alone seems neither sufficient nor necessary to create positive outcomes
for children. Indeed, our results show that stepfathers (married or cohabiting) provide limited benefit when contrasted
with single-mother families. Our findings suggest that neither parental cohabitation nor marriage to a partner or spouse
who is not related to the child (stepfamily formation) is associated with uniform advantage in terms of behavioral or
academic indicators to teenagers living in single-mother families. These results are consistent with research focusing
on behavior problems (Acs & Nelson, 2002; Morrison, 1998). Our findings are not consistent with Nelson et al. (2001)
who reported negative effects of parental cohabitation. One explanation may be that we explain our negative effects of
parental cohabitation on delinquency and grade point average by mother's marriage history, a variable that is not
included in the data set used by Nelson et al.

We attempt to capture the fluidity and stability of families. Our core measure of family stability, the number of the
mother's prior marriage-like relationships (during the child's lifetime), is an important contributor to children's
well-being. Mother's relationship history is related to many adolescent outcomes. In fact, this measure explains dif-
ferences in delinquency and low grade point average among teenagers living with cohabiting stepfathers and single
mothers. This is consistent with researchers who emphasize the importance of family stability rather than family
structure for predicting child well-being (Hao & Xie, 2001; Hill et al., 2001; Wu & Martinson, 1993). We also eval-
uate whether family structure effects differ according to duration of the relationship. In stepfamilies, duration of the
current relationship is only related to college expectations. Perhaps the stability of the relationship reflects the step-
father's willingness to provide financial assistance for college. This is similar to findings reported by Hao and Xie
(2001), that time spent in the current union is not associated with child misbehavior. We And that family structure
effects do not differ according to duration of the stepparent's relationship, except for school problems. This suggests
that the effect of cohabitation is typically similar when stepfamilies first form and during later years.

We try to account for economic status (mother's education and family income), and similar to prior studies find that
economic circumstances are associated with adolescent well-being (e.g., Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997). These
factors are particularly important for understanding differences in the effect of cohabitation in stepfamilies. Most of
the bivariate differences based on parental marital or cohabitation status in stepfamilies are explained by socioeco-
nomic factors (e.g., family income, race or ethnicity, mother's education, child's sex and age). Thus, the higher levels
of mother's education and family income observed in married stepfather families explains some of the differences in
child outcomes in stepfather families.

Our findings also speak to how parenting and the complexity of family influence children's lives. Parental control is
not uniformly associated with better teenage outcomes, but this measure is not capturing early adolescent parenting
and focuses narrowly on limit setting. With regard to parental support, we find that closeness of teens to their bio-
logical mothers and nonresident fathers is positively related to many indicators of adolescent well-being and is more
often a significant predictor of adolescent outcomes than parental monitoring. Hence, our findings appear to be more
consistent with attachment than with social control theories of child development. Our work suggests that it is im-
portant to account not only for the structure of families, but also for the nature of relationships that exist within and
across households. Another measure, which could be considered to be part of family life socialization, is religiosity,
and we observe similar levels across family types. We find that the teens who were more religious than other teens
fared better in terms of behavior and academic outcomes, but this variable does not explain the effects of family
structure.

This paper suffers from several shortcomings. First, we employ cross-sectional data, so our findings are suggestive
because longitudinal analyses are necessary to accurately evaluate how parental cohabitation or marriage causes
changes in an adolescent's well-being (see Hao & Xie, 2001). For example, we may find that mothers with children
who have greater behavior problems and poor school performance are more likely to cohabit than marry. Thus, there
could be selection into family types based on the adolescent behaviors. In a similar vein, the causal nature of the
covariates is not clearly specified in our models. Our covariates represent factors that may be related to entry into
specific types of families (e.g., education or religiosity) as well as effects of family structure (e.g., income). We are not
able to account for selection in our models, but we believe that we have provided important baseline information about
parental cohabitation and adolescent well-being. Second, some potentially important variables are omitted from our
analyses. Measures that tap into stepfamily processes, such as relationships with cohabiting stepfathers or parenting
problems in stepparent families, are not available in the Add Health. As discussed above, stepfathers who are cohab-
iting may face quite different parenting circumstances than stepfathers who are married. Another factor that is asso-
ciated with child well-being and found to be important among cohabiting families is maternal depression (Brown,
2001). Unfortunately, measures of maternal depression are not included in the Add Health. Finally, our measure of
economic circumstances is far from ideal. There is a high level of missing data on family income in the Add Health.
We hoped to alleviate this limitation by accounting for mother's education, but acknowledge it is not a substitute for
income.

The issue of cohabitation and child development has become more important as cohabitation has become an in-
creasingly large part of children's family experiences (Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Graefe & Lichter, 1999). The findings
from this paper represent an initial step toward understanding the implications of parental cohabitation on adolescent
well-being. Research that focuses on younger children and examines the well-being of children born into cohabiting
parent families is warranted. Future efforts must consider potential selection issues from both the adult's and child's
perspective as well as model the fluid nature of cohabiting unions.

NOTE

This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State
University, which has core funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21
HD042831-01). This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in
Annahcim, California, August 2001. The authors have benefited from comments provided by participants at the Ohio
State University Initiative in Population Research; the University of Chicago Alfred P. Sloan Center on Parents,
Children, and Work; the Office of Population Research at Princeton University; and the University of Texas Popula-
tion Research Center. In addition, Susan Brown, Larry Bumpass, Steven Demuth, Peggy Giordano, Monica
Longmore, Laura Sanchez, Pamela Smock, and Susan Stewart have provided valuable comments and suggestions.
This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and
Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss
and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 West
Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (www.cpc.unc.edu/addhcalth/contract.html) to obtain the data.

REFERENCE

REFERENCES

Acs, G., & Nelson, S. (2001). Honey, I'm home. Changes in living arrangements in the late 1990s (New Federalism
National Survey of America's Families B-38). Washington DC: Urban Institute.

Acs, G., & Nelson, S. (2002). The kids alright? Children's well-being and the rise in cohabitation (New Federalism
National Survey of America's Families B-48). Washington DC: Urban Institute.

Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children's well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 61, 557-573.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development: In R. Lerner, A. C. Petersen, & J. Brooks-Gunn
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746-759). New York: Garland.

Bearman, P., Jones, J., & Udry, R. (1997). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina.

Brown, S. (2001, March). Child well-being in cohabiting unions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pop-
ulation Association of America, Washington, DC.

Brown, S. (2002). Child well-being in cohabiting families. In A. Booth & A. Crouler (Eds.), Just living together:
Implications of cohabitation for children, families and social policy (pp. 173-188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Bumpass, L. (1994, December). The declining significance of marriage: Changing family life in the United States.
Paper presented at the Potsdam International Conference, The Netherlands.

Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's family contexts. Population
Studies, 54, 29-41.

Carlson, M., & Corcoran, M. (2001). Family structure and children's behavioral and cognitive outcomes. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 63, 779-792.

Chantala, K., & Tabor, J. (1999). Strategies to perform a design-based analysis using the Add Health data. Chapel Hill,
NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina.

Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of

DeLeire, T., & Kalil, A. (2002). Good things come in 3s: Single-parent multigenerational family structure and ado-
lescent adjustment. Demography, 39, 393-342.

Duncan, G., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Founda-
tion.

Dunifon, R., & Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2002). Who's in the house? Race differences in cohabitation, single parenthood
and child development. Child Development, 73, 1249-1264.

Durst, R. (1997). Ties that bind: Drafting enforceable cohabitation agreements. New Jersey Law Journal, 147,
S13-S14.

Fields, J. (2001). Living arrangements of children. Current Population Reports, 70-74.

Fields, J., & Casper, L. (2000). America's families and living arrangements. Current Population Reports, 20-537.

Gracie, D. R., & Lichter, D. T (1999). Life course transitions of American children: Parental cohabitation, marriage,
and single parenthood. Demography, 36, 205-217.

Hanson, T., McLanahan, S., & Thomson, E. (1997). Economic resources, parental practices, and children's
well-being. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 190-238). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.

Hao, L., & Xie, G. (2001). The complexity and endogcnity of family structure in explaining children's misbehavior.
Social Science Research, 31, 1-28.

Hill, M., Yeung, W., & Duncan, G. (2001). Childhood family structure and young adult behaviors. Journal of Popu-
lation Economics, 14, 271-299.

Hofferth, S., & Andersen, K. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for paternal investment.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 213-232.

Mahoney, M. (2002). The economic rights and responsibilities of unmarried cohabitants. In A. Booth & A. Crouler
(Eds.), Just living together: Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and social policy (pp. 247-254).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Manning, W. (2002). The implications of cohabitation for children's well-being. In A. Booth & A. Crouter (Eds.), Just
living together: Implications of cohabitation on families, children, and social policy (pp. 121-152). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Manning, W., & Lichter, D. (1996). Parental cohabitalion and children's economic well-being. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 58, 998-1010.

Manning, W., Smock, P., & Majumdar, D. (2003). The relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for children.
Population Research and Policy Review.

McLanahan, S. (1997). Parent absence or poverty: Which matters more? In G. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.),
Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 35-48). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Morrison, D. R. (1998,March). Child well-being in step families and cohabiting unions following divorce: A dynamic
appraisal. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Chicago, IL.

Morrison, D. R. (2000,March). The costs of economic uncertainly: Child well-being in cohabitating and remarried
unions following parental, divorce. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America,
Los Angeles, CA.

Nelson, S., Clark, R., & Acs, G. (2001). Beyond the two-parent family: How teenagers fare in cohabiting couple and
blended families. (New Federalism National Survey of America's Families B-31). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

O'Connor, T. G., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1997). Systems and bi-directional influences in fami-
lies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 491-504.

Stewart, S. (2001). Contemporary American stepparenthood: Integrating cohabiting and nonresident step-parents.
Population Research and Policy Review, 20, 345-364.

Thomson, E., Hanson, T., & McLanahan, S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs.
parental behavior. Social Forces, 73, 221-242.

Thomson, B., McLanahan, S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure, gender, and parental socialization. Journal of

Udry, J. R. (1998). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994-1996
[Data file]. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina.

Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage. New York: Doubleday.

White, L., & Gilbreth, J. (2001). When children have two fathers: Effects of relationships with stepfathers and non-
custodial fathers on adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 155-167.

Wu, L., & Martinson, B. (1993). Family structure and the risk of a premarital birth. American Sociological Review,
58, 210-232.

AUTHOR_AFFILIATION

WENDY D. MANNING AND KATHLEEN A. LAMB

Bowling Green State University

AUTHOR_AFFILIATION

Department of Sociology and Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University,
Bowling Green, OH 43403 (wmannin@bgnet.bgsu.edu).

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---

NEWS SUBJECT: (HR & Labor Management (1HR87); Social Issues (1SO05); Business Management (1BU42);
Forecasts (1FO11); Teenagers (1TE59); Disabled Issues (1DI27); Parents & Parenting (1PA25); Joint Ventures
(1JO05); Learning Disabilities (1LE39); Employee Training (1EM04); Health & Family (1HE30); Minority & Ethnic
Groups (1MI43); Economic Statistics (1EC52); Economics & Trade (1EC26); Economic Indicators (1EC19); Eco-
nomic Forecasts (1EC64); Corporate Groups & Ownership (1XO09))

INDUSTRY: (Theoretical Analysis (1TH79); Gen Y Entertainment (1GE14); Gen Y TV (1GE33); Entertainment
(1EN08); Science (1SC89); Science & Engineering (1SC33); Social Science (1SO92))

REGION: (North America (1NO39); Texas (1TE14); New York (1NE72); North Carolina (1NO26); Americas
(1AM92); New Jersey (1NE70); New England (1NE37); Massachusetts (1MA15); District of Columbia (1DI60);
USA (1US73); Illinois (1IL01))

Language: EN

OTHER INDEXING: (ADD HEALTH; ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT HEALTH; AMERICAN FAMILIES;
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL; AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; AUTHOR; BACKGROUND;
BARBARA ENTWISLE; BOWLING GREEN; BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY; CAMBRIDGE;
CAMBRIDGE MA: HARVARD UNIVERSITY; CAROLINA POPULATION CENTER; CHILD; COHABITING
STEPPARENT; CONTACT ADD HEALTH; CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN; DC; DEMOGRAPHIC RE-
SEARCH; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY; DISCUSSION; FEDERALISM NATIONAL SURVEY; FS;
HARVARD UNIVERSITY; HEADNOTE; HOUSEHOLDS; MA; MARRIAGE; METHOD; NATIONAL INSTI-
TUTE OF CHILD HEALTH; NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL ADOLESCENT STUDY; NATIONAL LONGITU-
DINAL STUDY; NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF YOUTH; NATIONAL SURVEY; NATIONAL
SURVEY OF AMERICAN; NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILIES; NEW FEDERALISM NATIONAL SURVEY;
NLSY; NSAF; NSFH; OFFICE OF POPULATION RESEARCH; OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY INITIATIVE;
POPULATION; POPULATION ASSOCIATION; POPULATION RESEARCH; POPULATION STUDIES;
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY; REFERENCE; REFERENCES; REGRESSION; RESULTS; RUSSELL SAGE
FOUNDATION; SLOAN CENTER; SOCIAL FORCES; SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH; STATA; SYSTEMS;
UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS POPULATION RESEARCH CENTER; URBAN INSTITUTE;
WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON DC; WASHINGTON DC: URBAN INSTITUTE) (ACADEMIC OUTCOMES;
Acs; Acs Nelson; Acs, G., Nelson; ADOLESCENT ACADEMIC OUTCOMES; Amato; Amato Gilbreth; Baumrind;
Bearman, P., Jones, J., Udry; Booth A. Crouler; Booth A. Crouter; Brown; Bumpass; Bumpass Lu; Bumpass, L., Lu;
C. M., Maccoby; Carlson Corcoran; Carlson, M., Corcoran; Chantala Tabor; Chantala, K., Tabor; Clark, R., Acs; D.
R., Lichter; DeLeire Kalil; DeLeire, T., Kalil; Demography; Development; Duncan Brooks; Duncan Brooks-Gunn;
Duncan J. Brooks; Duncan, G., Brooks; Dunifon; Durst; E. E., Dornbusch; E. M., Clingempeel; Family; FAMILY
STRUCTURE; Fields; Fields Casper; Fields, J., Casper; Fourth; Future; Gilbreth; Good; Gunn; Gunn, J. (Eds; Hao;
Hao Xie; Hao, L., Xie; Hispanic; Hofferth; Hofferth Anderson; Honey; J. Brooks-Gunn; J. Richard Udry; Jersey Law
Journal; Journal; KATHLEEN A. LAMB; Kathleen Mullan Harris; Larry Bumpass; Laura Sanchez; Lichter; Logistic;
Lu; Mahoney; Mahwah; Manning; Manning, W., Lichter; McLanahan; McLanahan Sandefur; Monica Longmore;
Morrison; Nelson; Notably; Ordinary; P. R., Gilbreth; Peabody; Peggy Giordano; Personal Relationships; Peter S.
Bearman; Program Participation; R. Lerner; Rarely; Recent; Reinvestigating; Ronald R. Rindfuss; Sandefur; Steven
Demuth; Stewart; Susan Brown; Susan Stewart; T.; TABLE; TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION; Thomson, B., McLanahan;
Thomson, E., Hanson; Udry; Vocabulary Test; Vocabulary Tests; Waite Gallagher; Waite, L. J., Gallagher; WENDY
D. MANNING; White; White Gilbreth; White, L., Gilbreth; Wu Martinson; Wu, L., Martinson; Xie; Yeung, W.,
Duncan)

Word Count: 13294
11/1/03 JMARRFAM 876
END OF DOCUMENT


i MAPP Res ear ch Br i ef
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy Vol. 1, No. 1, July 2007

POST OFFICE BOX 1231 MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 20108
PHONE: (202) 216-9430 WWW.IMAPP.ORG
DOES DIVORCE LAW AFFECT THE DIVORCE RATE?
A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, 1995-2006
By Prof. Douglas W. Allen and Maggie Gallagher
Douglas Allen is a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University.
Maggie Gallagher is President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
Executive Summary:
Did the introduction of no- divorce law
affect the divorce rate? This study looks at
all the empirical research since 1995 that
examines the impact of no-fault divorce laws
on divorce rates both in the United States
and in other nations, 24 studies in all, and
concludes:
*o-fault divorce did increase the
divorce rate. Seventeen of 24 recent
empirical studies find that the introduction
of no-fault divorce laws increased the
divorce rate, by one estimate as much as 88
percent. More typically, studies estimate no-
fault divorce increased divorce rates on the
order of 10 percent.
*Divorce law, however, is not the major
cause of the increase in divorce over the
last 50 years. Clearly many other factors
besides divorce law influence the divorce
rate.
*The effect of no-fault divorce laws on
the overall divorce rate appears to fade
with time; couples respond to the increased
divorce risk from no-fault divorce law by
delaying or forgoing marriages at higher
risk of divorce, and states adopt related
legal reforms that mitigate some of no-
faults consequences.
*For couples of a given match quality,
no-fault divorce may have resulted in a
permanent increase in divorce risk. Studies
which take into consideration age at
marriage tend to show a permanent increase
in divorce risk after no-fault divorce.
The idea that family law has no independent
effect on family behaviors is difficult to
reconcile with either economic theory or
existing empirical research. Family
scholars, policymakers, legislators, and
media need to consider and take seriously
the complex ways in which family law
affects the likelihood that couples and
children will enjoy the benefits of stable
marriage.

Introduction
Between 1960 and 1980, the U.S.
divorce rate roughly doubled.
1
During the
same time period, most American states
adopted some version of no-fault divorce.
2

Specifically, 35 states expanded no-fault to
include not only the grounds for divorce but
consideration of fault in alimony and the
distribution of property.
3

The reforms keep coming. In the past
decade, more than 15 American states have
considered divorce law reform. Louisiana
iMAPP Research Brief

- 2 -
recently expanded its waiting period for no-
fault divorces that affect minor children.
4

New Jersey this year shortened the waiting
period for no-fault divorce to six months.
5

The Chief Judge of New Yorks highest
court has called for a similar move to no-
fault divorce in that state,
6
while the
prestigious American Law Institute
recommends eliminating all vestiges of
fault in family law, including the
distribution of property and the
determination of alimony.
7

In the shadow of these changes both
here and abroad, the scholarly and the public
policy debate about the consequences of no-
fault divorce for children and families
continues. More than 40 studiesin the
United States, Canada, Europe, and
Australiahave empirically examined the
question of whether or not no-fault divorce
laws increase the divorce rate, including 24
studies in the last decade. What does the
latest research tell us about the empirical
impact of no-fault divorce on divorce rates?
This study looks at all the available
empirical research since 1995 that examines
the impact of divorce law on divorce rates
both in the United States and in other
nations. This research has been published in
economic, family, and legal journals, or as
working papers. In addition to searching
academic databases, we examined
bibliographies of published research and
made inquiries among scholars to locate
relevant empirical research.
In recent years scholars have also asked
how divorce law affects other family
behaviors including marriage rates,
unpartnered births, womens labor force
participation, family violence, and suicide.
We have included this broader research in a
separate appendix, for the ease of scholars
and policymakers interested in other family
outcomes that may be affected by divorce
laws.
The empirical no-fault divorce literature
is a complicated response to what appears to
be a simple question. With hope, this brief
will organize most of it.
I. Defining Terms: What Is o-Fault
Divorce and Why Would it Matter?
No-fault divorce is not a single,
simple piece of legislation. The term refers
to a cluster of family law changes that took
place in the United States, Canada, and
many other Western nations in the late
Sixties to mid-Eighties. Divorce law
regulates grounds for divorce, property
distribution, and alimony, and a given state
or other legal regime may move towards
no-fault principles in any or all of these
areas. Such changes include: adding new no-
fault grounds for divorce (e.g. irretrievable
breakdown) that do not require a party to
allege any particular fault; reducing waiting
periods for no-fault divorce (such as
divorces based on living separate and apart);
removing fault from consideration in the
awarding of alimony and/or the distribution
of property upon divorce; and/or eliminating
fault grounds entirely from divorce law.
Under the older fault system, faultless
divorces could be informally obtained by a
couple, but only by mutual consent; that is, a
couple who wished to divorce for no
particular legally acceptable reason could
agree in advance to present to the court an
uncontested fault ground, and obtain a
divorce. Therefore, the most significant
practical legal change created by no-fault
divorce in grounds was that it licensed
unilateral divorce: for the first time, one
spouse could successfully petition for
divorce over the objections of his or her
spouse, without alleging any grounds.
8
No
longer would the spouse who wants a
divorce have to negotiate with his or her
spouse to get it. In addition, some, but not
all, jurisdictions introduced no-fault
principles into the distribution of property
and/or alimony upon divorce.
There are two theoretical reasons no-
fault divorce might increase the divorce rate.
First, some argue it made divorce less costly
for the initiating party because often there

- 3 -
were changes in the financial and emotional
consequences of divorce that came along
with no-fault divorce. That is, concomitant
changes in terms of property settlement,
maintenance (alimony), or child custody
often improved the welfare of the divorce
initiator. Thus, if bad behavior doesnt result
in a less financially rewarding divorce
settlement, the argument goes, we might
expect there to be more bad behavior by
spouses and therefore more divorce.
Second, the change from mutual consent
divorce to unilateral divorce might change
the ability of spouses to prevent a divorce
through bargaining. Under the old fault
system the party least wanting a divorce had
to be paid to consent to one. Under the no-
fault system this party must pay the other to
stay. The outcome in either case is unlikely
to be the same.
9
If one spouse is unable to
convince the divorce instigator to stay, then
more divorce is likely.
II. Empirical Difficulties in the o-
Fault Debate
Reaching a scholarly consensus about
the consequences of divorce law has proved
complicated for many reasons. In the first
place, studying family law is complex
because family law is complex. As we
indicated above, no-fault divorce is not
one specific discrete legal change but a
bundle of changes in legal rules affecting
grounds, property division, and alimony
rules upon divorce, which different
jurisdictions move toward in different ways.
Canada has a version of no-fault divorce;
so do England, South Carolina, California
and New Jersey (to name just a few states).
But the laws in each of these jurisdictions
are not identical.
Moreover, in nations like Canada the
grounds for divorce are federal law, while
property division is governed by provincial
law. In Europe, most (but not all) family law
systems are national. Studying the effects of
no-fault divorce on divorce rates is easier in
nations that have national family laws,
because migratory divorce is less of a
problem, and because basic questions (such
as when the legal change took place) are less
contested.
Yet to date, the majority of research
looking at how no-fault divorce affects the
divorce rate have investigated legal changes
in the United States, where the legal
definitions are most varied and complicated
from state to state and where the change in
law before and after no-fault was much
smaller than in Canada and much of Europe.
In the United States, scholars have not
always agreed even on the basics, such as
what cluster of legal changes constitutes a
no-fault divorce law, and when a
particular state has moved to a no-fault
divorce system.
North Carolina, for example, always had
separation as a ground for divorce. Should
separation be considered a mutual or
unilateral ground (i.e., a fault or a no-
fault ground)? Did the judicial
interpretation of separation change over
time? And should separation grounds be
classified by scholars as exactly the same
type of no-fault law as irretrievable
breakdown or irreconcilable differences?
Moreover, formal legal rules and
informal interpretation of legal rules may
differ across jurisdictions, leading to
different outcomes from what appear to be
the same formal rules. When mental
cruelty grounds are liberally interpreted by
courts, is that just the same in terms of its
effects as formally enacting irretrievable
breakdown as a ground for divorce?
Scholars have varied on whether and when
to classify states such as North Carolina
(and many others) as adopting no-fault
divorce.
Some states added no-fault grounds to
existing fault grounds, while others
eliminated all fault grounds. Some states
changed fault provisions in alimony,
property, and custody rules, while others did
not, at least not at the same time or in the
same way. Estimates of the effects of no-

- 4 -
fault divorce on the divorce rate have proved
highly sensitive to these kinds of problems.
Different disciplines (economists,
family specialists, demographers, and legal
scholars) have focused on different aspects
of the question, and scholars in one field are
often unaware of the parallel analyses going
on in the other disciplines.
Finally, investigating the consequences
of no-fault divorce on the divorce rate has
also proved complicated because human
behavior is fluid and dynamic; when legal
rules change, men and women respond in a
variety of complex and sometimes
contradictory ways that can be difficult to
disentangle.
III. ew Empirical Research: 1995-2006
Despite these difficulties there are signs
of an emerging consensus about the effects
of divorce law on the divorce rate. Our
search process yielded 24 studies in the last
decade that fit the criteria: new empirical
research into how no-fault divorce affected
the divorce rate. A careful review of these
studies suggests the following:
o-fault divorce laws did increase the
divorce rate. Seventeen of 24 recent
empirical studies find that the introduction
of no-fault divorce laws increased the
divorce rate. The size of the increase
attributed to legal change varies
considerably in the research literature. One
of the higher estimates (Kidd (1995)) found
no-fault divorce boosted divorce rates as
much as 88 percent. More typically, studies
estimate no-fault divorce increased divorce
rates on the order of 5 to 30 percent (e.g.,
Drewianka (2006), Friedberg (1998), Gruber
(2004), Iverson (2005), Matouschek and
Rasul (2006), Reilly and Evenhouse (1997),
Rogers et al. (1997)).
Divorce law, however, is not the major
cause of the increase in divorce over the last
50 years. Studies which find that no-fault
divorce increased the divorce rate typically
estimate the size of this effect as only a
modest fraction of the increase in the
divorce rate since 1960. Clearly many other
factors besides divorce law influence the
divorce rate.
The effect of no-fault divorce laws on
the overall divorce rate appears to fade with
time. A number of recent studies (e.g.,
Drewianka (2006), Matouschek and Rasul
(2006), Mechoulan (2006), Reilly and
Evenhouse (1997), Wolfers (2006)) found
that the increase in the overall divorce rate
under no-fault, while sustained for a number
of years, eventually fades and the divorce
rate moves back to trend.
Why? The increases in the divorce rate
are sustained for too long (about a decade)
to be produced by faster divorce processing
times.
10
The emerging consensus among law
and economics scholars is that unilateral
divorce influences the divorce rate in three
ways: First, there is an increase in the
divorce rate among existing couples, who
married before the divorce law changed.
Second, no-fault divorce laws produce
substantial new selection effects for couples
entering into marriage, in ways that mitigate
the overall divorce rate. Finally, over time
the state has patched various legal
loopholes that allowed for transfers of
wealth and encouraged unilateral divorce.
The first, direct, effect is straight-
forward. When the no-fault laws were
enacted it caught existing couples by
surprise. The no-fault provisions were a
windfall for many married individuals.
Some winners were able to abandon their
marriages and take much of the marital
wealth with them, leaving behind many
losers.
There were two subtle effects of this.
First, the incentives to marry changed and
this changed the pool of married couples. As
the law retreats from enforcing marriage
contracts, some couples respond by
searching longer, delaying marriage and
(sometimes) avoiding it altogether. Others
might jump into marriage quickly, knowing
that if the marriage fails it is easy out.
Thus the lowering of divorce rates from the

- 5 -
peak in the early 1980s may be partially
explained by more better-matched, more
intrinsically stable couples choosing to
marry.
11

Second, the high divorce rates of the 70s
and 80s were partially driven by failures in
old elements of family law to match the new
no-fault provisions. When no-fault laws
were first introduced, inadequate marital
property laws allowed one spouse (mostly
husbands) to leave the family and take
marriage assets with them. In both Canada
and the United States, courts and legislatures
quickly moved to patch the leak. Other
issues followed in the areas of definition of
property, child support guidelines, custody
changes, and the like. In most cases, the
legal change tried to prevent a spouse from
unilaterally improving their own welfare at
the expense of the rest of the family. In
doing this these subsequent laws reduced the
incentive to divorce, and the divorce rate
receded a bit.
For individual couples, the increase in
divorce risk under unilateral divorce may be
permanent. We note that some studies that
control for age at marriage (e.g., Andersson
(1997); Kidd (1995); Reilly and Evenhouse
(1997) (PSID sample); but see also Sweezy
and Tiefenthaler (1996)) have found that no-
fault divorce causes a permanent increase in
the divorce risk. Stability in the overall
divorce rate may disguise the increased
divorce risk that unilateral divorce laws pose
for individual couples of a given match
quality. Couples who marry under unilateral
divorce laws may face a permanent increase
in divorce risk relative to similarly well-
matched couples who married under the
older, stricter mutual consent divorce law
regimes. We note recent evidence suggests
the lower divorce rates are confined in this
country to couples with at least a college
education; less educated couples have faced
a continuing rise in divorce risk into the
1990s.
12
More research is needed to tease
out with confidence the selection effects
from any underlying increase in divorce risk
for individual couples.
If these emerging theories on the double
effects of unilateral divorce are confirmed, it
also suggests an important new area for
future research: Are permissive divorce laws
partly responsible for the simultaneous large
increase in nonmarital childbearing that
occurred in recent time periods? The social
effects of unilateral divorce depend in part
on the answer to this question. For if
unilateral divorce merely discourages
divorce-prone couples from marrying, most
would find this a social good. But if as a
result of permissive divorce laws, younger,
more at-risk couples increasingly choose not
to marry at all (and thus have more children
outside of marriage in cohabiting or dating
relationships), studies that look only at the
effects of divorce law on divorce rates may
be underestimating its influence on rates of
family fragmentation generally.
IV. Some Specific International and U.S.
Studies of ote
An interested reader going through the
summary of research listed in the appendix
might come away with the impression that
nothing is settled. However, not all research
is created equal. In this section we
summarize the most important and
significant research.
International studies
There have only been a handful of
divorce rate studies in countries other than
the United States. These include Canada
(Allen (1998)), England (Binner and Dnes
(2001)), Portugal (Coehlo and Garoupa
(2006)), Sweden (Livia (2001)), and Great
Britain (Smith (1997)). All of these cases
differ from the United States in that the
grounds for divorce are national. This means
the entire country switched from fault to no-
fault at the same time, and therefore the only
test that can be conducted is to look at
divorce rates before and after the legal
switch. These studies have some natural
advantages. First, the issue of migratory
divorce (or people escaping more restrictive
divorce laws in their state by petitioning for
divorce in more permissive states) is

- 6 -
eliminated, or greatly mitigated. Second, the
legal change is clear: not only what the law
changed to, but what it changed from.
The down side of these international
studies is that they can only test for changes
over time, and it may be impossible to
control for other changes that are highly
correlated with the legal change.
The international studies generally find
a large and statistically significant positive
effect of no-fault divorce on the divorce rate.
For example, Binner and Dnes find that no-
fault divorce increased the divorce rate in
Great Britain by 0.8 divorces per 1000
people. Considering the average divorce rate
is 1.84 divorces per 1000 people in a given
year, this is quite a substantial effect (about
a 43% increase).
U.S. Studies
13

Friedberg and Wolfers
Much of the debate over no-fault
divorce and divorce rates seemed to be over
with the publication of Friedbergs (1998)
seminal work in the American Economics
Review. This paper created a panel data set
of every divorce in the United States from
1968 to 1988. It used sophisticated
econometric techniques to control for state
endogeneity and changes in behavior over
time. She tested for different legal
classifications, and performed a series of
robustness tests. In the end she found that
no-fault divorce laws led to a 6% higher
divorce rate and that they accounted for
about 17% of the increase in divorces over
the time period studied. She also found that
the change was permanent, and exogenous.
Differences between states and changes over
time, however, accounted for most of the
divorce trends. She concluded: The results
above make it clear that unobserved
covariates and unobservable divorce
propensities which may include for
instance, social attitudes, religious beliefs,
and family size are the main determinants
of divorce. [p. 616, 1998]
Friedbergs study stood as the high-
water mark of the no-fault divorce literature
until the arrival of Wolfers (2006).
Furthermore, it was corroborated by a
number of other papers examining other
aspects of no-fault divorce.
14

Justin Wolfers paper is an extension of
Friedberg. He uses the same basic data set
over a longer period of time, replicates her
results, and then respecifies all of her state
trend variables. Wolfers point, which has
been made by theorists for the past several
years, is that exogenous changes to laws are
followed by endogenous changes in
behavior. As divorce laws change, people
might be more or less careful in choosing a
spouse. They might marry sooner or later.
Laws protecting marital property put at risk
by no-fault might be changed. When these
things are adjusted for, Wolfers finds that
the divorce rate still increases (although the
effect is not as large as with Friedberg), but
the increase only lasts for about 10 years. As
Wolfers acknowledges, though, his test is
not really a test of no-fault divorce per se,
but rather a test of the set of legal changes
that took place over the past 30 years. Taken
together, divorce rates were higher
throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, but
then they leveled out and may have fallen
after that (although not to 1960 levels).
The most important contribution of the
Wolfers study, along with other papers on
behavior within the household, is the idea
that the effect of no-fault divorce laws on
the divorce rate depends on the environment
one is divorced in. Although Wolfers thinks
internal marriage bargaining best explains
the small long-run effect of the law, an
alternative and complementary explanation
is found in other legal changes. As
mentioned, other legal changes followed no-
fault laws that help prevent some of the most
egregious cases of wealth transfers brought
on by divorce.
V. Conclusions
Does the divorce law affect the divorce
rate? Yes. Divorce law is not the primary

- 7 -
cause of increases in divorce rate, but it is a
contributing factor. Estimates vary, but the
best evidence suggests no-fault divorce
increases the divorce rate on the order of 10
percent.
These changes are caused by a low cost
of divorcing that allows one party to
unilaterally break the marriage vows. The
effect of no-fault divorce laws on the
divorce rate is critically conditional on the
legal, social, and cultural environment. Thus
the same legal change can have different
effects across jurisdictions, and over time
the effect probably dissipates. Some of the
other legal changes in the past 30 years (in
child support, custody, and marital property)
may have mitigated the consequences of no-
fault divorce. New research is needed to
establish the side effects of weaker marital
contracts on rates of cohabitation and non-
marital births.
The premise of many family law
scholarsthat legal change is only a
response to underlying cultural shifts and
never an independent causeis difficult to
reconcile with either economic theory or
existing empirical research.
Changing divorce law can affect the
divorce rate, and likely the rate of unmarried
childbearing and cohabitation as well.
Family scholars, policymakers, legislators,
and media need to consider and take
seriously the complex ways in which family
law affects real families and real children.

Suggested Citation:
Douglas Allen and Maggie Gallagher, Does
Divorce Law Affect the Divorce Rate?
iMAPP Research Brief 1(1) July 2007.
(Manassas, VA: Institute for Marriage and
Public Policy).
Endnotes

1
A U.S. Census Bureau report shows the annual
divorce rate per 1,000 married women rose from
16 per 1000 for the period 1960-62, to 40 per
1000 for the period 1978-1980. U.S. Bureau of
the Census (1992), Current Population Reports,
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the
1990s, P23-180: 2 (Table A). Looking at cohort
data, the National Survey of Family Growth
found that 14% of first marriages entered
between 1955 and 1959 ended in divorce within
10 years, compared to 31% of first marriages
entered from 1975-1979. National Center for
Health Statistics (July 2002), Cohabitation,
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the
United States, Vital and Health Statistics 23 (22):
27. The overall divorce rate appears to have
peaked around 1980, but the modest decline
since that time appears to be driven by a
bifurcation in divorce risk, with highly educated
couples experiencing dramatic drops in divorce
risk, while divorce rates among Americans with
less than college degrees continue to rise. Steven
P. Martin, 2006. Trends in Marital Dissolution
by Womens Education in the United States.
Demographic Research 15:537560.
2
No-fault divorce is now available in every state,
with all but a handful permitting such divorce
unilaterally, not requiring consent of the other
spouse.
3
20 states have adopted complete no-fault rules
for spousal support and property distribution
following divorce. An additional 15 states have
adopted no-fault rules for either spousal support
or property distribution. American Law Institute,
Whether Marital Misconduct should be
Considered in Property Allocations and Awards
of Compensatory Payments, Reporters Notes,
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY
DISSOLUTION: ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (2002); see also Lynn
Wardle, Beyond Fault and No-Fault in the
Reform of Marital Dissolution Law, in
Reconceiving the Family: Critique on the
American Law Institute's Principles of the Law
of Family Dissolution (Robin Fretwell Wilson,
ed., Cambridge University Press, 2006).
4
La. Civ. Code Art. 103.1 (2007).
5
N.J. P.L. 2007, c.6.

- 8 -

6
Danny Hakim, Panel Asks New York to Join
the Era of No-Fault Divorce, The ew York
Times, Feb. 7, 2006 at A1.
7
American Law Institute, Whether Marital
Misconduct should be Considered in Property
Allocations and Awards of Compensatory
Payments, Summary and Conclusion,
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY
DISSOLUTION: ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (2002).
8
Of course such a mutual agreement to present
divorce grounds could be considered a collusive
fraud on the court, albeit one that was
indetectable to outsiders and widely tolerated at
the time.
9
The famous Coase theorem in economics states
that in the absence of transaction (bargaining)
costs, a switch from mutual to unilateral divorce
should not affect the divorce rate (because under
the old fault system, the spouse who wished to
divorce should simply offer to increase the
compensation to the other spouse in order to
achieve his or her goal). But as many point out,
divorce is never costless. Hence, under real-
world conditions of high-transaction costs,
economic theory predicts the move to unilateral
no-fault rules should increase inefficient
divorces (i.e., cases in which a spouse leaves a
marriage because it makes them as an individual
better off, even if the rest of the family is made
worse off). An important point, often missed by
those simply trying to estimate an empirical
reaction to the law, is that there is no economic
reason for no-fault divorce by itself to have any
effect on any behavior. It is only when combined
with other laws, family circumstances, or social
customs, that the switch may provide an
incentive for some spouses to terminate their
marriage when it is not in the best joint interests
of the couple to do so.
10
This finding is different from the idea, popular
among family law scholars in the 1970s, that the
increase in divorce rate observed after no-fault
divorce was spuriousa statistical artifact of
speeding up divorce processing times such that
divorces in say, 1970 and 1971, were both
suddenly processed in 1971. Faster processing
times under no-fault would produce a statistical
bump in the divorce rate but no real increase in
the underlying divorce risk. Recent studies, by
contrast, suggest that no-fault divorce did result

in a sustained increase in divorce risk for
existing married couples, but that over time, the
effects are cancelled out, or masked, as couples
at greater risk of divorce increasingly decline to
marry at all.
11
Only a few studies have begun to look at this
marriage effect and the results are preliminary.
12
Steven P. Martin, 2006. Trends in Marital
Dissolution by Womens Education in the United
States. Demographic Research 15:537560.
13
The U.S. studies can be divided into three
periods. The first wave of papers from 1970-
1985 were characterized by small samples and
simple test design. The second wave mostly
consisted of Peters (1986) seminal study using a
large individual data set, and rebuttals to her
work by Allen (1992) and Parkman (1992). The
third wave is made up of the sophisticated papers
after Friedberg (1998).
14
For example Gruber (2004), Johnson and
Mazingo (2000).

- 9 -

APPEDIX
Does Divorce Law Affect the Divorce Rate?
Empirical Research 1995-2006

STUDIES SHOWIG O-FAULT DIVORCE AFFECTS THE DIVORCE RATE

1. Allen, Douglas W. (1998). No-Fault Divorce in Canada: Its Cause and Effect. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 37: 129-149.
Background: In 1968, Canada created no-fault grounds for divorce. (Prior to this change,
adultery was the only grounds for divorce in 8 provinces, while Quebec and
Newfoundland permitted divorce only by a private act of the parliaments senate.) In
1985, Canada introduced a second major legal change, reducing the number of fault
grounds for marriage from 15 to one (marital breakdown) and reducing the separation
period for a no-fault divorce from 3-5 years to just one year.
This study analyzes two different samples to test the effect of both the 1968 and 1985
divorce law changes on the overall divorce rate. The first consists of Canadian women
who had been married only once, and who had married prior to 1968, drawn from the
1984 Family History Survey (a supplement to the 1984 Labor Force Survey conducted by
Statistics Canada). The second sample consists of a panel of every Canadian divorce from
1950-1992 created using data from Census of Canada.
Results: First, after analyzing data from the 1984 Family History survey, this study
concludes: a movement to the nofault period increased the probability of divorce,
conditional on the length of marriage by 1.09 percent. This result is statistically
significant, and is consistent with the recent U.S. findings that no-fault divorce increases
the divorce rate. (p. 144) The author concludes: The variable indicates that a particular
type of divorce increased, namely, inefficient divorces, where one spouse used the new
law to the disadvantage of his or her partner. (p. 145) A second analysis using Census
data on divorce from 1950 to 1992 concludes: As with the Family History Survey, this
indicates that both changes in divorce law increased the number of inefficient divorces.
This holds even when provincial effects and inter-temporal provincial effects are
controlled for. (p. 147)
2. Andersson, Gunnar (1997). The Impact of Children on Divorce Risks of Swedish
Women. European Journal of Population 13(2): 109-45.
Background: In 1974, procedures of divorce in Sweden were simplified so that no
specific reason for divorce need be alleged; waiting periods were eliminated for childless
couples and reduced to six months for couples with children. This study looks at formal
divorces occurring after first marriages formed between 1968 and 1994 in Sweden taken
from the Statistics Sweden Fertility Register.
Results: While the main purpose of the study was to study the impact on children from
divorce risks, the paper also suggests that the general picture of Swedish divorce-risk
trends shows a strong increase in 1974, mostly among childless women, in response to a
reform of the divorce legislation. (p. 109) However, the authors also suggest the finding
of a sustained increase in divorce risk is partly a result of controlling for age at marriage,
which increased over the period: the increase in divorce risksmainly appears because

- 10 -
we have removed the effect of an ongoing transition of married women in our data set
towards ages at marriage that are associated with lower divorce risks, i.e., towards higher
ages. (p. 121)
3. Binner, Jane M. & Antony W. Dnes (2001). Marriage, Divorce, and Legal Change: New
Evidence from England and Wales. Economic Inquiry, 39(2): 298-306.
Background: In 1969, the British Parliament passed the Divorce Reform Act of 1969,
which added no-fault grounds alongside fault grounds for divorce. This study uses long-
run time-series analysis and short-run error-correction models to determine impact of the
introduction of unilateral divorce on the divorce rate, after accounting for other possible
explanations, including male to female earnings ratios and postdivorce welfare benefits.
The study analyzes data on all marriages in England and Wales from 1948-1996,
including marriage and divorce rates created using annual data from the Office for
National Statistics and the Office of Population Census and Surveys. (p. 305)
Results: [U]nilateral divorce raised the divorce rate by more than 0.8 divorces per
thousand people, a substantial impact relative to the average divorce rate of 1.84 over the
period.We therefore find a permanent impact from the easing of divorce law in the
1970s. (p. 303) and We can conclude that the law increased divorce by making it easier
to divorce. (p. 304) The study observed no impact on marriage rates, however, which the
authors interpret as perhaps reflecting the canceling out of two trends. First, making
divorce easier reduces the irreversibility of marriage and possibly makes it more
attractive to some people. Second, observing a rising divorce rate may make others
cynically aware that marriage may not last and cause them to avoid it (e.g., by
cohabitation). (p. 303)
4. Brinig, Margaret F. & F.H. Buckley (1998). No-Fault Laws and At-Fault People.
International Review of Law and Economics, 18: 325-340.
Background: This study defines no-fault divorce states in the U.S. as those in which
fault is irrelevant at both dissolution and at financial settlement. (p. 326). The study
codes 17 states as unilateral divorce regimes. It uses a fixed-effects model to analyze
annual per capita divorce rates from 1980-1991 in 49 states (excluding Nevada as an
outlier) from Census data, isolating no-fault divorce law reform from other demographic
and social factors that might also explain the variation in divorce rates across states and
across time including two state-level measures of economic wellbeing (unemployment
rate and employment growth), and four social predictors of divorce rates: Date of entry
into the U.S. union (a proximate measure of region, i.e., westernness, of states), the
proportion of the population living in metro areas, the amount of life insurance issued as
a proportion of state income (a proxy for risk averseness), and the proportion of
Catholics.
Results: Our principal finding is that divorce levels are positively and significantly
correlated with state laws that do not penalize marital misbehavior at the time of
divorce. (p. 331) Our study of divorce rates from 1988 to 1991 provides the strongest
evidence to date that no-fault divorce laws are associated with higher divorce levels. Prior
studies failed to detect a significant no-fault predictor of long-term divorce rates because
they defined no fault solely in terms of the dissolution of the marriage and ignored the
financial penalty that a court might impose on at at-fault party.(p. 340) However, the
authors also caution our results are suggestive only.Divorce levels likely will be lower
in societies that stigmatize divorce. Such societies are also less likely to enact no-fault

- 11 -
divorce laws. The legal predictor thus might serve as a proxy for more fundamental social
norms. (p. 340).
5. Coelho, Clarisse & uno Garoupa (2006). Do Divorce Law Reforms Matter for Divorce
Rates? Evidence from Portugal. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 3(3): 525-542.
Background: In 1975, Portugal approved a new divorce law that extended no-fault
divorce by mutual agreement to Catholic marriages (for which legal divorce had
previously not been available). In 1995, Portugal permitted couples to receive a mutual
consent divorce by a simple administrative procedure if the couple had no children or
after child custody has been adjudicated by a judge. This study tests the impact of both
these legal changes on Portuguese divorce rates, using a time-series econometric model,
using data from 1960 to 2002 for divorce and marriage rates in Portugal (from the
Instituto Nacional de Estatstica de Portugal).
Results: After controlling for economic growth (per capita GDP), secularization
(measured by the out-of-wedlock birth rate and the proportion of Catholic rather than
civil marriages), and infant mortality (a proxy for technological progress), the study finds
that the 1975 Divorce Law (which introduced no-fault regime to Catholic marriages) had
significant positive impact on the divorce rate, but the 1995 Code of Civil Registration
(which permitted mutual consent divorce by civil registration for childless couples or
after custody issues are adjudicated) did not. [O]ur most important finding is that a
major reform of divorce law such as the one in 1975 had a significant positive effect on
the divorce rate, but a less substantial change such as the one in 1995 does not seem to be
statistically important. (p. 535, 539)
6. Drewianka, Scott (2006). Divorce Law and Family Formation. (forthcoming in the
Journal of Population Economics) paper available at http://www.uwm.edu/~sdrewian/
DivorceLawAndFamilyFormation.pdf.
Background: This study measures the effects of both no-fault and unilateral divorce laws
on state-level rates of divorce, marriage, fertility, and legitimacy in 49 states (excluding
Nevada). It follows Jonathan Gruber (2004) codings of no-fault and unilateral divorce. It
uses crude divorce rates, or divorces per 1000 population.
Results: [T]here was little to indicate that either no-fault or unilateral divorce had any
effect on marriage rates. As in the existing literature, there was some indication that
unilateral divorce causes a modest increase in divorce rates, at least during the first five
or ten years after the law passes, but no-fault divorce does not seem to have any
meaningful effect on divorce rates. (p. 15) More specifically, [U]nilateral divorce laws
lead to 24 additional divorces each year per 10,000 people in a state (610 percent of the
mean over this period)Howeverwe find that the effect only lasts for 68 years. (p.
11)
The study also found effects on fertility: [U]nilateral divorce seems to increase marital
birth rates and decrease non-marital birth rates, and both of those effects seem to grow
the longer the law is in effect. (p. 15) The study concludes: [C]hanges in divorce law
were not a major cause of changing family structure. (p. 2)
7. Friedberg, Leora (1998). Did Unilateral Divorce Raise Divorce Rates? Evidence from
Panel Data. The American Economic Review, 88(3): 608-627.
Background: This study assembles a panel of state-level divorce rates between 1968-
1988 from data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. Friedberg compares
legal regimes in three ways: unilateral no-fault divorce versus mutual consent divorce

- 12 -
states, unilateral divorce states with waiting periods before divorce versus unilateral
divorce states without separation requirements or waiting periods, and states where
marital fault may be considered in property settlements at divorce versus states with no-
fault property distribution laws.
Results: The estimates suggest that the divorce rate would have been about 6 percent
lower in 1988 if no type of unilateral divorce had been adopted in those states that
switched to unilateral divorce after 1968. The move towards unilateral divorce accounted
for 17 percent of the increase in divorce rates between 1968 and 1988. (p. 608).
Furthermore: [T]he effect of unilateral divorce on divorce behavior was permanent, not
temporary. (p. 608.)
[T]he type of unilateral divorce a state adopted mattered. The strictest unilateral divorce,
without separation requirements or fault considerations in property division, raised the
divorce rate by 0.549 per thousand people11.9 percent of the average of 4.6 during the
sample periodSeparation requirements proved more of a constraint on divorce behavior
than fault-based property division did. (p. 620)
8. Gruber, Jonathan (2004). Is Making Divorce Easier Bad for Children? The Long-Run
Implications of Unilateral Divorce. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(4): 799-833.
Background: This study estimates the impact of unilateral divorce laws on the incidence
of divorce. It also examines the impact of living under unilateral divorce regimes and
later life outcomes for children, including adult suicide. Only states which do not require
separation periods for unilateral no-fault divorces are coded as unilateral divorce states.
Results: [U]nilateral divorce regulations do significantly increase the incidence of
divorce. Adults who were exposed to unilateral divorce regulations as children are less
well educated, have lower family incomes, marry earlier but separate more often, and
have higher odds of adult suicide. (p. 799) Specifically: I find that there is a very
sizable and significant impact of unilateral divorce regulations on the likelihood of being
divorced. For women, unilateral divorce being in place raises the odds of divorce
by11.6%. For men the increase is11.6%. The results are even stronger when state-
specific trends are included. (p. 812) Gruber also finds a very large impact on the odds
of living with a never-married mother or father; however, both results are insignificant
when trends are included. (p. 814) On the other hand, the rise in unilateral regulation
can explain less than 10% of the overall rise in the stock of divorced women. (p. 814)
9. Iverson, Torben et al. (2005). Divorce and the Gender Division of Labor in Comparative
Perspective, Social Politics 12(2): 216-242.
Background: This study compares divorce rates in developed countries that have either
unilateral or mutual consent divorce laws with developed countries that have high
barriers to divorce (such as Ireland, Italy, and Spain); these high legal barriers to
divorce include fault systems, long mandatory waiting periods, and additional judicial
hurdles. (p. 233) Divorce rates are the number of divorces per 100 marriages, with data
from 18 countries in the OECD every five years between 1970 to 1995. Other potential
explanatory variables explored include relative wages of women, size of the public
sector, and skill specificity (the mean of vocational training intensity and firm tenure
rate).
Results: [T]he restrictiveness of divorce legislation does appear to reduce the rate at
which people divorce. Going from a legal system with easy unilateral no-fault divorce
(such as Sweden) to one with fault and long mandatory separation periods (such as Spain)

- 13 -
is associated with 13 fewer divorces per 100 marriages in the short run and more than 20
in the long run. (p. 234)
10. Johnson, John H., IV & Christopher J. Mazingo (2000). The Economic Consequences
of Unilateral Divorce for Children. Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper
Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=236227.
Background: This study examines (among other outcomes) the effect of having lived as
a child in a unilateral divorce state on the likelihood that childs parents had divorced.
The authors mainly employ the law coding used by Brinig and Buckley (1998) (also
used by Friedberg), but also test our results with law coding from Ellman and Lohr
(1998). Our results are insensitive to the legal classification we use. (p. 5) For each child
under age 17, the authors construct the number of years they lived in a unilateral divorce
state and current age, and evaluate it affect on the likelihood that that childs parents had
divorced.
Results: [A]n extra year of exposure to unilateral divorce increases the probability that a
childs parents are divorced by 5/10th of a percentage point or about a three-percent
increase in the divorce rate. (p. 16) (The study also found that increased childhood
exposure to unilateral divorce laws reduced wages and schooling for women.) [W]hile
we confirm that unilateral divorce increased divorce rates, we also provide evidence that
bargaining power within the household was a key factor in affecting children. Many
previous studies treat these channels as being mutually exclusive. (p. 21)
11. Kidd, Michael P. (1995). The Impact of Legislation on Divorce: A Hazard Function
Approach. Applied Economics 27(1): 125-130.
Background: In 1975, Australia adopted the Federal Family Law Act of 1975, which
altered the grounds for divorce from proof of misconduct by one party to irretrievable
breakdown. This study uses a hazard model of the divorce rate to estimate the probability
of leaving a given marriage before and after 1975, which allows the authors to estimate
the effect of the introduction of no-fault on marriages of varying duration. Data is taken
from 8,608 females aged less than 55 who had married at least once by 1982 from the
Australian Bureau of Family Statistics Family Survey, a nationally representative sample.
Control variables included age, age at first marriage, years of education, whether there
was a child born prior to the marriage, country of birth, length of residency in Australia,
and employment status.
Results: [N]o-fault divorce legislation appear to have had a positive impact upon the
divorce rate in Australia. (p. 129) These results imply the legislation increased the
hazard rate [i.e. divorce] by between 45 and 88%. (p. 129)
12. Matouschek, iko & Imran Rasul (2006). The Economies of the Marriage Contract:
Theories and Evidence. (Forthcoming, 2007, in the Journal of Law and Economics), working
paper available at http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpimr/research/marriage%20contract.pdf.
Background: The study constructs and tests three models of why legal marriage may
matter, compared to the alternative of cohabitation: legal marriage as a preference for
social custom, legal marriage as a commitment device, and legal marriage as a signal of
true and permanent love. In the process, the authors empirically test the idea that
unilateral divorce may affect the divorce rate in two ways: by increasing the incentive of
existing couples to divorce and by changing the composition of couples who choose to
marry in the first place.

- 14 -
Using individual marriage and divorce certificate data from the U.S., the study
constructed year-of-divorce, duration-of-marriage, and state-specific divorce propensities
for all marriages that occurred in 33 states after 1968 and divorced before 1995, including
19 states that adopted unilateral divorce in some year. This dataset represents the universe
of all marriages in small states and a representative sample of marriages in larger states.
Because there is disagreement on the dates in which various states adopted unilateral
divorce (due to varying definitions of unilateral divorce), the authors tested alternative
codings of unilateral divorce, using Gruber (2004) who codes as unilateral divorce states
those states that permit no-fault divorce without significant waiting periods, and Ellman
and Lohr (1998) who code unilateral divorce as the date in which a state adopted either
irretrievable breakdown or incompatibility as a grounds of divorce. Authors report results
were similar using either coding system.
This study compares divorce risk between (a) states that adopted unilateral divorce and
those that did not; (b) between couples married before the introduction of unilateral
divorce and those who married after the state adopted unilateral divorce; and (c) couples
who married between one and four years after the adoption of unilateral divorce and
those who married at least five years afterwards. (By investigating the divorce
propensities of marriages of different durations within the same state and year of divorce,
the authors seek to control for unobserved state specific trends, such as social attitudes or
labor market conditions, that may affect both the adoption of unilateral divorce and
marriage and divorce risk.)
Results: [A]fter the introduction of unilateral divorce, the propensity to divorce at any
given marital duration increases by 4.08 divorces per 1000 marriages[T]he implied
effect of unilateral divorce is to increase the divorce propensity, averaged across
marriages of all durations, by 18.5%. (p. 26) However this increase is not sustained over
time because less well-matched couples respond to the reduced effectiveness of marriage
as a legal commitment device by failing to marry, which reduces the divorce rate over
time. [W]hen the costs of exiting marriage fall, only higher match quality couples are
willing to marry. This reduces the divorce rate in the long run as these better matched
couples form a greater share of all married couples (p. 28) Thus, for cohorts of
married couples that live under unilateral divorce for up to 10 years, the propensity to
divorce increases. However for marriages that experience living under unilateral divorce
for more than 10 years, the propensity to divorce falls. (p. 29) Our findings give
support to those who argue that divorce costs can be too low and that when they are too
low, the very purpose of the marriage contract is undermined. (p. 5)
13. Mechoulan, Stphane (2006). Divorce Laws and the Structure of the American Family,
Journal of Legal Studies 35(1): 143-174.
Background: The study uses cross-sectional micro data of recently married U.S. white
women interviewed between 1971 and 1990, taken from the June Supplements of the
Current Population Survey (CPS). Divorce and marriage rates are from Vital Statistics
(National Center for Health Statistics 1950-2000) and the Statistical Abstract of the
United States (U.S. Census Bureau 1999). The study define[s] as having no-fault
grounds only those states that have enacted specific no-fault statutes. (p. 150) Regarding
property division, the study notes: many states barred the consideration of fault in asset
division and spousal support settlements. With regard to property regimes, this work
focuses on that no-fault dimension. (p. 151)

- 15 -
Results: Creating no-fault grounds for divorce did not appear to increase the divorce rate,
but moving from fault to no-fault in the distribution of marital property did appear to
increase divorce rates. [F]or those women who married under a fault regime for
property, a change to a no-fault regime was responsible for a significant increase in
divorce oddsOn the other hand, we see that adding no-fault grounds to the statutes
(whether supplementing fault grounds or supplanting them) seems to be irrelevant. (p.
160) Comparing the divorce patterns of women who married before and after the legal
changes, the impact of a no-fault for grounds regime is to decrease age at first marriage,
although not statistically significantly, while the effect of no-fault for property is to
significantly delay marriage, (p. 163) suggesting reduced risk of divorce through better
matching. The main conclusion of the paper is that this better sorting decreased the
probability of divorce by about as much as the institution of no-fault divorce increased
it[U]nder no-fault for property laws on average women marry when they are
significantly older than are women in fault states. (p. 165)
14. akonezny, Paul A., et al. (1995). The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Law on the Divorce
Rate Across the 50 States and Its Relation to Income, Education, and Religiosity. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 57(2): 477-488.
Background: This study investigates the effect of no-fault divorce on a states average
divorce rate in the first three years after its adoption, controlling for state median family
income, education (the proportion of people age 25 or older who have four year college
degrees or more), and three measures of religion: the proportion of the state that was
Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, or United Methodist. The definition of a switch to
no-fault divorce was not provided, although Table 1 lists the date at which states are
held to have adopted no-fault divorce.
15

Results: After controlling for religiosity, income, education, and period effects, the study
finds that [T]he switch from fault divorce law to no-fault divorce law led to a
measurable increase in the divorce rate. (p. 485) (The effect size was .91, a large effect
size as defined by meta-analysis standards. (p. 485)) Neither the proportion of college
graduates nor religious denomination had any effect, but higher state median income
appeared to increase the impact of legal change on the divorce rate: [N]o-fault divorce
had a greater impact on high-income familiesthan on low-income families. (p. 484)
Two important results emerge from the current study. First, the enactment of no-fault
divorce law had a clear positive influence on divorce ratesSecond, median family
income had a small but significant positive relation to the post-no-fault divorce rate when
the effects of the pre-no-fault divorce rate were statistically controlled. (p. 487)
15. Reilly, Siobhn & Eirik Evenhouse (1997). Divorce Laws and Divorce Rates: Evidence
from Panel Data, working paper.
Background: This study uses twenty-five years of state-level panel data on the divorce
rate (1963-1987) reported by the U.S. National Center for Vital Statistics, and twenty
years of data on individuals taken from the 1989 Panel Study of Income Dynamics
(PSID) [Wave 22], consisting of 6,505 ever-married individuals who were married during
at least one year after 1968 (the start of the study), representing 7,034 marriages (of
which 1,058 ended in divorce or separation during the survey period). Marriages that
lasted two years or less were excluded. Following Peters (1986),
16
the authors classify a
state as permitting unilateral divorce if it (a) allows for a no-fault divorce and (b) the
waiting or separation period for such a divorce is less than one year.

- 16 -
Results: For the state panel sample, the studys results suggest that other things equal,
unilateral divorce law corresponds to an increase of in [sic] the states divorce rate of 1.5
per thousand residents, a 36 percent increase over the overall average of 4.2 per
thousand. (p. 14-15) However, the study observes that this almost certainly overstates
the effects of unilateral divorce. Controlling time-varying state effects, the states 1969
divorce rate and the growth in the states divorce rate between 1963 and 1969, suggests
that the law is associated with an 8 percent rise in the divorce rate. (p. 16-17)
Comparing no-fault with unilateral divorce laws suggests that [n]o-fault laws are
indeed associated with a rise in the divorce race, but it is the unilateral aspect of some of
them that causes the effect. (p. 17) Ultimately, [t]hese simple regressions suggest that
(a) unilateral divorce has a rather modest impact on divorce rates, on the order of 5 to 8
percent; (b) the effect is short-livedand (c) it is sensitive to the misclassification of
state laws. (p. 18)
Using data on the hazard of divorce from the PSID: Controlling for age at marriage,
duration of marriage, presence of children, income variables, and trend, unilateral divorce
appeared to be associated with a 17 percent increase in divorce propensity (p.23): This is
a large effect relative to the effects of other variables: Its impact on the odds of divorce is
five times that of having married a year younger, three times that of the local
unemployment rate, nearly three times that of another year of marriage, and more than
two times that of another ten to fourteen thousand dollars in annual income. (p. 23-24)
Unilateral divorce also appears to affect couples who married prior to 1968 more than
couples married afterwards and to increase the odds of divorce more for marriages with
children at home than marriages without minor children. (p. 25-26)
In summary: State-level data suggest that the switch from mutual consent to unilateral
divorce did raise states divorce rates, particularly in the two or three years after the new
laws were introduced, but that the longer-term effect was a mere 0.2 divorces more per
1000 residents, a 5 percent increase. Individual-level data from the PSID yield ambiguous
results: Estimates of the impact of unilateral divorce on an individuals annual divorce
hazard range from zero to 35 percent. The sample is small enough, however, that results
should be interpreted with caution. (p. 31)
16. Rodgers, Joseph Lee, et al. (1997). The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Legislation on
Divorce Rates: A Response to a Reconsideration. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(4):
1026-1030.
17

Background: This study expands on the findings of an earlier study (Nakonezny, Paul
A., et al. (1995)) as a response to a subsequent critique (Glenn (1997)) of that study. The
original study used as its data the state divorce rate, measured as the number of divorces
(including annulments) per 1000 individuals for each of the 50 states for the three
consecutive years before the enactment and after the enactment of no-fault divorce law
for each state, data from Vital Statistics of the United States (National Center for Health
Statistics, 1987, 1989; United States Bureau of the Census, 1950-1990). The current
study added to this original data file the divorce rates 10 years prior to the
implementation of the no-fault law [for each state]. (p. 1028)
Results: There was an increase in the divorce rate across the 10 years in 44 of the 50
states, as expected. In 34 states, the 10-year divorce trend underestimated the actual
average of the 3 years following the enactment of no-fault divorce law, suggesting a net
effect of the law itself. In 16 states, the net effect was negative, suggesting a lower
divorce rate than the 10-year linear trend would have predicted. (pg. 1028) The study
finds that around 30% of the raw change [in the divorce rate] that we reported in our

- 17 -
original article [Nakonezny, Paul A., et al. (1995)] was due to no-fault laws, and around
70% was due to the prevailing divorce pattern. (pg. 1028) That translates into around
57,000 extra divorces per year in the whole U.S. that are directly attributable to the
implementation of no-fault divorce law. (p. 1028)
17. Wolfers, Justin (2006). Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A
Reconciliation and New Results. American Economic Review 96(5): 1802-1820.
Background: To reexamine the results of Friedberg (1998), which found that unilateral
divorce laws have caused one-sixth of the divorce rate increase since the late 1960s, the
current study extends Friedbergs data sample back from 1968 to 1956 so as to allow for
a better identification of pre-existing state-specific trends, controlling for state and year
fixed effects, state-specific time trends, and quadratic state-specific time trends. (p. 1807-
1808) To check these effects on the flow of new divorces against the effects of unilateral
divorce laws on the stock of divorcees, the current study then replicates the results of
Gruber (2000), which examined the effects of divorce laws on the pool of those
individuals divorced at a given point in time; to account for divorcees who remarry, the
current study also analyzes the effects of divorce laws on the ever-divorced population.
Results: A clear finding from this analysis is that the divorce rate exhibits interesting
dynamics in response to a change in legal regimeThe data broadly indicate that divorce
law reform led to an immediate spike in the divorce rate that dissipates over time. After a
decade, no effect can be discernedIt should be clear that unilateral divorce laws explain
very little of the rise in the aggregate divorce rate. (p. 1816-1817)

STUDIES SHOWIG O EFFECT FROM CHAGE I DIVORCE LAW
1. Ellman, Ira Mark & Sharon L. Lohr (1998). Dissolving the Relationship Between
Divorce Laws and Divorce Rates. International Review of Law and Economics, 18: 341-359.
Background: First, the study critiques conclusions of Nakonezny et al. (1995) and Brinig
and Buckley (1998) that unilateral divorce raised the divorce rate. Then it presents its
own analysis of available data for all states excluding Nevada and Louisiana, to see
whether there were any changes in divorce rates after the enactment of a no-fault divorce
law for grounds, property, or alimony, or, whether there were divorce rate changes after a
change in case law that made a state effectively no-fault for property and alimony. (p.
349) After divorce rates for different states were plotted over time, they used an
intervention analysis where an ARIMA model is fit to a time series (the divorce rate
for a state from 19601992), with additional terms included to measure the possible
effect(s) of an intervention (changes in divorce law). (p. 353) Each state was analyzed
separately: This allowed us to estimate and to remove the general trend in divorce rates
for a region from each time series, with only a small loss in efficiency. (pg. 353) There
were four regions (west, north central, south, and northeast); each was treated separately.
We then weighted the data points for the other states so that neighboring states that
changed their divorce laws would not exert undue influence on the analysis. Using the
weighted data, we employed the Super Smoother to estimate the regional trend in divorce
rates. The smoothed trend line nonparametrically accounts for other factors such as
unemployment, religious affiliations, or female participation in the work force, that might
be thought to influence divorce rates. (p. 353-354)
Results: Regarding the two papers the current study examines (Nakonezny et al. (1995)
and Brinig and Buckley (1998)), the study shows that the conclusions of both papers
rely on flawed statistical analysis, (p. 345) and Ellman and Lohr urge that the empirical

- 18 -
results of these two papers be disregarded. (p. 345) The analysis of Nakonezny et al. is
flawed because they ignored the fact that over 60% of the states adopted no-fault divorce
grounds between 1970 and 1973years of increasing divorce rates nationwideThus, a
simple before and after comparison does not work. (p. 345-346) The Brinig and Buckley
(1998) analysis is flawed because their NO-FAULT variable cannot estimate the effect
of no-fault laws or practice. (p. 347) Regarding its own empirical analysis, the authors
conclude that there is no evidence that divorce laws affect trends in divorce rates. (p.
343) Our analyses indicate that (1) for states changing their divorce laws in the early
1970s, the divorce rates began rising before changes in law, and (2) for states changing
their laws after 1975, there is no evidence that the effect of the divorce law change was
anything other than transitory. (p. 358). In fact, [w]e find it far more plausible to
conclude that divorce rates and divorce laws share causal influences. (p. 358)
2. Glenn, orval D. (1997). A Reconsideration of the Effect of No-Fault Divorce on Divorce
Rates. Journal of Marriage the Family, 59(4): 1023-1025.
18

Background: This study compares mean divorce rates for states classified by timing of
no-fault adoption (pre-boom, early boom, late boom, post-boom); comparing mean crude
divorce rates three years before and three years after adoption of no-fault divorce;
regressing mean divorce rate on year by when, relative to the divorce boom, states
adopted no-fault divorce; and regressing mean divorce rate on year states adopted no-
fault divorce during the divorce boom, with mean rate for states that had not adopted no-
fault divorce controlled. (p. 1024) Divorce rates for all states from 1962-1980, excluding
Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, and Vermont due to
missing data, taken from Vital Statistics of the United States.
Results: The current study begins by examining the results of Nakonezny et al. (1995),
claiming that studys analysis confounds the effects of other influences on divorce with
any effects of the change to no-fault divorce. (p. 1023) Glenn concludes that all states
display a similar increase in divorce rate regardless of when they adopted no-fault laws,
and the legal change had very little effect on divorce rates. The study shows that although
states that adopted no-fault before the divorce boom did have the highest divorce rates,
they also had the highest initial rates and the lowest percentage increase, leading the
author to surmise that higher divorce rates led to an earlier move to no-fault, instead of
the opposite. Similarly, states that adopted no-fault after the divorce boom had the lowest
divorce rates but also had the lowest initial rates, which may have resulted in the late
adoption. Furthermore, in the states that adopted no-fault provisions at times other than
during the divorce boom, the mean divorce rate was no higher in the 3 years after
adoption than in the 3 years before adoption. (p. 1023) [S]tates that had not yet adopted
no-fault divorce and that did not do so during the subsequent 3 years can be used as a
control group for each state that adopted no-fault divorce during the divorce boom, (p.
1024) with the following results: The percentage changes of the means for the adopter
states and the control group states are so similar that they are essentially the same. (p.
1025) These findings indicate that the adoption of no-fault divorce had little direct,
immediate effect on divorce rates. (p. 1025)
3. Glenn, orval D. (1999). Further Discussion of the Effects of No-Fault Divorce on
Divorce Rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61: 800-802.
19

Background: In this response to Rodgers, Joseph Lee, et al. (1997), Glenn compared the
mean divorce rate from 1961-1974 with the projected mean rate from 1972-74 in the 7
states that implemented no-fault divorce in 1971 (which had the highest mean positive

- 19 -
effect on divorce rates in Rodgers-Shull-Nakonezny analysis) and the 13 states that
implemented no-fault divorce after 1974.
This study finds that during the divorce boom, states without no-fault had similar rates of
increase to those with no-fault, and states that adopted no-fault after 1975 saw decreases
in divorce rate. Furthermore, there is scant unambiguous evidence for any effect of no-
fault divorce in 19721974 in the states that implemented no-fault divorce in 1971. It
seems clear that the Rodgers-Nakonezny-Shull method greatly overestimates the positive
effects on divorce rates of the implementation of no-fault divorce in the seven states that
made the change in 1971. (p. 802) Ultimately, the current study shows that the method
used in Rodgers, Joseph Lee, et al. (1997) made linear projections from nonlinear
trends, (p. 800) and confounds any effects of implementation of no-fault divorce with
the effects of other influences that brought about the divorce boom of the 1960s and
1970s and that led to a leveling off of divorce rates after the late 1970s. (p. 800)
4. Gray, Jeffrey S. (1998). Divorce-Law Changes, Household Bargaining, and Married
Womens Labor Supply. The American Economic Review, 88(3): 628-642.
Background: State laws were classified on whether they had adopted unilateral divorce
(with separation requirements if any of less than one year) between 1970 and 1974, and
also classified based on the marital property distribution regime: equitable distribution,
common law, or community property. Census data from 1960, 1970, and 1980 were used
to create a primary sample including married women ages 18 to 55 with husbands
present. Because Census data does not include hours worked, a second sample was
constructed from the Current Population Survey (CPS).
Results: The study finds that, controlling for socioeconomic variables, unilateral divorce
laws have little impact on state divorce rates. (pg. 634) Furthermore, unilateral divorce
has no significant impact on married womens labor-force participation unless the
underlying marital-property laws in each state are consideredOnce these property laws
are controlled forthe labor-supply behavior of wives does appear to respond to their
states adopting unilateral-divorce statutes. (p. 629)
5. Olah, Livia Sz (2001). Policy Changes and Family Stability: The Swedish Case.
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 15: 118-134.
Background: This study investigates Swedish trends in family disruption for both
consensual unions and legal marriages, investigating whether there is increased
individual risk of family disruption in three time periods associated with three separate
legal changes: (1) 1964-1973, when divorce was possible on both fault and no-fault
grounds; (2) 1974 to mid-1983, when all fault grounds were eliminated and waiting
periods were shortened and simplified; and (3) mid-19831993, when joint custody was
introduced as the general rule when unions dissolved. Data on the likelihood of union
dissolution from 1,869 women (of whom 20.5 percent experienced the disruption of their
union before the sixteenth birthday of their first child), was taken from the Swedish
Family and Working Life Survey of 1992/93, conducted by Statistics Sweden. The
working sample for the present study comprises women who have reported one or more
coresidential unions and have given birth to at least one child in such a union. Individuals
excluded include: those of a non-Nordic origin, those whose first child was an adopted
child, or whose partner had a child from a previous relationship, those whose union ended
in the same month when they had their first child, or those whose first child died.
Controls include religiosity, age at first birth of the respondent, age at union formation,
educational attainment, and employment status.

- 20 -
Results: The study found neither divorce law change appeared to increase family
disruption risk: [T]he introduction of one of the most liberal divorce laws of the world
had relatively little effect on union disruption among families with children as the risks of
family dissolution were very similar in the first and second policy periods (ie [sic] 1964
73, and 1974mid-1983). This suggests the lack of long-term effects of the no-fault
divorce law on family dissolution behavior (p. 124) However, the study did find that
the introduction of joint custody for children after family breakup as a main rule seems to
increase family disruption, primarily among consensual (i.e. unmarried cohabiting)
unions. Although the no-fault divorce law had hardly any long-term effect on family
stability in Sweden, joint custody and fathers use of parental leave seem to be
important. (p. 118) In the third policy period (mid-19831993) the risk of union
dissolution was 30% higher than in previous decades. (p. 124)
6. Smith, Ian (1997). Explaining the Growth of Divorce in Great Britain. Scottish Journal of
Political Economy 44(5): 519-544.
Background: Between 1964 and 1985, ten important changes in divorce law and
procedures took place in England (and Wales) and/or Scotland. This study uses this
difference in timing to investigate the consequences of seven of these divorce law
changes on the divorce rate. For example: The 1969 Divorce Reform Act in England and
Wales introduced irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as the sole grounds for
divorce, although the breakdown had to be proved by showing one of five possible facts:
adultery, unreasonable behavior, desertion, living separately for two years with mutual
consent to the divorce, living separately for five years without mutual consent. (The
authors note the long waiting period for unilateral no-fault divorce means the British
data do not provide a good testbed for addressing the no-fault controversy and little
weight can be placed on them as input to that specific American debate. (p. 523)) A
similar law was not adopted in Scotland until 1976.
20
In 1983, the Scots introduced two
procedural innovations, (1) so-called do it yourself divorces for couples separated at
least two years and where both parties consent to the application and there are no children
of the marriage under age 16 and no alimony claims are being made upon one another
(simplified divorces now account for one-third of all Scottish divorces), and (2) Scottish
law also began permitting divorce cases to be heard in local courts, rather than
exclusively in Edinburgh.
21

Important legal changes regarding property division upon divorce include The Succession
Act of 1964, which permitted Scottish judges to award a maintenance allowance to a wife
on divorce. In 1970, in England and Wales, courts were given the power to dispose of
matrimonial property, especially the family home. Scottish courts did not receive this
power until the Family Law (Scotland) Act of 1985, which introduced a principle of
equal sharing of all marital property, including the marital home. In 1984, the English
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act limited maintenance (alimony) to a temporary
and transitional period. The 1985 Scottish law similarly limited maintenance to a limited
transitional period.
The study also looked at changes in real and relative wages, fertility control (defined as
diffusion of knowledge about the contraceptive pill), and value of welfare benefits, as
possible confounding factors in the rise in divorce.
Results: For neither England & Wales nor Scotland can any long run legal effects [of
permissive legal reform] be detectedIn contrast to the absence of significant long run
effects, the strictly short run impacts of legal and procedural innovations are powerful
and statistically significant. (p. 540) [T]he analysis failed to detect any increase in the

- 21 -
number of divorces arising from the introduction of no-fault separation grounds. If
anything, it is not extensions to the judicial grounds for divorce which have contributed
to rising divorce rates but rather diminishing transactions costs and court settlement rules
that improve the post-divorce financial position of womenIn particular, it was found
that the introduction of a relatively low cost Simplified Procedure in Scotland in 1983
appears to have permanently narrowed the differential between Scottish and English
divorce rates. (p. 541)
7. Sweezy, Kate & Jill Tiefenthaler (1996). Do State-Level Variables Affect Divorce Rates?
Review of Social Economy 54: 47-65.
Background: Using data on 32,369 women over age 15 who are or have been married
from the Fertility, Birth Expectations, and Marital History supplement to the 1990
Current Population Survey, this study looked at the effects of two legal variables on
divorce risk: whether states have an equitable distribution versus community property
law and whether states have a waiting period before divorce. A multivariate hazard model
is used for an event history analysis. State-level controls include AFDC payments,
proportion of population who attends church, and the percent of population who are
Christian fundamentalist. Controls for personal variables include age at marriage,
premarital pregnancy, previous divorce, earnings, region of country, urban residency, and
race.
Results: [T]he length of the waiting period and the property distribution laws of a state
have no effect on the incidence of divorce. (pg. 62) These results reject notions that
liberal divorce laws and generous AFDC payments encourage the breakup of families but
support the hypothesis that social norms do influence individual behavior. (p. 47)

APPEDIX B:
DIVORCE LAW REFORM AD OTHER FAMILY OUTCOMES

A. Wives Labor Force Participation

Chiappori et al. (2002). Marriage Market, Divorce Legislation, and Household Labor Supply.
Journal of Political Economy 110: 37-72.
Background: This study examines how divorce law affects husbands and wives labor
force participation, analyzing 1,618 households in which both spouses work and are
between 30 and 60 years of age, data taken from wave 23 (1988) of the University of
Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a nationally representative
longitudinal study of nearly 8,000 U.S. families. A composite measure of divorce law
regimes most favorable to women is constructed out of four features: mutual consent
versus unilateral divorce, community property versus common-law property division,
enforcement of support orders, and spousal rights in professional degrees and licenses.
As of 1989, most states (42) had adopted unilateral-divorce laws. Among these states, as
many as 24 allowed unilateral divorce only after a lengthy separation that lasted between
six months and five years. We follow Peters (1986)
22
and Gray (1998) and define them as
mutual-consent states. Property division refers to state marital property systems, which
can be either community property or common law.
23
(p. 58) Mutual consent divorce,
community property, stronger support enforcement, and spousal rights in professional

- 22 -
degrees and licenses are treated as more favorable to wives. The divorce law index is
created out of these four indicators. Controls include income, age, education, race, city
size, religion, and number of children.
Results: According to our estimates, a one-percentage-point increase in the index,
which reflects the adoption of a divorce law deemed favorable to women, reduces wives
labor supply by approximately 46 hours, whereas it increases husbands labor supply by
81 hours over a year. (p. 62)
Gray, Jeffrey S. (1998). Divorce-Law Changes, Household Bargaining, and Married Womens
Labor Supply. The American Economic Review, 88(3): 628-642.
Background: State laws were classified on whether they had adopted unilateral divorce
(with separation requirements if any of less than one year) between 1970 and 1974, and
also classified based on the marital property distribution regime: equitable distribution,
common law, or community property. Census data from 1960, 1970, and 1980 were used
to create a primary sample including married women ages 18 to 55 with husbands
present. Because Census data does not include hours worked, a second sample was
constructed from the Current Population Survey (CPS).
Results: The study finds that, controlling for socioeconomic variables, unilateral divorce
laws have little impact on state divorce rates. (pg. 634) Furthermore, unilateral divorce
has no significant impact on married womens labor-force participation unless the
underlying marital-property laws in each state are consideredOnce these property laws
are controlled forthe labor-supply behavior of wives does appear to respond to their
states adopting unilateral-divorce statutes. (p. 629)
Parkman, Allen M. (1998). Why Are Married Women Working So Hard? International Review
of Law and Economics, 18: 41-49.
Background: 172 married women and 159 married men, data from the Time Use
Longitudinal Panel Study, 19751981. The sample was restricted to fault divorce states
and the no-fault divorce states that had adopted no-fault divorce grounds by 1978.
Observations from the states that switched from fault to no-fault divorce between 1978
and 1981 were eliminated from the sample.
Regression analyses were conducted to determine the causes of changes in number of
hours worked by married men and women. Dependent variables used in these regressions
were the minutes per week spent in four activities: regular work, housework, child care,
and leisure, plus total work, that is the sum of regular work and housework. The
independent variables consisted of variables associated with labor force participation:
age, family assets, religion, number and age of children, race, education, spouses
earnings, whether the family lived in a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA),
and regional variables for the western, north, central, and southern United States. The
influence of no-fault divorce was introduced by a dummy variable for states that in 1978
permitted unilateral divorce within 2 years. (pg. 47-48)
Results: The study finds that living in a no-fault divorce state tends to increase the
employment of married women. (p. 48) Furthermore, the decrease in housework was not
statistically significant, and the sum of any decrease in housework and childcare did not
equal the increase in regular work, so that the introduction of no-fault divorce has
increased the [total] hours worked by married women. (p. 41) [L]iving in a no-fault
divorce state results in married women having 4.5 hours less leisure time [per week] and
approximately the same amount of additional time devoted to work. These results support

- 23 -
the hypothesis that married women in no-fault divorce states have been forced to take
steps to protect themselves from the potentially adverse effects of no-fault divorce. (p.
48) (The study also found that living in a no-fault divorce state did not affect the number
of hours worked by married men.) The study concludes that the increase in employment
by married women under no-fault divorce laws is motivated by a desire for personal
insurance against the potential costs of divorce rather than by an increase in their familys
welfare. However, to continue to make their marriage attractive to their husband, they
have to continue to provide a substantial number of hours of domestic work. The result
has been an increase in the total number of hours worked by married women. (p. 49)
Stevenson, Betsey (2007). The Impact of Divorce Laws on Marriage-Specific Capital. Journal of
Labor Economics 25(1): 75-94.
Background: This study investigates how changes in divorce laws affect marital
behavior through altering couples incentives to make investments in their marriage. To
reduce selection effects out of marriage as a result of legal change, the study looks at
newlyweds in the first two years of marriage, taken from the 1970 and 1980 Census.
Spousal behaviors investigated include female labor force participation, full-time labor
market work by both spouses, one spouse supporting the others education, children born
during the marriage, and home ownership. This study uses Gruber (2004) coding of states
having unilateral divorce (although the author notes Results presented are robust to
following the coding for unilateral divorce used in Friedberg (1998). (p. 82) States are
coded as having adopted no-fault divorce following Ellman and Lohr (1998), and the
property regimes upon divorce follow Gray (1998). The study includes controls for
gender, state and year fixed effects, own age, race, education, metropolitan status,
spouses age, spouses race, and spouses education.
Results: [N]ewlywed couples in states that allow unilateral divorce are about 10% less
likely to be supporting a spouse through school. They are 8% more likely to have both
spouses employed in the labor force full time and are 5% more likely to have a wife in
the labor force. Finally, they are about 6% less likely to have a child. (p. 77)
The empirical evidence demonstrates that a switch to unilateral divorce reduces couples
willingness to make substantial investments early in their marriage. Couples are less
likely to have children in the first 2 years, are less likely to support each other
sequentially through school, and are more likely to have two full-time workers in the
labor force and greater female labor force participation. Some of these investments may
simply be being postponed, while others may never be made. Furthermore, these results
are largely invariant to the laws governing property division. The exception is home
ownership, where the removal of fault in property settlements appears to encourage home
ownership in the early years of a marriage. (p. 92-93)

B. Divorce Law and Family Violence
Dee, Thomas (2003). Until Death Do You Part: The Effects of Unilateral Divorce on Spousal
Homicides. Economic Inquiry 41(1): 163-82.
Background: This study investigates how unilateral divorce laws affect spousal
homicide rates. State legal regimes are divided into six categories: unilateral divorce,
unilateral divorce with separation requirements (waiting periods), unilateral divorce with
one of three forms of marital property distribution (equitable distribution, community
property, and common law), and states without unilateral divorce. Spousal homicide

- 24 -
counts for husbands and wives are taken from FBI Uniform Crime Reports for all 50
states and the District of Columbia between 1968 and 1978. Results are run both with and
without controls for state fixed effects. Other controls include state unemployment and
real personal income per capita, AFDC expenditures per recipient, intensity of crime
enforcement (as measured by per person number of state and local law enforcement
officers and presence of the death penalty), the numbers of stranger homicides, and state
gun control laws.
Results: [T]he widespread adoption of unilateral divorce laws had relatively small and
statistically insignificant [sic] on the number of wives murdered by their
husbands[T]he introduction of unilateral divorce laws led to a statistically significant
increase of roughly 21% in the number of husbands killed by their wives. Notably, the
increases in spousal homicides of husbands were concentrated in the states with marital
property laws that favored husbands. (p. 181). The author notes his study results are
quite different from those of Stevenson and Wolfers (2000)
24
(p. 177) and suggests
these possible reasons: Stevenson and Wolfers use a much longer time period, use
homicide rates instead of homicides numbers, and do not distinguish unilateral divorce
regimes with separation requirements from pure unilateral divorce regimes. I replicated
their data set[and] found that their results were sensitive to the use of homicide rates
instead of counts as well as to their representation of the state laws. (p. 177)
Ellman, Ira Mark & Sharon Lohr (1997). Marriage as Contract, Opportunistic Violence,
and Other Bad Arguments for Fault Divorce. University of Illinois Law Review, 1997(3): 719-72.
Background: State divorce regimes are divided into three categories, no-fault (22 states),
limited fault (6 states), and fault (22 states), based on the ease with which trial courts may
consider marital misconduct in awarding alimony. Two measures of spousal homicide
rates for all 50 states for the years 1987 through 1992 were taken from the FBIs Uniform
Crime Reporting Program (average number of spousal homicides per 100,000 married
couples per year from 1985-92, and the average number of homicides of wives by their
husbands per 100,000 married couples per year from 1985-92). A measure of wife assault
rate (calculated as the percentage of couples in a state in which at least one physical
assault of the wife by her partner had been reported as occurring in the previous 12
months) was taken from Murray Straus (1994) State-to-State Differences in Social
Inequality and Social Bonds in Relation to Assaults on Wives in the United States,
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(1): 7-24, which computed the rate of wife
assault for each state from the 1985 National Family Violence Survey, a national
probability sample of 6002 households. Controls included region, income per capita, the
violent crime rate, and the proportion of state population that is black.
Results: There isno statistically significant relation between fault/no-fault category
and spousal homicide. (pg. 766) The study found no statistically significant association
for wife assaults.
Stevenson, Betsey & Justin Wolfers (2006). Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce
Laws and Family Distress. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121(1): 267-288.
Background: This paper exploits the variation occurring from the different timing of
divorce law reforms across the United States to evaluate how unilateral divorce changed
family violence and whether the option provided by unilateral divorce reduced suicide
and spousal homicide. (pg. 269) Data are drawn from state panel data on suicide rates
(constructed from the National Center for Health Statistics), reports of domestic violence
(data from Straus and Gelles Family Violence Surveys in 1976 and again in 1985), and

- 25 -
spousal homicides (data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports) from 1964 through to
1996 in 37 states that adopted some form of unilateral divorce (using Leora Friedbergs
coding) during this time period. The other 14 stateswho had either not yet adopted
unilateral divorce at the time of the study or had adopted some variant of unilateral
divorce earlierare included as controls.
Results: Examining state panel data on suicide, domestic violence, and murder, we find
a striking decline in female suicide and domestic violence rates arising from the advent of
unilateral divorce. Total female suicide declined by around 20 percent in the long run in
states that adopted unilateral divorceThere is no discernable effect on male
suicideData on conflict resolution reveal large declines in domestic violence
committed by, and against, both men and women in states that adopted unilateral divorce.
Furthermore, we find suggestive evidence of a decline in females murdered by intimates,
although these results are not as convincing. As with suicide, there is no discernable
effect on males murdered, although this reflects the imprecision and volatility of our
estimates. (pg. 286-287)
Regarding suicides, after controlling for the ratio of male-to-female employment rates,
state income per capita and unemployment, the maximum AFDC payment for a family of
four, the share of the state population on the welfare rolls, the availability of abortion, and
the racial and age composition of the state, the study shows that there is a large and
statistically significant reduction in the female suicide rate following the change to
unilateral divorce. Further, this effect grows over time with the full effects of unilateral
divorce on female suicide occurring fifteen to twenty years following the adoption of
unilateral divorce. Averaging the effects over the twenty years following reform suggests
an aggregate decline of 8 percent10 percent in female suicide and a long-run decline that
is much larger. For male suicides [the study] reveals no discernible effect. (pg. 276)
Regarding domestic violence, after controlling for state fixed effects; respondents age,
race and gender; the educational attainment and current labor force status of both
husband and wife; the maximum AFDC rate for a family of four; the natural log of state
personal income per capita; the unemployment rate; the female-to-male employment rate;
age composition variables indicating the share of states populations aged 14-19 and then
ten-year cohorts beginning with age 20 up to a variable for 90+; and the share of the
states population that is black, white and other, the study shows that [c]omparing these
declines in violence rates with their base rates, domestic violence appears to have
declined by somewhere between a quarter and a half between 1976 and 1985 in those
states that reformed their divorce laws. (pg. 282-283)
Regarding intimate homicide of women by men, the study shows a large and significant
decline in intimate femicide following the adoption of unilateral divorce for all three
definitions of intimate homicide, with results suggesting declines on the order of
around 10 percent. (pg. 283) This estimate is robust to adding a rich set of controls,
including a death penalty indicator; the Donahue and Levitt Effective Abortion Rate; the
state incarceration rate, once lagged; the AFDC rate for a family of four; the natural log
of state personal income per capita; the unemployment rate; the female-to-male
employment rate; age composition variables indicating the share of states populations
aged 14-19, and then ten-year cohorts beginning with age 20 up to a variable for 90+; and
the share of the states population that is black, white, and other. The study adds,
however, that the timing evidence is somewhat worrying, and the reader is left to judge
whether the decline in homicide predated the law change to an extent that undermines our
results. (pg. 285)

- 26 -

C. Divorce Law and Other Family Formation Behavior

Alesina, Alberto & Paola Giuliano (July 2006). Divorce, Fertility and the Value of Marriage.
available at http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/giuliano/papers/
AGdivorce_April07_final.pdf (previously Divorce, Fertility and the Shot Gun Marriage,
National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper 12375).
Background: This study analyzes marriage and birth certificate data from the National
Vital Statistics System of the National Center for Health Statistics to determine the
impact of unilateral no-fault divorce laws on marriage and fertility behavior. For birth
certificates, the study uses public use micro data on every birth certificate in the United
States from 1968 through 1999 to mothers aged 10 and older, and marriage data covers
the years 1956 through 1995. Additional data is collected from the Current Population
Survey (labor market, education levels) and Census 1980 5% state sample (fertility rates
in first 2 years of marriage). Specifically, the authors test whether changes in state
divorce laws (using state law classifications from Gruber (2004)) impact marital and
nonmarital fertility rates, as well as marriage rates, while controlling for various factors
including income, unemployment rates, female labor participation, education, and
abortion. The authors also consider data (where available) from prior years to determine
whether the fertility changes preceded the legal change.
Results: Both with and without controls for a variety of state-specific variables, this
study finds that the adoption of unilateral no-fault divorce laws is associated with a
decline in the fertility rates in adopting states. The effect is significant at the 1 percent
level and the implied decline in fertility is about 3 percentage points. (p. 6)
Based on the research of Wolfers (2006), the study also considers the effect of time,
finding that [t]here is a large and significant reduction in fertility rate following the
introduction of [unilateral] divorce and the effect is constant over time and does not
disappear until 15 years after the introduction of [unilateral] divorce. (p. 8-9)
More specifically, the decline in overall fertility rates reflects a drop in out-of-wedlock
births, while marital fertility remains roughly constant. All our specifications show a
significant decline in out-of-wedlock ratio following the adoption of unilateral divorce,
with an elasticity of the order of 6%. . . . The impact of unilateral divorce laws on the out-
of-wedlock rate is always significant at the 1% level, with or without the inclusion of
state-specific trends, whereas the impact on the marital rate is always insignificant. (p.
10) In summary: out of wed lock fertility goes down significantly when divorce
becomes easier. Marital fertility is unaffected. (p. 11)
To test the hypothesis that women are more likely to choose marriage to have children
when the exit options are more readily available, the study considered 5% sample data
from the 1980 Census, finding that fertility is higher in the first two years of marriage
for women living in states with unilateral divorce, although the coefficient is significant
only at the 10 percent level. (p.13) The study also finds that, controlling for education
and labor market status, the number of never married women declines with the
introduction of unilateral divorce. Our estimates imply an elasticity of around 4%. (p.
12) Explaining their findings, the authors conclude:
The theory and empirics on the effect of divorce laws on marital stability
and fertility typically emphasized what we have labeled a dilution

- 27 -
effect, namely a reduction in the value of marriage that should imply
fewer marriages and lower marital fertility, and by implication
potentially higher out-of-wedlock fertility. We emphasized another effect
which we labeled a commitment effect. As divorce becomes easier,
people feel less locked in when they marry. So when women consider
having children (or are already pregnant) they are more willing to try
marriage. Therefore out of wedlock fertility declines and marriage rates
go up.
The welfare implications of our results are of course very hard to
evaluate. Reduction of out of wedlock fertility may be a social good, but
society may pay for it with an increase in bad marriages and more
divorces. (p. 13)
Ekert-Jaffe, Olivia & Shoshana Grossbard (2006). Does Community Property Discourage
Unpartnered Births? July 24, 2006 draft was presented at a seminar at the Department of
Economics, Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Denmark, on September 27, 2006.
(July 24, 2006 draft at: http://www.hha.dk/nat/workshop/2006/sg2709.pdf. A previous draft was
presented at the European Society for Population Economics, Verona, June 2006.)
Background: This study analyzes retrospective data from 31,449 women who gave birth
to their first child between 1963 and 1992 in 12 countries (Western European countries
plus Canada, U.S. and New Zealand) in order to test whether rules of property division at
dissolution increase or decrease the likelihood of unpartnered births. Mothers who have
partnered births in this study may be either married or cohabiting. Legal regimes were
divided into three categories according to the degree of protection offered to women who
earn less than their partner: low degree of community in property (New Zealand before
1977, Canadas Common Law provinces, the U.S.A., and Austria); medium degree of
community in property (France and Belgium (Flanders only), the former West Germany,
Finland, Quebec, the Canadian province of Ontario since 1985, Italy and Spain after they
legalized divorce); and high degree of community in property (Norway and Sweden). The
data is drawn from the Family Fertility Surveys, conducted for the U.N. Economic
Commission for Europe.
Results: After taking into account the childs year of birth, the mothers age, the mothers
age at birth, whether the mothers parents had divorced, the mothers religiosity, family
size, and the mothers work and study status, this study concludes the likelihood of an
unpartnered birth was higher in countries that offer women who depend on male earnings
less access to joint property upon relationship dissolution. [T]he lower the degree of
community in a countrys divorce laws, the higher womens likelihood of having an
unpartnered birth. (p. 28) Women in countries with low levels of community property
are more likely to have unpartnered births than women in countries with medium levels
of community property. Women in countries with medium levels of community property
are more likely to have unpartnered births than women in countries with high levels of
community property. Most unlikely to give birth without a partner were women in
countries where divorce was illegal, a finding significant at the highest level. (p. 28)
Legal regime had less of an impact on unpartnered births among teenagers, women past
age 29 and children of divorce (all of whom were more likely to have unpartnered births);
Legal regime had a greater impact on women who attend religious services at least once a
week.

- 28 -
Allen, Douglas W., Krishna Pendakur & Wing Suen (2006). No-Fault Divorce and the
Compression of Marriage Ages. Economic Inquiry 44:3 (July): 547 ff.
Background: This study uses marriage records collected by the National Center for
Health Statistics, accounting for all first marriages of men and women between 1970 and
1995. States which switched to no-fault divorce during this period are compared to states
whose laws did not change in this period. States divorce laws are classified using
Friedbergs (1998) definitions of no-fault and strong no-fault states and also Brinig and
Buckleys (1998) alternative classification of strong no-fault states. (The main
difference being: Friedberg classifies a state as having a strong no-fault divorce system if
fault is ignored in both grounds and property distribution, while Brinig and Buckleys
classification as strong no-fault requires that the state also excludes fault in
consideration of alimony.)
Results: Our main prediction, that the spread of the marriage age distribution should
decline with the introduction of no-fault divorce, is broadly corroborated by the data.
Controlling for state-specific effects on the age at first-marriage distribution and for
national-level trends over time, we find that the introduction of no-fault divorce is
associated with a 1% to 5% decrease in the standard deviation of the log at first
marriage.Controlling for state-specific effects and for national-level trends, we find a
small increase of about 0.3% to 0.7% in the age at first marriage. Given average ages at
first marriage of 25, this suggests that no-fault divorce is associated with 1 to 2 months
more marital search with an associated small loss in welfare. (p. 548)
Rasul, Imran (2003). The Impact of Divorce Laws on Marriage, working paper, University of
Chicago.
Background: In theory, unilateral divorce laws might affect unmarried peoples
likelihood of entering legal marriages in either direction: either by making marriage more
attractive (by lowering its cost of exit) or by reducing its usefulness as a commitment
device, compared to cohabitation. This study uses state-level panel data from 1960 to
2000 to investigate the impact of unilateral divorce laws and more equal distribution of
property laws on marriage rates. Crude marriages rates (the number of marriages per
1000 adults age 15 to 65) were constructed from Vital Statistics data. Vital Statistics data
and data from the March CPS were combined to derive rates of marriage per 1000 single
adults (age 15 to 65). Thirdly, marriage certificates and March CPS data are used to
construct cohort specific marriage propensities, calculated by age, gender, race, and
marriage number.
This study uses Friedbergs (1998) coding of unilateral divorce law states (and also in the
appendix experiments with using alternate definitions of unilateral divorce, including
codings used by Gruber (2000), Johnson and Mazingo (2000), and Ellman and Lohr
(1998), which the author states produced similar results). Equitable property law is an
umbrella term the author uses to describe states that moved to more equal distribution of
property following divorce through one or more of a number of distinct legal steps
including moving from title-based common law marital property regimes to equitable
property and/or the ending of the use of marital fault in the distribution of assets. (The
author thanks Saku Aura and Jonathan Gruber for providing the coding of property laws
but provides little further detail.)
Results: On the effect of unilateral divorce laws: After the adoption of unilateral
divorce, marriage rates declined significantly and permanently in adopting states. The
effect of unilateral divorceaccounts for 10% of the overall decline in the marriage rate.

- 29 -
The impact of unilateral divorce in reducing the rate of marriages per 1000 singlesa
closer measure of the propensity to marryis twice as largeThe greatest quantitative
impact is among whites, and those marrying for a second time. (p. 26-27) On property
division laws, States which also introduced an equitable distribution of property in
divorce have further significant reductions in marriage rates. (p. 27)

15
A critique of this studys methodology by Norval Glenn in the pages of The Journal of Marriage and the
Family (Glenn, Norval D. (1997). A Reconsideration of the Effect of No-Fault Divorce on Divorce Rates
[paper #2 under Studies Showing No Effect from Change in Divorce Law) lead to a series of exchanges
between Glenn and Joseph Lee Rodgers, Paul A. Nakonezny and Robert D. Schull in that same journal,
consisting of Rodgers, Joseph Lee., et al. (1997). The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Legislation on Divorce
Rates: A Response to a Reconsideration [paper #16 under Studies Showing No-Fault Divorce Affects the
Divorce Rate]; Glenn, Norval D. (1999). Further Discussion of the Effects of No-Fault Divorce on Divorce
Rates [paper #3 under Studies Showing No Effect]; and Rodgers, Joseph Lee, et al. (1999) Did No-Fault
Divorce Legislation Matter? Definitely Yes and Sometimes No.
16
Peters, H. Elizabeth. Marriage and Divorce: Informational Constraints and Private Contracting
American Economic Review 76 (June 1986): 437-54.
17
See footnote 15.
18
See footnote 15.
19
See footnote 15.
20
Other potentially important legal changes include the adoption in England and Wales of a special
procedure at the end of 1973 for quickly processing divorce petitions of married couples without children
who sought divorce by mutual consent by signed affidavit (without a court hearing). In 1975, this easier
procedural option was extended to all uncontested divorces by childless married couples (except those who
alleged unreasonable behavior), and in 1977 divorce by affidavit was extended to all uncontested
divorces, including those with children. Similar procedural changes permitting divorce without court
hearing were adopted in Scotland in April 1978 (and by 1980, 92 percent of Scottish Divorces used this
procedure).
21
In 1984, England lowered the time from marriage at which a divorce petition may be heard from three
years to one year from the date of the marriage. Scotland has no such time bar.
22
See footnote 16.
23
Arizona, Mississippi, and Nevada are community property states which require equitable rather than
equal distribution of property upon dissolution and the authors code these states as common-law regimes.
(See footnote 24, page 58)
24
Stevenson, B., and J. Wolfers. Til Death Do Us Part: Effects of Divorce Laws on Suicide, Domestic
Violence and Spousal Murder. Manuscript, October 2000. (p. 182) [This is an earlier draft of Stevenson &
Wolfers (2006)]
Hi, Guest
login

LGBTQ Policy Journal at the Harvard Kennedy School: 2011 Edition
I Was Born this Way: Is Sexuality Innate, and Should It Matter?
by Joseph Osmundson
Joseph Osmundson is currently a graduate student in biophysics at the
Rockefeller University in New York City where he studies protein
structure and function. He has also taught students at the middle school,
high school, and college levels and is currently an Adjunct Professor of
Biology at The New School where he is teaching a course examining the
use of imaging in biology.
The biological understanding of sexuality is important in policy and law.
This article reviews the evidence that sexuality is biologically based and
finds it inconclusive. It then examines the ramifications of a case where a
well-studied gene is associated with gender nonconformity and
lesbianism, which are treated as part of the pathology of the disorder.
The article assesses the legal importance of the immutability of sexuality
and considers examples where courts have conferred or denied lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender rights based upon scientific data. Lastly,
the article argues that, given the evidence presented, rights for
minorities should not rely on biological definitions.
The idea that sexuality is innatethat one is born gayhas long
existed in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.
For many, it speaks directly to their own personal understanding of
queerness and their knowing from a very young age that their sexuality
was different from that of the majority of the population. However, this is
an issue that is inherently linked to policy. If sexuality is innate, one can
Page 1 of 19 I Was Born this Way: Is Sexuality Innate, and Should It Matter? LGBTQ Policy Jour...
5/12/2014 http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k78405&pageid=icb.page414413
argue that it should be illegal to craft policy that is discriminatory toward
LGBT individuals. Conclusive evidence of a genetic or hormonal basis of
human sexuality may combat the still widespread belief that being LGBT
is a choice that can be cured through therapy or prayer. However, the
same understanding could also lead to the reclassification of
homosexuality as a medical disorder and redefine queerness as biology
gone wrong.
In October 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama stated that he believed
sexual orientation was innate and that this understanding formed the
basis for why he think[s] discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation is wrong (CNN Wire Staff 2010). If the president of the
United States is constructing his position on a minority group based upon
an assertion of a biological link, it is increasingly necessary to assess
both the scientific basis for such a link and its relevance in informing
public policy. This article will critically review our scientific understanding
of sexuality and attempt to address the proper role biology should play in
policy and law.
Science of Sexuality
Complex behavioral traits are notoriously difficult to study using
biological techniques. When attempting to understand if a trait is caused
by biological or environmental factors, researchers traditionally employ
twin studies (Loehlin et al. 1990; Powell and Royce 1981). Identical, or
monozygotic, twins share 100 percent of their genetic material whereas
fraternal, or dizygotic, twins and siblings share 50 percent of their
genetic material. Traits that are genetically encoded, therefore, should be
shared more often in monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins or siblings.
Twin studies have long shown a genetic basis for sexuality (Kallmann
1952; Bailey et al. 1993; Kendler et al. 2000). Further analysis of family
relationships has attempted to locate specific genes that may determine
sexuality; one study claims to show that male homosexuality is partially
caused by a putative gene in a relatively small region on the X
chromosome, which is inherited only from the mother (Hamer et al.
1993; Hu et al. 1995; Hamer 1999). Subsequent work has failed to
reproduce the original results, and geneticists have questioned the
validity of many of the assumptions required to show the genetic linkage.
Therefore the role of the X chromosome in sexuality is still highly
debated (Diamond 1993; Fausto-Sterling and Balaban 1993; Risch et al.
1993; Rice et al. 1999a; Rice et al. 1999b).
There are caveats, however, to even the most straightforward behavioral
genetics research. Because of the assumed low frequency of
homosexuality in the general population, much of the twin research
suffers from low sample sizes and population biases (Kendler et al.
2000). Even when a large, unbiased twin database was used (Kendler et
al. 2000), families that were more accepting could certainly have been
more likely to respond to questions, therefore creating a self-selection
bias. More recent work has also thrown the entire enterprise of twin-
based genetic studies into question (Schnemann 1997).
Caveats notwithstanding, there is a loose consensus among geneticists, if
not social scientists (Butler 1990; Kitzinger 1995), that there is some
evidence for a genetic predisposition to homosexuality (Kallmann 1952;
Bailey et al. 1993; Risch et al. 1993; Ferveur et al. 1995; Hamer 1999;
Rice et al. 1999a). There certainly is no single gay gene; the relative
weak values for the heritability of sexuality clearly illustrate that if
sexuality is indeed genetic, it depends on at least several genes and that
these genes are not deterministic. Additionally, the low values for
heritability imply the importance of societal factors and socialization that
are often ignored in much of the scientific literature.
Although many researchers claim that sexuality has a genetic basis,
others have argued that prenatal hormones and brain development play
a more crucial role. Differences in brain morphology and function
between men are women are thought to arise prenatally. Research has
shown that homosexuality in males correlates weakly to birth order; men
with several older brothers are more likely to be gay, implicating that
different hormonal environments in the womb may lead to different
sexualities in adults (Bogaert 2006). Morphological differences were also
seen between the brains of straight and gay men upon autopsy (Swaab
and Hofman 1990). More recently, studies on adult men and women
have shown that gay men have brain responses more like straight
females and lesbian women have brain responses similar to those of
straight men (Savic and Lindstrm 2008). These authors point to a
biological basis for sexuality rooted not necessarily in genetics but rather
in brain functionality, as programmed by responses to maternal
hormones during early development.
Issues of sample size and selection bias, however, also plague these
studies. Those who are willing to undergo brain scans, or have their brain
examined upon autopsy (Swaab and Hofman 1990), may have a special
and unique relationship with their sexuality. It would be more informative
to study individuals across a range of sexualities and gender identities.
While such studies would be unlikely to produce the striking results we
currently see in the literature, they would better reflect the diversity of
the human population and shed light on what differences may actually
exist between people who identify as LGBT and those who do not.
Example of Genetic Link to Adult Homosexuality
In light of the ambiguity of the scientific research on sexuality, I will
present a brief example where there is a clear genetic link to adult
homosexuality. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a hormonal
disorder that causes an excess of male-specific hormones, known as
androgens, while the fetus is developing in the womb (Pang et al. 1985;
Witchel and Azziz 2010). CAH is most often caused by a mutation in a
single gene, and genetic tests have existed for well over a decade (Van
Ryzin 2009).
Girls born with CAH can have an enlargement of the clitoris so severe
that their sex is misassigned at birth (Pang et al. 1985) although routine
newborn screening has largely alleviated this problem (Speiser et al.
2010). According to current clinical practice guidelines, surgery to restore
female-like genitalia is still recommended (Speiser et al. 2010). A link
between CAH and lesbianism has long been suspected due to the
increased level of prenatal male hormones and the assumption that these
hormones may program brain development and sexuality. Research has
in fact shown that higher rates of lesbianism and gender nonconformity
do correlate with severity of prenatal exposure to male hormones due to
CAH (Meyer-Bahlburg et al. 2008).
Over the last two decades, doctors have studied the use of prenatal
treatment for CAH. Families known to be carriers for CAH begin
treatment with a steroid drug, dexamethasone (dex), upon confirmation
of a pregnancy. If treated with dex throughout pregnancy, females are
not born with enlarged genitalia. However, research has also focused on
dex as a treatment for nonconforming gender and sexual identity. A
review from 1999 discusses the gender identity of women with CAH:
CAH women as a group have a lower interest than controls in
getting married and performing the traditional child-
care/housewife role. As children, they show an unusually low
interest in engaging in maternal play with baby dolls. . . .

[M]aternalism appears to be one facet of a broad spectrum of
sex dimorphic behaviors that appear masculinized in females
with classical CAH, in parallel with the findings on prenatal sex
hormone influences on sex dimorphic behaviors in other
mammals. . . .
The lower rate of heterosexual involvement is probably related
to the postoperative status of the genitalia and possibly also to
prenatal androgen effects on the brain. The lower interest in
having children seems to be part of the overall masculinization
of childhood behavior in girls with classical CAH; in adolescent
and adult CAH women, the various problems with
heterosexuality may further contribute [emphasis added].
(Meyer-Bahlburg 1999)
The author of the above article views the higher rates of gender
nonconformity and lesbianism in women with CAH as a part of the
pathology of the disorder. He later describes prenatal dex as a treatment
for the effects of prenatal androgens on brain and behavior (Meyer-
Bahlburg 1999). Other articles further clarify the role of prenatal dex for
treating gender nonconformity later in life. Dr. Saroj Nimkarn and Dr.
Maria I. New write, [w]e anticipate that prenatal dexamethasone
therapy will reduce the well-documented behavioral masculinization and
difficulties related to reconstructive surgery (2010).
Recently, prenatal CAH treatment with dex has come under scrutiny from
the medical and bioethical communities. An article in Time magazine
examined the dubious methods through which Dr. New recruits her study
participants (Elton 2010), and an ethical remonstration was posted online
by the Hastings Center (Dreger et al. 2010). A small group of doctors
sent letters to the agencies funding research by Dr. New and others as
well as their universities, citing serious ethical issues in studying the
prenatal treatment of CAH (Dreger 2010). In responding to the criticism,
Dr. New and others only further highlighted the role of dex in treating
gender noncomformity and lesbianism. An official response (McCullough
et al. 2010) to the criticism that prenatal dex treats only cosmetic issues
cites an article from 1999 stating that [t]he genitalia of virilized females
can be repaired surgically but the adrenogenization of the brain is
irreversible; hence, prenatal dexamethasone treatment may offer unique
advantages (Miller 1999). The claim is that surgery can fix the
cosmetic issues associated with CAH, but the masculinization and
lesbianism can only be treated prenatally. In a video cited by the
Hastings institute, Dr. New is quoted as saying:
The challenge here is . . . to see what could be done to restore
this baby to the normal female appearance which would be
compatible with her parents presenting her as a girl, with her
eventually becoming somebodys wife, and having normal
sexual development, and becoming a mother. And she has all
the machinery for motherhood, and therefore nothing should
stop that, if we can repair her surgically and help her
psychologically to continue to grow and develop as a
girl. (Dreger et al. 2010)
One may question the reasons for altering masculinized genitalia given
the potentially devastating effects of surgery and the largely unknown
ramifications of prenatal dex therapy. However, it is clear that the use of
prenatal dex is being justified because it may prevent the permanent
masculinization of the brain and gender nonconformity and
homosexuality later in life.
Here we have a known case of a genetic and hormonal basis for gender
nonconformity and lesbianism. The ramifications, however, are certainly
not acceptance of the individual but quite the opposite: women are
subject to hormonal therapy while developing in the womb. This
treatment has the high hopes of restoring normative sexual and gender
identity and behavior. While this particular case may not be
generalizable, it should at the very least give pause to the LGBT activists
arguing that if sexuality is biologically determined it would lead directly
to acceptance and equal protection under the law.
Policy and Law Implications
The question of whether sexuality is genetically or hormonally induced
has direct ramifications not only in the medically oriented case described
above. Legal decisions regarding the rights of LGBT individuals have also
relied heavily on our understanding of the cause of sexuality. This gives
an unambiguous example of how the science of sexuality has an impact
on the rights of the LGBT community.
In public policy at many levels, government still discriminates against
the LGBT community. Current laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), deny access to the institution of marriage to the LGBT
community. Additionally, LGBT workers in many states may legally be
fired simply due to their sexuality (Eyer 2006). Many state governments
prohibit gay marriage outright, including those where the constitutions
have been amended to redefine marriage as an institution consisting of
one man and one woman (Vestal 2009). This discrimination has been
challenged through the judicial system on both the state and the federal
level.
One fundamental question of constitutional law is the murky issue of a
protected status for LGBT individuals. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines
sex, race, and ethnicity as specifically protected under law but leaves
issues of sexuality vague (Civil Rights Act 1964). Laws affecting a
suspect or protected class are subject to the highest level of scrutiny,
labeled strict scrutiny, where they are deemed unconstitutional unless
the government has compelling interest in discriminating against the
protected class and the policy has been narrowly drawn to avoid
unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights (Baehr v. Lewin 1993).
If a class is not given special protection, then a rational basis test is
used; any reasonable rationale that the policy furthers state interests is
sufficient to deem the law constitutional. The determination of a
protected class relies, characteristically, on four principles: a history of
discrimination against the class, whether the characteristics of the class
affect its ability to contribute to society, whether distinguishing
characteristics of the class are immutable, and the lack of political power
of the class (Varnum v. Brien 2009). The question of immutability
directly relates to whether ones sexual orientation is a choice or is
somehow preordained by ones biology.
Courts have interpreted the concept of immutability differently, with
some decisions weighing heavily on the genetic basis of sexuality. Early
cases in federal courts denied that sexuality was immutable. In High
Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (1990), for
example, a federal court of appeals puts its findings on immutability
bluntly:
Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral and
hence is fundamentally different from traits such as race, gender, or
alienage, which define already existing suspect and quasi-suspect
classes. The behavior or conduct of such already recognized classes is
irrelevant to their identification. (High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial
Security Clearance Office 1990)
Such decisions perhaps fueled the argument that if a biological
basis for sexuality were found, it would help fight against
discrimination (Associated Press 2007). Courts, at least, would
be forced to consider sexuality as an immutable characteristic,
which would be a step toward the legal understanding of gays
and lesbians as a protected class.
Federal courts have done little to reverse the precedent set by this and
earlier decisions that the LGBT community does not constitute a
protected class, however, several states have tested the constitutionality
of bans on gay marriage and addressed the issue of protected status
directly. The first state to successfully challenge the constitutionality of a
ban on gay marriage was Hawaii where, in Baehr v. Lewin (1993), the
states highest court found that the prohibition on gay marriage violated
the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Importantly, the
court found that strict scrutiny must be applied because the law
discriminated based upon a previously defined protected status: sex. In a
consenting opinion, Justice Burns described how sexuality was related to
sex:
As used in the Hawaii Constitution, to what does the word sex
refer? In my view, the Hawaii Constitutions reference to sex
includes all aspects of each persons sex that are biologically
fated. (Baehr v. Lewin 1993)
He goes on to cite reports that sexuality is indeed biologically fated,
ending with:
If heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality
are biologically fated, then the word sex also includes those
differences. Therefore, the questions whether heterosexuality,
homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality are biologically
fated are relevant questions of fact which must be determined
before the issue presented in this case can be answered. If the
answers are yes, then each persons sex includes both the
biologically fated male-female difference and the biologically
fated sexual orientation difference, and the Hawaii Constitution
probably bars the State from discriminating against the sexual
orientation difference by permitting opposite-sex Hawaii Civil
Law Marriages and not permitting same-sex Hawaii Civil Law
Marriages. If the answers are no, then each persons sex does
not include the sexual orientation difference, and the Hawaii
Constitution may permit the State to encourage heterosexuality
and discourage homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality by
permitting opposite-sex Hawaii Civil Law Marriages and not
permitting same-sex Hawaii Civil Law Marriages. (Baehr v.
Lewin 1993)
Justice Burns therefore relates the constitutionality of Hawaiis ban on
gay marriage directly to a biological basis for sexuality; the science, he
claims, cannot be separated from the legality of discrimination against
the class. Unfortunately, as we learned in the first section of this article,
the biological underpinnings of sexuality are far from well-described.
After this ruling found that gays and lesbians have the right to marry
under Hawaii state law, voters in that state passed a constitutional
amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, thus
rendering the findings of the court moot (Baehr v. Miike 1999).
Subsequent court decisions in other states have disagreed with the
analysis in Baehr as to whether LGBT individuals constitute a protected
class. Courts have tended to reject the logic used in Baehr that
discrimination against gays and lesbians could be considered sex-based,
claiming that regardless of sexual orientation, any person can marry a
person of the opposite sex (Hernndez v. Robles 2006). These decisions
tend to create or deny a new protected class uniquely for the LGBT
community. Yet, many of these cases still debate the immutability of
sexuality. While Massachusetts was the first state to gain full marriage
equality through the judicial process, the court used a rational basis test
and found that homosexuals did not constitute a protected class
(Goodridge v. Department of Public Health 2003).
Other state Supreme Courts including Washington (Anderson v. King
County 2006) and New York (Hernndez v. Robles 2006) found that gays
and lesbians did not merit strict scrutiny and that the government made
rational arguments to deny marriage rights. Again, these decisions rested
on the notion of the innateness of human sexuality, referencing High
Tech Gays and other cases. In Anderson v. King County (2006) the court
states:
The plaintiffs do not cite other authority or any secondary authority or
studies in support of the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable
characteristic. They focus instead on the lack of any relation between
homosexuality and ability to perform or contribute to society. But
plaintiffs must make a showing of immutability, and they have not done
so in this case [emphasis added]. (Anderson v. King County 2006)
These decisions are extremely clear in their desire to see
evidence relating to the biological, as opposed to behavioral,
causes of LGBT identities.
Other state courts have conflicted with this view on strict scrutiny and
especially on the stringent definition of immutability applied. In
California, the Supreme Court specifically overturned the decision of the
court of appeals that homosexuals do not constitute a suspect class.
Rather, the court found, Although we noted . . . that generally a
persons gender is viewed as an immutable trait, immutability is not
invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a
suspect classification for equal protection purposes, citing specifically
the fact that religion is both a protected class and an individuals choice
(In re Marriage Cases 2008). The justices add, because a persons
sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of ones identity, it is not
appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual
orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment (In re Marriage
Cases 2008).
Decisions in Connecticut and Iowa further this line of reasoning. Citing an
earlier decision relating to LGBT individuals in the military (Watkins v.
Unites States Army 1983), the court in Connecticut finds that because
sexual orientation is such an essential component of personhood, even if
there is some possibility that a persons sexual preference can be altered,
it would be wholly unacceptable for the state to require anyone to do so.
The court calls into question the importance of scientific data altogether,
arguing that scientific proof aside, it seems appropriate to ask whether
heterosexuals feel capable of changing their sexual orientation (Kerrigan
v. Commissioner of Public Health 2008). The strength of this reasoning
resonated with the Supreme Court of Iowa (Varnum v. Brien 2009),
which cites the Connecticut decision, as it rules both that gays and
lesbians constitute a protected class and that laws excluding them from
marriage are unconstitutional. The Iowa decision states that:
Courts need not definitively resolve the nature-versus-nurture
debate currently raging over the origin of sexual orientation in
order to decide plaintiffs equal protection claims. The
constitutional relevance of the immutability factor is not
reserved to those instances in which the trait defining the
burdened class is absolutely impossible to change. (Varnum v.
Brien 2009)
Through judicial decisions, many of which rely on gays and lesbians
constituting a protected class, gay marriage is now legal in four states:
Connecticut (Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health 2008), Iowa
(Varnum v. Brien 2009), Vermont, and Massachusetts (Goodridge v.
Department of Public Health 2003). Legislation legalized full marriage
Page 10 of 19 I Was Born this Way: Is Sexuality Innate, and Should It Matter? LGBTQ Policy Jo...
equality in Vermont (Goodnough 2009a), where the judicial decision
accepted civil unions as a substitute for marriage (Baker v. Vermont
1999), New Hampshire (Goodnough 2009b), and Washington, DC (Urbina
2010). The decisions cited above show that some state courts are
moving away from a definition of immutability that requires a biological
basis for sexuality. They rely instead on the fact that ones sexuality is a
central component of ones identity and therefore should not be infringed
upon. While the biological argument may be difficult or impossible to
prove, especially within this generation, this newly applied view of
immutability can be understood without the scientific consensus that may
take years to develop.
Californias constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between
one man and one woman is currently being challenged in federal court,
offering an opportunity for a new precedent that may redefine the LGBT
community as a protected class on the federal level. In a recent decision,
Judge Vaughn Walker found that Proposition 8 clearly violated the U.S.
Constitution based both upon the due process and the equal protection
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Perry v. Schwarzenegger 2010).
Judge Walker found that gays and lesbians do constitute a protected
class under constitutional law but did not rely heavily on the immutability
of sexuality. Further, he found that Proposition 8 did not stand up to
even a rational basis review, thus arguing that whether or not appeals
courts agreed with his analysis as to strict scrutiny, Proposition 8 should
be found unconstitutional.
Judge Walker does briefly allude to the immutability of sexuality but
largely cites psychological and not biological data. He states, individuals
do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence
supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision,
therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual
orientation (Perry v. Schwarzenegger 2010). With no direct discussion of
immutability, Judge Walker goes on to claim that, although Proposition 8
fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial
shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was
designed to protect. Importantly, Judge Walker places discrimination
against gays and lesbians in a larger societal context of historical gender
and sex discrimination and the ways in which that discrimination was
related to marriage:
The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding
same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required
spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to
marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when
the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in
marriage. That time has passed. (Perry v. Schwarzenegger
2010)
This decision, if it is upheld, may create a new protected class, under
federal law, for gays and lesbians. Further, it does so with little regard to
immutability. Whether federal appeals courts will agree remains
uncertain.
To argue that biology ought to be unimportant when crafting law and
policy concerning minorities, we should consider how murky the biology
of race remains. Race is clearly defined as a protected class, and laws
that discriminate based upon race must withstand strict scrutiny.
However, a biological or genetic definition of race has been incredibly
difficult to identify (Jorde and Wooding 2004; Kittles and Weiss 2003;
Serre and Pbo 2004). While genetics can describe differences between
populations with relative ease, populations and race are certainly not
synonymous (Jorde and Wooding 2004). A biological definition of race,
therefore, remains rooted in cultural understanding and historical
context. Religions may also be suspect classes, and courts have been
quite right to point out that religious beliefs can be considered a choice
(In re Marriage Cases 2008). Therefore, the fact that there is no
consensus on a scientific basis of sexuality should not stop the enactment
laws and policies that protect gays and lesbians against government or
private infringement on their right to equal protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan attempted to
broaden current law to be more protective of LGBT youth by sending a
letter to more than 15,000 school districts across the country (Cohen
2010). As a response to the highly publicized suicides of LGBT youth in
the United States in recent months, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Russlynn Ali encouraged all schools receiving federal education funding to
enact policies that prohibited bullying of LGBT students (Ali 2010). Alis
letter places bullying of gays and lesbians in the context of existing Title
IX law prohibiting government-funded institutions from discriminating
based upon sex. It states that Title IX:
Prohibits gender-based harassment, which may include acts of
verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or
hostility based on sex or sex stereotyping.

Although Title IX does not prohibit discrimination based solely
on sexual orientation, Title IX does protect all students,
including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
students, from sex discrimination. When students are subjected
to harassment on the basis of their LGBT status, they may also .
. . be subjected to forms of sex discrimination prohibited under
Title IX. (Ali 2010)
Yet, as we have seen, courts have disagreed with the extension of rights
based upon sex to the LGBT community; therefore it is unclear whether
the federal government could financially penalize schools that fail to
adhere to its new guidelines.
This letter highlights the clear and urgent need for legislation that grants
the LGBT community special protection under federal law, in a similar
fashion to sex and race as protected by the Civil Rights Act. The U.S.
Supreme Court has not overturned previous decisions that failed to grant
the LGBT community special status, most recently ruling that laws
preventing sodomy were illegal based upon infringement of individual
privacy, and not by using strict scrutiny (Lawrence v. Texas 2003). As we
have seen, state Supreme Courts continue to disagree about the
importance of the immutability of sexuality in deciding the level of
scrutiny required for cases pertaining to LGBT rights. It could take years
for the Supreme Court to grant LGBT individuals special protection under
the law and therefore end the legal sanctioning of anti-LGBT legislation.
In the meantime, it seems likely that courts will continue to disagree
over both whether different forms of discrimination against LGBT
individuals are legal and whether these cases require strict scrutiny.
Federal legislation that grants, unequivocally, the LGBT community
special protection under the law and labels discrimination based upon
gender or sexual orientation illegal would remove the thorny question of
immutability from the debate entirely. Courts would no longer be
required to evaluate the scientific evidence on the innateness of
sexuality, the relationship between sexuality and sex, or the relative
importance of immutability and identity. With such legislation, scientists,
social scientists, and ethicists could continue the debate over the origins
of gender identity and sexuality without unduly, and often inadvertently,
influencing the rights of LGBT individuals.
Conclusion
In this article, I have shown that the science of human sexuality is in its
infancy and that there is currently little conclusive evidence that sexuality
is genetically or hormonally induced. Further, by examining CAH, where a
known genetic mutation can lead to lesbianism, we find that the identity
of women is not protected. Girls are currently subject to hormonal
treatment while developing in the womb to prevent masculinization of
the brain and subsequent lesbianism. A review of legal cases pertaining
to the rights of LGBT individuals to marry a partner of the same sex
shows that the concept of innateness of sexuality, as it is currently
understood, has serious ramifications for the rights of the LGBT
community. I argue that the court cases that have rejected a narrow
definition of immutability present a step forward in the fight for LGBT
equal protection. Further, specific legislation that would unambiguously
define the LGBT community as deserving protection under federal law
would present a major breakthrough, removing the question of
innateness or immutability from legal debates altogether.
Given the mixed empirical evidence and dubious bioethical nature of the
science of sexuality, the innateness of sexual orientation is a poor metric
upon which to formulate policy or law. Indeed, arguments for policies
that affirm equal rights for all citizens, regardless of sexuality, need not
rely on questions of origin. A biological understanding of sexuality may
actually serve to further marginalize groups for which sexuality contains
some aspects of choice and lead to reclassification of different identities
as diseases. Sexuality is an integral part of human identity and should
not be the basis for discrimination, its origins notwithstanding.
Fundamental rights of minority groups should simply not rely on a
scientific classification. Race and religion are given special protection
under the law and yet remain perilous to define biologically. Sexuality
should be treated no differently.
References
Ali, Russlynn. 2010. Dear colleague letter: Harassment and bullying. U.S.
Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
(www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf).
Anderson v. King County. 2006. In Pacific Reporter: Supreme Court of
the State of Washington.
Associated Press. 2007. Chicago researchers look for gay gene. Fox
News Online (www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302066,00.html).
Baehr v. Lewin. 1993. In Pacific Reporter: Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Baehr v. Miike. 1999. In Pacific Reporter: Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Bailey, J. Michael, Richard C. Pillard, Michael C. Neale, and Yvonne Agyei.
1993. Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives
of General Psychiatry 50(3): 217-223.
Baker v. Vermont. 1999. In the Atlantic Reporter: Vermont Supreme
Court.
Bogaert, Anthony F. 2006. Biological versus nonbiological older brothers
and men's sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States 103(28): 10771-10774.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of
identity. New York: Routledge.
Civil Rights Act. 1964. Public Law 88-352.
CNN Wire Staff. 2010. Obama: Homosexuality is not a choice. CNN,
October 14.
Cohen, Tom. 2010. Government warns schools that bullying can violate
civil rights laws. CNN, October 26.
Diamond, Richard. 1993. Genetics and male sexual orientation. Science
261(5126):1258-1259.
Dreger, Alice. 2010. Letter of concern from bioethicists. Fetaldex.org.
, Ellen K. Feder, and Anne Tamar-Mattis. 2010. Preventing
homosexuality (and uppity women) in the womb? Bioethics Forum, June
29.
Elton, Catherine. 2010. A prenatal treatment raises questions of medical
ethics. Time, June 18.
Eyer, Katie. 2006. Protecting lesbian gay bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) workers: Strategies for bringing employment claims on behalf of
members of the LGBT community in the absence of clear statutory
protections. American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, July.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne, and Evan Balaban. 1993. Genetics and male
sexual orientation. Science 261(5126): 1257; Author reply 1259.
Ferveur, Jean-Francois, Klemens F. Stortkuhl, Reinhard F. Stocker, and
Ralph J. Greenspan. 1995. Genetic feminization of brain structures and
changed sexual orientation in male Drosophila. Science 267(5199): 902-
905.
Goodnough, Abby. 2009a. Gay rights groups celebrate victories in
marriage push. New York Times, April 7.
. 2009b. New Hampshire legalizes same-sex marriage. New York
Times, June 3.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. 2003. In North Eastern
Reporter: Supreme Judicial Court Massachusetts.
Hamer, Dean H. 1999. Genetics and male sexual orientation. Science 285
(5429).
et al. 1993. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome
and male sexual orientation. Science 261(5119): 321-327.
Hernndez v. Robles. 2006. In North Eastern Reporter: New York Court
of Appeals.
High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office. 1990. In
Federal Reporter: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Hu, Stella et al. 1995. Linkage between sexual orientation and
chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics 11(3):
248-256.
In re Marriage Cases. 2008. In California Reports: California Supreme
Court.
Jorde, Lynne B., and Stephen P. Wooding. 2004. Genetic variation,
classification and race. Nature Genetics 36(11 Suppl): S28-33.
Kallmann, Franz J. 1952. Twin and sibship study of overt male
homosexuality. American Journal of Human Genetics 4(2): 136-146.
Kendler, Kenneth S., Laura M. Thornton, Stephen E. Gilman, and Ronald
C. Kessler. 2000. Sexual orientation in a U.S. national sample of twin and
nontwin sibling pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry 157(11): 1843-
1846.
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health. 2008. In Atlantic Reporter:
Connecticut Supreme Court.
Kittles, Rick A., and Kenneth M. Weiss. 2003. Race, ancestry, and genes:
Implications for defining disease risk. Annual Review of Genomics and
Human Genetics 4: 33-67.
Kitzinger, Celia. 1995. Over our dead bodies: The scientific construction
of gay biology. Theory & Psychology 5: 309-311.
Lawrence v. Texas. 2003. In Federal Reporter: US Supreme Court.
Loehlin, John C., Joseph M. Horn, and Lee Willerman. 1990. Heredity,
environment, and personality change: Evidence from the Texas Adoption
Project. Journal of Personality 58(1): 221-243.
McCullough, Laurence B., Frank A. Chervenak, Robert L. Brent, and
Benjamin Hippen. 2010. A case study in unethical transgressive
bioethics: Letter of concern from bioethicists about the prenatal
administration of dexamethasone. American Journal of Bioethics 10(9):
35-45.
Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F. 1999. What causes low rates of child-bearing in
congenital adrenal hyperplasia? Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &
Metabolism 84(6): 1844-1847.
, Curtis Dolezal, Susan W. Baker, and Maria I. New. 2008. Sexual
orientation in women with classical or non-classical congenital adrenal
hyperplasia as a function of degree of prenatal androgen excess. Archives
of Sexual Behavior 37(1): 85-99.
Miller, Walter L. 1999. Dexamethasone treatment of congenital adrenal
hyperplasia in utero: An experimental therapy of unproven safety.
Journal of Urology 162(2): 537-540.
Nimkarn, Saroj, and Maria I. New. 2010. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia
due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency: A paradigm for prenatal diagnosis and
treatment. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1192: 5-11.
Pang, Songya et al. 1985. Pitfalls of prenatal diagnosis of 21-hydroxylase
deficiency congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology & Metabolism 61(1): 89-97.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger. 2010. In Federal Supplement: U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
Powell, Arnold, and Joseph R. Royce. 1981. An overview of a multifactor-
system theory of personality and individual differences: III. Life span
development and the heredity-environment issue. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 41(6): 1161-1173.
Rice, George, Neil Risch, and George Ebers. 1999a. Genetics and male
sexual orientation. Science 285, Author response.
, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers. 1999b. Male
homosexuality: Absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28.
Science 284(5414): 665-667.
Risch, Neil, Elizabeth Squires-Wheeler, and Bronya J. Keats. 1993. Male
sexual orientation and genetic evidence. Science 262(5142): 2063-2065.
Savic, Ivanka, and Per Lindstrm. 2008. PET and MRI show differences in
cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and
heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States 105: 9403-9408.
Schnemann, Peter H. 1997. On models and muddles of heritability.
Genetica 99(2-3):97-108.
Serre, David, and Svante Pbo. 2004. Evidence for gradients of human
genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Research 14(9):
1679-1685.
Speiser, P.W. et al. 2010. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to steroid
21-hydroxylase deficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice
guideline. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 95(9): 4133-
4160.
Swaab, D.F., and M.A. Hofman. 1990. An enlarged suprachiasmatic
nucleus in homosexual men. Brain Research 537(1-2): 141-148.
Urbina, Ian. 2010. Gay marriage is legal in U.S. capital. New York Times,
March 3.
Van Ryzin, C. 2009. Nonclassic congenital adrenal hyperplasia: An
overview. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 24(6): 535-537.
Varnum v. Brien. 2009. In North Western Reporter: The Supreme Court
of Iowa.
Vestal, Christine. 2009. Gay marriage legal in six states. Stateline, April
8 (www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=347390).
Watkins v. Unites States Army. 1983. In Federal Reporter: United States
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Witchel, Selma F., and Ricardo Azziz. 2010. Nonclassic congenital adrenal
hyperplasia. International Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology 2010:
625105.
Course Navigation
Home
About Us
2012 Online Preview & Table of Contents
2011 Online Edition
We Asked, He Told: An Interview with Anthony Woods
Shifting Global Health Landscapes: An Interview with amFARs Jirair
Ratevosian, Chris Collins, and Kent Klindera
I Was Born this Way: Is Sexuality Innate, and Should It Matter?

Revolving Doors: LGBTQ Youth at the Interface of the Child Welfare and
Juvenile Justice Systems
HIV and Aging: Emerging Issues in the HAART Era

Fair and Accurate Identification for Transgender People
Understanding Anti-LGBT Bias: An Analysis of Chinese-Speaking Americans
Attitudes Toward LGBT People in Southern California
Shutting LGBT Students Out: How Current Anti-Bullying Policies Fail Americas
Youth
The Black Closet: The Need for LGBT Resource and Research Centers on
Historically Black Campuses
Does It Get Better? A Roundtable on LGBTQ Youth

Submissions Guidelines 2012
Purchase the Journal
Make a Gift
Support Us
Join Us on Facebook
Our Supporters
Additional HKS Student Journals
2010 President & Fellows Harvard University. All Rights Reserved.

3:14-cv-00064 #110

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3:14-cv-00064 #110

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MARCH 26, 2014

A majority, 55 percent, favor the

JANUARY 27, 2014

OCTOBER 29, 2013

Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 110-11 Filed: 05/14/14 Page 33 of 34

Gay marriage's latest frontier: state courts

Associated Press Associated Press Associated Press Associated Press

Controversial "Skinny Pill" Sweeps the Nation

Comparison Time Gay or

Bailey et al. 1995 No 55 Hard None No G

Comparison Time Gay or

Bos et al. 2008a No 63 Soft None No L

Fax: +1 225 578 2697.

I Was Born this Way: Is Sexuality Innate, and Should It Matter?

HIV and Aging: Emerging Issues in the HAART Era

Does It Get Better? A Roundtable on LGBTQ Youth

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen