In 2005, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Board of Directors commissioned the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, the Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, the Committee on Adolescence, the Committee on State Government Affairs, the Committee on Federal Government Affairs, and the Section on Adoption and Foster Care to develop an analysis examining the effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership statutes and amendments on the legal, financial, and psychosocial health and well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian.
In developing this analysis, the involved committees and section held before them the AAP's core philosophy—that the family is the principal caregiver and the center of strength and support for children. Together with this philosophy, contributors recognized the reality that our gay and lesbian patients grow up to be gay and lesbian adults. Because many pediatricians are fortunate to care for...
I have been reading a few articles on gay and lesbian parenting in order to get a good grasp of the demographics for writing my own paper. However I have run into a few number issues. This paper states that the 2000 census results for same-gender unmarried partner households was 594,691. Another paper by the human rights campaign states that it the census found 601,209 homosexual cohabiting couples. After finding this significant difference in numbers I then went to the United States Census website and downloaded the 2000 census report. This report the number was 594,391 which was one digit of what this article stated. I am more than inclined to go with the census report however I do hope that someone might explain the significant difference the numbers given in articles, journals and papers.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
I've read the other responses to the article in reference and neither response adds anything but personal support. In short, they were saying 'we agree'.
I hope somewhere in the Pediatrics journal and/or the AAP website there is an indication that regardless of whether a person wishes to support same-sex unions the absolute best environment for a child to be raised is with it's biological opposite sex parents in marriage.
Of course the majority of current laws can be said to harm children who are living with homosexual adults. The country has never dealt with the current cultural thinking that such a thing is acceptable individually or especially in unions. The article could have easily argued that laws allowing divorce are harmful. Much research has been done showing the tremendous detrimental effects such separation has on children financially and psychologically. Easy divorce laws allow people to walk away from their responsibilities instead of working through the trials of life.
Marriage has historically meant much more than two people living together for convenience or financial ease. Marriage has been held as a binding commitment that cannot be broken. This mode of thinking is worlds apart from how many couples (same-sex or otherwise) view marriage or partnerships today. Children understand the differences in these kinds of commitments.
Far from assisting children those who took the time to write the artical and those who would support it do a far greater injustice. By not acknowledging anywhere what is truly beneficial to all children, the support of traditional marriage. Advocating against hedonism, consumerism, and rampant individualism within our culture is of greater importance. When biological parents (primarily) get back to realizing that having children is a greater responsibility than 'having their career' or 'living their life' then children will truly benefit.
Conflict of Interest:
Failure to acknowledge the preferred state of family.
Thank you for the clear and precise statements of the current legal situation and best available current scientific research. However, it is necessary to start to change the notion that if there were evidence suggesting an increased likeliness of children of "glbt" households identifying as "glbt" individuals, there would be something disturbing in this data. This applies equally as well if there were evidence showing that children with gender confusion are indicators of something askew. This undeclared assumption was also shown when it was reported that children with raised scores on “masculinity” and “femininity” who are not of the presumed, congruent gender, perhaps reassuringly demonstrated “normal” levels of “masculinity” and “femininity” congruent to their gender. These are artifacts of heterosexism. The adjustment difficulties these children may face are because of the dysfunctional gender notions of our society, deeply inculcated in all of us, barring issues of child abuse which should answer to the justice system.
Paul E. Price
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
August 20, 2006
Jerold F. Lucey, Editor Pediatrics University of Vermont College of Medicine 89 Beaumont Avenue Given Building Room D 201 Burlington, VT 05405-0068
Dear Dr. Lucey:
I’m writing to thank the authors of “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children”1 for their comprehensive review of the status of judicial action and state and federal legislation regarding same-sex domestic partnerships and the impact of those actions on children. Their comprehensive review demonstrates that legislation prohibiting civil unions and restricting civil recognition of legal status for same-sex domestic partnerships and second-parent adoption has the effect of weakening families. These laws are intended to protect the concept and the institution of marriage between men and women, but their impact is to pit protection of that concept against the legal, financial, and psychosocial welfare of the children born to, or adopted by, same-sex partners who love them and want to assume responsibility for their welfare.
The AAP’s Task Force on the Family of which I was a member, acknowledged that, “effective parenting can and does occur within families of all types and configuration; but after considerable research the Task Force concluded that, “The evidence is overwhelming that, in general, children do best when they are living with two mutually committed parents who respect and support each other, who have adequate social and financial resources, and who both are actively engaged in their upbringing.” 2 Pawelski and his co-authors list some of the 1138 ways, as identified by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, partners of the same gender are prevented from providing their families with the legal, social, and financial protections that married heterosexual couples take for granted.
The authors of this review provide ample evidence for continued support by the American Academy of Pediatrics for the parents (biological or other) of all children, including the millions of children being raised by committed partner parents who are of the same gender.
Julia A. McMillan, M.D. Professor of Pediatrics Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine CMSC 2-124 Johns Hopkins Hospital 600 N. Wolfe Street Baltimore, MD 21287-3224
References: 1) Pawelski, JG, Perrin EC, Foy, JM, et al: The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children. Pediatr 2006;118:349 2) American Academy of Pediatrics, Report of the Task Force on the Family. Pediatr 2003;111:1541
Conflict of Interest:
None declared