for the

Family

for the

Youth

for the

Future

Bulletin 127: Spring 2007

In this issue:

AGM and Conference

Saturday 2 June 2007
Royal Air Force Club, 128 Piccadilly, London W1
10.30am to 5.00pm

This year we are looking forward to welcoming Professor Brenda Almond who will be speaking on ‘The Fragmenting Family: Is the family just a social construct?’ Professor Almond is Emeritus Professor of Moral and Social Philosophy at the University of Hull, and author of The Fragmenting Family, published by Oxford University Press at the end of last year (see review in this Bulletin).

Our second speaker, His Honour Judge John Curran, will address us on ‘The role of the family in preventing young people from getting into the criminal justice system’, drawing on over 40 years of experience in the legal field. Judge Curran became a Circuit Judge in 1996 and has served as Resident Judge at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court since 1998.

As usual, we shall conduct the formal business of the Trust during the morning, with reports from the Chairman, Treasurer and Director, followed by an opportunity to hear from several of our supporters who have been hard at work in support of the family within their own communities. We are particularly delighted that Mr Andrew McClintock has agreed to speak about his legal challenge after he was refused an exemption from presiding as a magistrate in the Family Courts in cases involving same-sex adoption on grounds of conscience (see brief news item and Dr Dean Byrd’s witness statement elsewhere in this Bulletin).

At the end of the afternoon, we look forward to celebrating with Valerie and Denis Riches as they mark the publication of their memoirs, Built on Love: An autobiography for two.

Please let the office know if you are planning to attend.

There is no charge for attending the conference, and we are able to offer a substantial lunch for the subsidised price of £20.00. To reserve a lunch, please send a cheque for £20.00 made payable to ‘Family Education Trust’ to the office at: Family Education Trust, Jubilee House, 19-21 High Street, Whitton, Twickenham TW2 7LB.

Please join us if you are able for what promises to be a worthwhile and stimulating day.

 

^ Back to the top ^

New sexual orientation regulations place severe constraints on freedom of conscience

Amid considerable controversy, the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 finally completed their parliamentary passage on 21 March. Lady O’Cathain’s motion to reject the regulations due to widespread concerns that they compromised religious liberty and would result in litigation over the content of classroom teaching was defeated in t he House of Lords by 168 votes to 122. The regulations are now due to come into force in Great Britain on 30 April.

The government’s response to the public consultation exercise carried out during the Spring of 2006 stated:

‘The Government is clear that nobody should be required to act in a way that contravenes their core religious beliefs, and maintains that an exemption for religion or belief organisations is necessary to protect practices that arise from basic doctrines of faith.’

However, while the government professes to show respect for the religious beliefs and convictions of individuals (‘nobody should be required to act in a way that contravenes their core religious beliefs ‘), such exemptions as have been granted are limited to organisations. In practice, therefore, the regulations will have precisely the effect that the government is concerned to avoid.

Consequences

Under the regulations, private individuals who cannot in all conscience reconcile homosexual practice with the created order, will, in certain circumstances, be required to condone or promote homosexual activities and lifestyle in a manner contrary to their beliefs. For example:

  • A website designer will not be able to refuse to develop a website for a homosexual rights group;
  • A printer will not be able to turn down a job that involves printing material promoting homosexual activity;
  • A wedding photographer or chauffeur will be obliged to provide a service to a same-sex couple entering a civil partnership;
  • A guest-house owner will be compelled to provide a double room to a same-sex couple who requests it.

Much as we support the government’s vision for a society where there is ‘respect for the dignity and worth of each person’, we are concerned that the introduction of such far-reaching regulations will militate against this objective and prove counter-productive. The regulations have the potential to lead not only to a lack of respect for the dignity of those who hold religious and philosophical convictions that prevent them from in any way condoning or promoting homosexual activity, but also to unnecessary and damaging legal proceedings.

It is striking that while the regulations place limits on the freedom of individuals to manifest religious beliefs, no such limitation is placed on the freedom to manifest a sexual orientation. This would appear to be a clear case of the rights of practising homosexuals trumping the rights of those holding to a religious belief, even though the rights of the latter group are explicitly protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Education

There has been considerable confusion over the implications of the regulations for the school curriculum. The government has repeatedly stressed that the curriculum is not covered by the regulations. However, while the curriculum is not mentioned in the regulations, neither is it explicitly excluded. The fact that Regulation 7 states that it is unlawful for an educational establishment to discriminate against a person ‘by subjecting him to any…detriment’ has given rise to fears that a pupil who self-identifies as a homosexual could bring a case against a school if it taught that homosexual activity was wrong and that sexual intimacy belonged exclusively within a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman.

Notwithstanding government assurances to the contrary, Counsel to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered that the regulations do extend to the curriculum, and in its consideration of the Northern Ireland sexual orientation regulations, the Joint Committee on Human Rights was firmly of the view that the curriculum should be covered:

‘In our view the Regulations…should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of their religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong… In our view there is an important difference between… factual information being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination against homosexual pupils.’

The government’s Explanatory Memorandum states that: ‘the Regulations will not affect the subjects currently taught in schools, which is a matter for the Department for Education and Skills. The Regulations do apply to the delivery of education to pupils, but this should not interfere with teachers’ rights to express their views on sexual orientation based on their particular religion, provided this is done in an appropriate manner and in an appropriate context – for example when responding to a questions from pupils, or in a Religious Education class’ (para 7.6, emphasis added).

The distinction between the curriculum and its delivery was highlighted by the Minister during the House of Lords debate. In her opening speech, Baroness Andrews stressed that, ‘the regulations will not impact on the subject matter that is taught in schools’. Later, however, she asserted, ‘Where discrimination really hurts children is in how the curriculum is taught, and that is caught by the regulations’ (emphasis added).

Promoting homosexuality

Some gay rights activists are already preparing to use the new legal provisions as a means of promoting homosexuality in schools. Dr Elizabeth Atkinson, a reader in social and educational inquiry at Sunderland University, is leading a project aimed at ‘researching approaches to sexualities equality in primary schools’. The ‘No Outsiders’ project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, offers staff training and a comprehensive pack of resources including children’s books featuring non-heterosexual characters in order to assist schools in ‘exploring a range of identities and relationships through literacy, art, history or drama.’

Dr Atkinson states that: ‘The purpose of the project is to support schools in meeting their requirements under the Equality Act, which will require all public institutions to meet the needs of gay and lesbian users. There’s very little out there at the moment to enable them to meet the needs of all pupils.’1

Adoption and fostering

Under Regulation 15, adoption and fostering agencies are prevented from consistently applying the principle that the welfare of the child is best served by being placed with a heterosexual married couple. Despite the evidence that it is in the best interests of the child to be brought up in a family with a parent of both sexes, all agencies will be forced to approve the placement of a needy child in a home where he or she is likely to remain in a state of permanent fatherlessness or motherlessness.

The only concession granted to faith-based adoption and fostering agencies who find themselves unable in good conscience to support same-sex placements has been to allow them to continue until December 2008. During this interim period, the government has made it clear that: ‘Any agency wishing to take advantage of the transitional arrangements will have to refer prospective parents they are not prepared to assess on grounds of their sexual orientation to other agencies that will be able to assist.’2

However, in response to a Parliamentary Question, Meg Munn, the Minister for Women and Equality, stated that a faith-based adoption agency that was not in receipt of public funding might be able to claim exemption from the regulations as a religious organisation, provided it is not being ‘run on a commercial basis and can demonstrate that the exemption is necessary either to comply with the doctrine of the organisation, or to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious beliefs of a significant number of the religion’s followers’.3

The attack on freedom of speech

Regulation 11 states it is unlawful to ‘instruct’, to ‘cause or attempt to cause’, or to ‘induce or attempt to induce’ another person to unlawfully discriminate against someone on the basis of homosexual orientation or practice. In other words, from 30 April, it will be an offence to encourage another person to live and conduct his or her business on the basis of the religious or philosophical conviction that homosexual practice is morally wrong. For example:

  • In the course of a sermon, a preacher may encourage hearers to uphold the principle of heterosexual marriage and not do anything that blurs the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships;
  • An individual may privately counsel someone (in person or in writing) to withhold his/her services from a couple entering a civil partnership, or to refuse a double room to a same-sex couple, on the basis that such actions would compromise the provider’s personal beliefs;
  • During a group discussion of the practical implications of the sexual orientation regulations, someone may encourage others present to draw a clear distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual practice, and to oppose the public acceptance of homosexual practice in the way they lead their lives and conduct their businesses;
  • In the context of a consideration of homosexuality and moral dilemmas, an author may express the view that a consistent application of the principles of the faith being espoused requires adherents of that faith to avoid business transactions that in any way give the appearance of condoning homosexual practice.

On the basis of Regulation 11, it would appear that the person offering advice in each of the above scenarios would be acting unlawfully. This represents a most serious infringement of freedom of speech and expression. It will not only affect the preaching and teaching of religious leaders in their public and private work, but it will also affect the authors of books and articles. Even letters and personal conversations between family members and friends could be reported to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. Family Education Trust has raised these concerns with Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

The government has promised to publish detailed guidance on the implementation of the regulations in May, and stated that further information, advice and support will be available from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights when it commences its work in October.4

Notes:
1. Daily Mail, 11 March 2007.
2. HC Hansard, 26 March 2007, col 1323W.
3. HC Hansard, 20 March 2007, col 819W.
4. HC Hansard, 26 March 2007, col 1323W.

^ Back to the top ^

How the regulations were railroaded through Parliament

Following the publication of the sexual orientation regulations, the government succeeded in negotiating them through three parliamentary committees and the floor of the House of Lords in the space of just two weeks, dispensing with its own guidance in the process.

Wednesday 7 March

The regulations were first laid before Parliament, but subsequently withdrawn and relaid twice before 13 March due to drafting defects. Between 7-13 March there were periods during which it was not possible to access the regulations on the Office of Public Sector Information website.

Tuesday 13 March

The House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee approved the advisor’s report, despite the fact that its own guidance states that public submissions may be made during the week following the laying of draft regulations before Parliament.

The guidance also states that the Committee will consider instruments within 12-16 days of laying. In this instance, however, the Committee considered the sexual orientation regulations just six days after they had originally been laid before Parliament, and on the very same day that the final amended version had been laid.

The Committee’s report notes the haste with which the regulations were proceeding through the House of Lords: ‘ The Government’s timetabling, by contracting the usual period between laying, twice relaying, and seeking the approval of the House, has meant that we have had to expedite consideration of this instrument and has prevented the usual period for receiving evidence.’

Wednesday 14 March

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments approved the regulations.

Thursday 15 March

The House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee met at 8.55am, less than 16 hours after its 18 members had been appointed the previous evening. The Committee Room was crammed with Conservative backbenchers who were entitled to attend and speak, but not to vote. The official record cannot convey the farcical character of a meeting which saw Conservative MPs having to sit on the government side simply in order to find a seat after the Chairman refused requests to move to a larger room. At the end of a 90-minute debate during which only one backbencher was invited to speak after the three front-bench spokesmen had delivered their speeches, the Committee voted by 14 votes to two to approve the regulations.

Wednesday 21 March

The House of Lords voted by a margin of 168 to 122 to approve the regulations. Ten Labour peers and one Liberal Democrat peer defied the party whip and voted against the regulations.

^ Back to the top ^

A vote too far

During the course of the House of Lords debate, several peers rose to say that while they had welcomed previous gay-friendly initiatives, they were unable to support the sexual orientation regulations because they infringed freedom of conscience and would have damaging consequences for many people.

Lady Butler-Sloss, formerly President of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice, stated, ‘ I strongly support gay relationships and have lectured up and down the country in support of the civil partnership legislation and all that goes with it. I strongly support same-sex adoptions in suitable cases. Indeed, as a judge, I have been responsible for placing children with same-sex couples.

‘But these regulations, in my view, are ill-drafted, have not been properly scrutinised, and give the major religious and faith groups concern. Their views should not be ignored.’

Viscount Bledisloe similarly asserted, ‘I think I can claim with justification and with pride that in every issue that has come before your Lordships’ House before, I have consistently supported the position of the gay community… Now we have come to a position…where the gay lobby…is seeking to impose its morality on the religious communities.’

Baroness Morris of Bolton said that while she supported civil partnerships in principle, the regulations would ‘place such intolerable pressure on Catholic adoption agencies that their crucial and devoted work will be placed in jeopardy… The welfare of the child is paramount and it would be criminal to deny some children who have not enjoyed the best start the chance of a better life because the Catholic adoption agencies on which they rely cannot continue under this legislation.’

Labour peer, Lord Anderson of Swansea, explained why he was breaking his long-standing habit in more than 36 years in Parliament and voting against his Party: ‘The government have given greater weight to the demands of gay rights than to the concerns of mainstream religious bodies… The reality is that the regulations are a one-way ratchet, and zealots will certainly push them as far as possible.

‘The government…have drawn the line in the wrong place. They have been too ready to listen and to yield to well organised and intolerant lobbies, and too unready to listen to the proper concerns of faith groups…’ To support the regulations would be ‘a vote too far’.

^ Back to the top ^

Unicef report highlights importance of family structure for the wellbeing of children

A report comparing the wellbeing of children in economically advanced nations found that a higher proportion of children aged 11, 13 and 15 were being brought up in single-parent families or stepfamilies in the United Kingdom and the United States than in other countries studied.

Overall, approximately 80 per cent of children in the countries under review were living with both parents, ranging from more than 90 per cent in Greece and Italy to less than 70 per cent in the United Kingdom and 60 per cent in the United States.

The report comments that the use of data on the proportion of children living in single-parent families and step-families as an indicator of wellbeing may seem unfair and insensitive given that many children in two-parent families are damaged by their parents’ relationships, while many children in single-parent and stepfamilies are growing up secure and happy. It also remarks that the terms ‘single-parent families’ and ‘stepfamilies’ fail to do justice to the many different kinds of family unit that have become common in recent decades. Nevertheless, at the statistical level, it notes that:

‘there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being – including a greater risk of dropping out of school, of leaving home early, of poorer health, of low skills, and of low pay. Furthermore such risks appear to persist even when the substantial effect of increased poverty levels in single-parent and stepfamilies have been taken into account.’

The Unicef Overview of child well-being in rich countries is the seventh in a series of reports designed to monitor and compare the performance of the OECD countries in securing the rights of their children. The study represents an attempt ‘to measure and compare child well-being under six different headings or dimensions: material wellbeing, health and safety, education, peer and family relationships, behaviours and risks, and young people’s own subjective sense of wellbeing. In all, it draws upon 40 separate indicators relevant to children’s lives and children’s rights.’

Maintaining a sense of proportion

The British press and media made much of the fact that the UK came bottom of the league table overall. However, before we engage in too much hand-wringing and breast-beating, we need to keep this report in proportion.

Firstly, we need to bear in mind that when the report suggests that children in the UK come 18 th out of 21 countries for material well-being, poverty is being measured in relative rather than absolute terms. The present sudy uses the European Union’s definition of poverty: ‘ the poor are those whose resources (material, cultural, and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member States in which they live’.

Secondly, we need to recognise the limitations of the data used. The report itself includes the important caveat:

‘it is acknowledged throughout that the available data may be less than ideal and that there are prominent gaps.’

At several points the report notes the limited availability of internationally comparable data. For example, data on child abuse and neglect were not included because:

‘The lack of common definitions and research methodologies, plus inconsistencies between countries in the current classification and reporting of child abuse, have for the moment ruled out this possibility.’

The report notes in its conclusion, that:

‘Findings that have been recorded and averaged may create an impression of precision but are in reality the equivalent of trying to reproduce a vast and complex mountain range in relatively simple geometric shapes. In addition, the process of international comparison can never be freed from questions of translation, culture, and custom.’

Thirdly, as Paul Vallely noted in an article in the Independent, many of the report’s judgments are highly subjective:

‘It measured such things as what children thought about whether their peers were “kind and helpful”, whether they were “satisfied” with their health, and how they rated their own mental health – not an area in which Kevin the Teenager’s self-pitying self-referential views are normally taken very seriously. How sensible are international comparisons between the “feelings” of a Latvian schoolgirl and one from Leeds? It is a minefield of subjective definitions and cultural differences’ (The Independent, 15 February 2007).

In a speech delivered just two days after publication of the Unicef report, Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, attempted to get to the heart of Britain’s social ills:

‘I’ll tell you what’s going wrong in our society. We have too many children behaving like adults, and too many adults behaving like children… I do know that if we are to rebuild our broken society we have to get the foundation right. And the foundation of society is – or should be – the care of children by the man and the woman who brought them into the world… I want to see more couples stay together, and we know that the best way to ensure this is to support marriage.’

UNICEF, Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries, Innocenti Report Card 7, 2007, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

 

^ Back to the top ^

Popular education publisher trivialises child abuse in new book for schools

Each year Independence Educational Publishers produces 18 new titles in its Issues series, containing previously published information on current social issues, sourced from newspapers, magazines, journals, government reports, surveys, websites and lobby-group literature. The titles are widely used in GCSE, A-level and further education courses, and the publishers pride themselves on giving ‘a balanced variety of opinions and information’.

However, recent volumes on child abuse and teenage pregnancy reveal that, on some issues at least, the publishers are not as even-handed as they wish to present themselves.

Of 39 printed pages in the book on child abuse, no less than 14 are devoted to ‘the smacking debate’, and a further page is devoted to corporal punishment in schools in the chapter on ‘child abuse’. Independence defend the inclusion of the chapter on smacking on the basis that it is a contentious issue on which there are different views. That is without doubt true and it may for that reason merit a volume in the series in its own right, but it certainly does not belong in a book on child abuse. To rank moderate smacking alongside the horrific treatment experienced by some children is to trivialise true child abuse.

The publishers argue that it is not disproportionate to devote over a third of the book to smacking because some people regard it as abusive. True again, but there are many other actions that some people would include under the umbrella of ‘child abuse’ – e.g. shouting at children, sending them to their rooms, swearing in front of them, exposing them to too much television, using explicit images in sex education lessons, providing them with contraception under the age of consent etc. All of these are highly contentious issues, but none of them receive so much as a passing mention in the book.

The fact that smacking is singled out and given such prominence conveys the very strong impression that the publisher has decided that it falls very much within the scope of child abuse.

The editorial bias against smacking by parents is also demonstrated in the lack of balance in the chapter on ‘the smacking debate’. Apart from a token article in favour of leaving parents free to exercise their discretion with regard to the discipline of their children, most of the remaining 13 pages are given over to the anti-smacking lobby. No less than eight pages are devoted to three separate articles from a single source – the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. Then there is a further 3-page anti-smacking article from Save the Children, and a page from ITV on ‘positive parenting’.

The images that accompany the text are also highly emotive and fail to portray anything of the warmth that exists between the vast majority of parents and their children. Cartoons depicting aggression and violence, and photographs showing a clenched fist, or sad and withdrawn children do a gross injustice to millions of loving parents who have used a moderate smack to discipline their children in the context of a warm and loving home.

The Independence title on teen pregnancy and lone parents is similarly one-sided. Prominent coverage is given to the views of the fpa, Marie Stopes International, the AIDS charity AVERT and the Teenage Pregnancy Unit. The government’s teenage pregnancy strategy with its emphasis on sex education and the promotion of contraception is never seriously questioned, neither is there a single reference to the benefits of saving sex for marriage.

^ Back to the top ^

The Fragmenting Family

Brenda Almond, Oxford University Press, 259pp, £12.99, ISBN 0-19-926795-2

Drawing together arguments from philosophy, social research, economic analysis, legal judgment, feminism, science and bioethics, Professor Almond has constructed a philosophy of the family, borne out of the conviction that ‘the decline and fragmentation of the family poses the greatest long-term challenge facing Western communities’ and that ‘a fractured and fragmented family will give us a fractured and fragmented world’.

In mounting her case, she does not shy away from challenging some of the cherished ‘idols’ and dogmas of the day. For example, she confronts the idea that deep attachments can be unilaterally shattered through no-fault divorce, and rejects the commonly-held notions that what adults do in their personal lives cannot seriously harm their children, that cohabitation is at least as good as marriage, that genetic relationships don’t matter, and that ‘family’ can mean whatever we want it to mean.

As things stand, Professor Almond writes, there is every indication that legislators are determined to make changes that are neither in harmony with their own cultural and ethical traditions, nor in the long-term interest of their populations. In a chapter on the consequences of feminism for the family, she notes how the attempt to liberate women from economic dependence on individual men has merely resulted in the transfer of dependency from the husband to the state and concludes that feminism, with its quest for full gender equality, has had an overall negative impact on the family.

In the context of a discussion of new reproductive technologies, Professor Almond suggests we should be cautious about tampering with something as fundamental as having a parent of each sex and argues that the psychological differences between men and women should be acknowledged.

Professor Almond writes of the ‘onslaught on the increasingly fragile institution of the family’ and urges legislators and policymakers to exercise caution when contemplating reforms that may contribute to further family instability and wider social disintegration. Scientific, legal and social innovations have had a devastating effect on family structures, and Professor Almond argues persuasively that sometimes ‘these changes have been advanced for reasons that are more political than social and have been aimed at tipping the balance of priority between the state and family, in favour of the state’.

The book contains a healthy scepticism about the modern assumption that it is always the child’s voice that is heard when mediated by professionals. Professor Almond writes, ‘It is only by putting trust in parents that a democratic state can voluntarily limit its own powers and demonstrate its commitment to individual liberty… Child-raising and education are areas where fashions come and go, and experts tend to converge on a single dominant theory, at least during their period of influence. This means that, if they are wrong, they are disastrously wrong, and their wrong judgment affects a whole generation. The judgment of parents, on the other hand, is limited to their own children and is as individual as individual families themselves.’

We are indebted to Professor Almond for this thoughtful and stimulating study. We hope it will be widely read in academic circles, and that its arguments will be carefully weighed and heeded by legislators and policymakers.

^ Back to the top ^

Same-sex parenting: Is it in the best interests of the child?

An edited version of a witness statement prepared by Dr Dean Byrd in support of Andrew McClintock. Dr Byrd writes: ‘ Much of the research on homosexuality is more political than academic in nature. The subject matter needs to be studied in a similar fashion to other behavioural issues, especially where the societal impact is considerable.’

The research supporting the importance of dual gender parenting and child-rearing is extensive and clear in its singular conclusion: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Mothers and fathers contribute in gender-specific and in gender-complementary ways to the healthy development of children. Children reap unique developmental benefits when reared in a home with a married, reasonably harmonious union of their own biological mother and father.

Children raised in homes with both mothers and fathers navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid and secure in their sense of self and in their sense of gender identity, perform better in the school system, have fewer social and emotional problems and become better functioning adults. The plethora of studies which span decades supports the conclusion that gender-linked differences in child-rearing are protective for children. Greenberger (1984) noted that the essential contributions to the optimal development of children are not only gender-specific but also gender-complementary and virtually impossible for a mother or father to do alone. Children learn about male and female differences through parental modeling. The parental, mother-father relationship provides children with a model of marriage, the most meaningful, enduring relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lives.

Complementarity

The complementary contributions of mothers and fathers are readily observable in their gender specific parenting styles. Male and female differences are readily observed in the characteristics of physicality associated with mothering and fathering. Mothers use touch to calm, soothe and bring comfort to children. When mothers reach for children, they frequently bring them to their breasts to provide safety, warmth and security. Fathers’ touch is most often described as playful and stimulating, bringing with it a sense of excitement to the child.

Discipline is another area where differences between mothers and fathers emerge quite prominently. Fathers more frequently rely on firmness, principles, and rules. Mothers rely more on responding, negotiating, and adjusting toward the children’s moods as well as to the context.

The consequences of father-absence has been well-documented. Blankenhorn (1995) concluded that father hunger is the primary cause of the declining well-being of children in our society and is associated with social problems such as teenage pregnancy, child abuse, and domestic violence against women. Masser (1989), a psychiatrist at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, noted that an increasing number of children who seek psychiatric care are suffering from father-hunger.

Golombok, Tasker and Murray (1997) found that, ‘children in father-absent families perceive themselves to be less cognitively competent and less physically competent than children in father-present families, with no differences between children in lesbian and single heterosexual families’. Most of the research on gay parenting compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless families. Such studies cannot be reasonably used to contradict extensive social science research which concludes that family structure indeed matters, and the intact, married biological family structure is the most protective of child well-being.

Although there is more research to support the ill-effects of father-hunger in children, the consequences of mother-hunger are beginning to emerge in case studies. The Eisold report (1998) provides evidence that mother-hunger may indeed emerge when a child is deprived of a mother or mother figure. Eisold sees some normal, innate developmental forces at work in a boy who has no mother: if he has none, he will need to make one.

Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable

Biller’s (1993) extensive research on parent-child interaction concludes that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable:

  • Paternal and maternal differences are stimulating for the infant as they provide contrasting images via differences in mothers’ and fathers’ dress, their movements, even voices. Because of these differences, infants may prefer mothers when they want to be consoled or soothed and fathers when they want stimulation.
  • These differences are important sources of complementary learning for children.
  • Where there are strong parental attachments, infants are at a decided developmental advantage compared to those infants who only have close maternal relationships.
  • Fathers who are involved with their children stimulate them to explore and investigate, whereas mothers focus on pre-structured and predictable activities.
  • Parental relationships seem particularly important for boys during the second year of the child’s life, as boys become more father-focused. Unlike boys, girls do not seem to have this consistent focus during this developmental period.

The extensive research spanning decades yields an overwhelming abundance of data supporting the importance of both mothers and fathers to the healthy development of children. Recent evidence is likewise not only supportive, but compellingly demonstrates that a society concerned with optimal child development is most benefited by traditional marriage and married, dual-gender parenting.

Same-sex couples and child-rearing

Advocacy groups argue that there are no differences between children raised by same-sex and those raised by opposite-sex parents. The studies on same-sex parenting are quite limited and quite limiting. They are basically restricted to children who were conceived in a heterosexual relationship whose mothers later divorced and self-identified as lesbians. It is these children who are compared to divorced, heterosexual, mother-headed families. A better comparison would have been with children in intact families because the research is clear that children in single parent families are at risk of a variety of difficulties including juvenile criminal offenses, mental illness and poverty. The logical conclusion is that children from both of these family forms are at risk of a number of problems.

Studies of children raised by male couples are virtually non-existent. The few available studies are either anecdotal in nature or so plagued by methodological flaws as to make them simply invalid from a scientific perspective. In their excellent review of the existing studies on children raised by homosexual couples (primarily lesbian couples), Lerner and Nagai (2000) reached the following conclusion:

‘The claim has been made that homosexual parents raise children as effectively as married biological parents. A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they suffer from severe methodological flaws. In addition to their methodological flaws, none of the studies deals adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious correlation.’

Williams (2000) arrived at similar conclusions to those of Lerner and Nagai, but actually went further in his re-analyses of some of the major studies whose authors reported no differences between children raised in lesbian and heterosexual families.

Flawed research

In reviewing both the Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter (1983) research and the Golombok and Tasker (1996) research, Williams noted that the authors ignored a follow-up study that found that the children of lesbian parents were more likely to have considered and actually engaged in homosexual relationships. In reviewing other studies, Williams found similar omissions.

Patterson’s research, which has been repeatedly cited by the American Psychological Association to support gay rights, has come under significant criticism not only because of methodological flaws but because of substantial misrepresentation and selection bias. In fact, her research and subsequent testimony were excluded from a Florida court because of the use of herself and friends as subjects and her unwillingness to comply with a court order to provide documentation, even when requested by her own side in the conflict.

Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, reviewed all of the available studies on parenting by same-sex couples and concluded, ‘Through this analysis I draw my conclusion that: (i) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and (ii) not a single one of those studies was conducting according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.’ Even the pro same-sex advocate, Charlotte Patterson, conceded the following:

  1. No research used nationally represented samples.
  2. There were limited outcome measures, most of which were unrelated to standards of child well-being used by family sociologists.
  3. There were few longitudinal studies which followed children of same-sex couples into adulthood.
  4. Virtually all of the studies compared single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers rather than comparing single lesbian mothers to married heterosexual mothers.

The Stacey and Biblarz (2001) meta-analysis repudiated over 20 years of research which claimed to show no difference between children raised by homosexual parents and those raised by heterosexual parents. This research clearly demonstrated that lesbian mothers had a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughters. Boys raised by lesbian mothers behaved in less traditionally masculine ways, and girls, particularly ‘adolescent and young girls raised by lesbian mothers, appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste’.

Poor outcomes

The most reputable scientists would agree that the research on children raised by same-sex couples is in its infancy. However, in spite of the many flaws in the very limited pool of rigorous studies such as small sample size, selection bias, and lack of longitudinal data, there appears to be an emerging theme: children raised by same-sex couples exhibit poor outcomes not so dissimilar to those raised by divorced heterosexual parents. The comparison groups in most of the studies have been: children in divorced households headed by a lesbians or gay men or children in divorced households headed by heterosexual divorced parents. Children in both of these groups are at higher risks for certain kinds of problems than are children raised in an intact family headed by a mother and father who are married. In addition, children raised by a lesbian couple may be at risk of unique problems associated with gender non-conformity.

In summary, the available research supports the following: children raised in homes headed by gay men and lesbians do not resemble their peers raised in homes with a married mother and father. And given the historical and prevailing legal and psychological standard, the best interest of the child, one can reasonably conclude that based upon this standard, the optimal health, well-being and best interest of a child is not best served by support of motherless or fatherless family structures. The placement of children in such settings begins a slippery slope filled with potential harms for children that society simply cannot afford to take.

Conclusion

Traditional marriage has supported societies for millennia. Historical and current research clearly demonstrate that both adults and children benefit from this family structure. Differences emerge when comparisons are made between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. Same-sex relationships are less permanent and less monogamous. Homosexual practice places its participants at risk of mental illness and physical disease. Emerging research suggests potential risks for children raised by lesbian parents including gender non-conformity. The rejection of gender roles thus appears to be unhealthy.

Dr Byrd is President of the Thrasher Research Fund and Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine. He is also Vice President and standing psychologist to NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and has served on the executive of an adoption agency. Extract used by kind permission.

 

^ Back to the top ^

Magistrate forced to resign over same-sex adoption

Andrew McClintock had served as a magistrate since 1987 and presided over family cases since the early 1990s, but resigned his position last year after the Court authorities declined his request to be exempted on grounds of conscience from cases in which a same-sex adoption placement was in view.

In February 2007, an employment tribunal rejected his appeal, even though it recognised that ‘he has an unblemished record and is well regarded by fellow magistrates and by the Department of Constitutional Affairs’.

Mr McClintock commented: ‘This ruling is going to make it harder for many conscientious people, whether they are JPs in the family court, or otherwise involved with children… [It] will diminish the pool of people willing to do such work, both in numbers and diversity.’

^ Back to the top ^

Violence in schools

In response to a Parliamentary Question, Schools Minister, Jim Knight, revealed that during 2004/05 there were 1,270 permanent and 18,480 fixed period exclusions for physical assault against an adult (HC Hansard, 8 February 2007, col 1105W).

According to research released by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) later in the same month, discipline was the key education issue for the majority of parents who participated in discussion groups run by MORI on behalf of the Department. Parents expressed concern at the level of violent attacks on teachers and other pupils, and felt that the decline in standards of discipline stemmed from the prohibition of corporal punishment in schools (MORI, Public understanding of proposed key reforms – Schools White Paper, prepared February 2006, released by the DfES, February 2007).

^ Back to the top ^

 

STIs continue to rise among young women

Diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among young women aged 15-19 rose to 38,389 in UK genito-urinary clinics during 2005, a rise of over 50 per cent since 1999 when the figure stood at 25,447. Over the same period, diagnoses of STIs among girls aged under 15 have risen from 447 to 576 – an increase of 29 per cent (HC Hansard, 25 January 2007, col 2048W).

^ Back to the top ^

Children’s Database to be known as ContactPoint

Following a consultation exercise involving over 400 stakeholders, including children, young people and families, the Information Sharing Index for Children’s Services has been named ‘ContactPoint’ and given a logo bearing the strapline ‘because every child matters’.

In response to a Parliamentary Question, Minister for Children and Young People, Beverley Hughes, stated that the public consultation on the draft regulations for the index attracted 254 responses.

The government is currently analysing the consultation responses and plans to publish its official response and summary statistical report in the spring, when the Regulations will be laid before Parliament. The Minister said there were no plans to produce a privacy impact assessment for the index. Rather, the government’s preferred approach was ‘to develop an ongoing systematic engagement of children, young people and parents, both at national and local levels, throughout the index implementation to ensure that any concerns about privacy are addressed and that the benefits that the index will bring are explained’.1

Subject to the will of Parliament, the government hopes the regulations will be in place before the summer recess.2

Notes
1. HC Hansard, 30 Jan 2007, col 216W.
2. HC Hansard, 28 Mar 2007, col 1544W.

^ Back to the top ^

Government respect for home education

In response to an e-petition on the 10 Downing Street website, the government has reaffirmed the freedom of parents to make provision for the education of their children outside a school setting. In full, the response states:

‘The Government respects the rights of parents who choose to educate their children at home. Local authorities have a limited scope for intervention if it appears to them that a child in their area is not receiving a suitable education. We do not believe it is unfair for local authorities to scrutinise the quality of provision when legitimate concerns are raised. This should be done sensitively, and recognise that home educators do not have to follow the National Curriculum and have a broad discretion as to how and when education takes place.’

Source: http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page11289.asp

^ Back to the top ^

MP presents Bill calling for respect for parents

Angela Watkinson, MP for Upminster, presented her Contraception and Abortion (Parental Information) Bill before the House of Commons on 14 March. The aim of the Bill was to require practitioners providing contraception or abortion services to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian, apart from in the most exceptional circumstances where a parent might be violent or abusive.

Mrs Watkinson observed that increased provision of ‘sex information’ had failed to make real inroads into high teenage conception rates. Underage girls needed to be encouraged ‘to abstain, to wait, to delay, and to resist, rather than to use contraception and believe that they will not come to any harm’, and parents needed to be part of that process.

In 1984-85, following Victoria Gillick’s victory in the Court of Appeal, the number of unwanted pregnancies did not go up, and the number of sexually transmitted infections went down. The pattern has been similar in parts of the United States where parental involvement is required.

Mrs Watkinson told the House of Commons:

‘The decision to provide contraception or abortion advice or treatment to under-age children must involve the parents. It is the parents who have full responsibility for, and the greatest interest in, their children’s health and welfare and the closest long-term personal bonds with them. Parents have the best opportunity to guide their children to resist peer pressure, and to make wise decisions about their sexual behaviour and their future reproductive lives. Quite simply, parents have not just a right to know, but a need to know.’

Mrs Watkinson’s Bill was defeated by 159 votes to 89.

^ Back to the top ^

>