Lastest Field Poll; Voters Don’t Favor Prop 8

Today’s Field Poll results demonstrate a victory of sorts for the pro-equal rights and liberty crowd.  With Gay Marriages as the law of the land for about a month, thousands of Gay couples have tied the knot and the sky hasn’t fallen.  And I’m guessing Chuck DeVore’s traditional marriage is still intact and not damaged by the fact same sex couples are marrying.

But if the election were held today, two things are certain.  Senator Barack Obama would be president.  And California voters would reject Proposition 8 that would make marriage between one man and one woman a state constitutional amendment.  The margin of victory, if you will, is 51 to 42 percent with mostly younger voters saying no to bigotry.

  36 comments for “Lastest Field Poll; Voters Don’t Favor Prop 8

  1. July 18, 2008 at 10:36 am

    And don’t forget, everyone…

    http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385

    We still have work to do to ensure we protect marriage equality! :-)

  2. July 18, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Right, and Field just showed 50-41 of Californians support nuclear too (see: http://www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/07/poll-after-30-years-california-1/). But, as you know, polls are not elections.

    You may recall that assisted suicide was on the ballot in 1992 as Prop. 161. It was supported by about 64 percent of Californians, yet at ballot box it failed 54-46.

    As far as a new definition of marriage impacting my marriage, one could say a host of things in reply, for instance, how do bad schools in L.A. impact my kids? How does crime in Oakland hurt my family in Irvine? You ought to be careful about just how much of a laissez faire / libertarian argument you wish to make. Take it far enough and one could argue that taxes for health and welfare for others is not supportable because my family takes care of itself.

    As I and others have stated before, the definition of marriage goes to the core of society and how it carries forward. Our society benefits with monogamous and stable traditional marriage (and yes, divorce in traditional marriage is bad – I introduced a bill in 2005 to bring back a version of fault divorce for those who wanted a stronger marriage contract). Mess around with the definition of marriage and polygamy in the name of religious equality will be around the corner. It is legally inevitable once this Pandora’s Box is fully opened.

    It should be interesting to see the replies to this post – I hope they’ll add to a reasoned debate and avoid the kinds of personal attacks I have come to expect on this blog, but, I’m not going to hold my breath.

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    California State Assemblyman, 70th District
    http://www.ChuckDeVore.com

  3. July 18, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    “As far as a new definition of marriage impacting my marriage, one could say a host of things in reply, for instance, how do bad schools in L.A. impact my kids? How does crime in Oakland hurt my family in Irvine?”

    Not a very artful dodge. You didn’t answer the question.

  4. July 18, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Devore when he says that “polygamy in the name of religious equality will be around the corner” and that “it is legally inevitable.”
    How about we agree to deal with those issues when such legislation is ever introduced or those petitions begin circulating? Those are great examples of “straw men.”
    For now we are dealing with the marriages of single consenting adults. You fail to show how state recognition of their marriage contracts affects others.
    One could argue that our society was based on a concept of voting rights for white male landowners. Expanding suffrage beyond this tradition to include women, non-property owners, non-whites, and those under 21 did not disenfranchise anyone. But it did greatly reduce the influence of those white male landowners.
    I think, in the end, that reduction of influence is what Chuck and folks on his side find most fearful.

  5. Dan Chmielewski
    July 18, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Chuck — “reasoned debate” is not using predictions that mothers will marry sons and faters will marry daughters to avoid estate taxes, as you have. Polygamists have yet to launch any sort of “marriage equality” initiative. Perhaps we should roll marriage back to arranged marriages from the middle ages.

    Your warning calls on changing the definition of marriage are the same ones used by those who opposed Loving vs Virigina.

    IN six weeks, my wife and I will celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary and will surely raise a glass to a number of couples who believe in love and marriage since the California supreme court made the right decision.

  6. July 18, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    First of all, I have to say I am pleased with the discussion so far. Very good!

    As to Ed and Dan, please allow me to respond. Ed, you wrote, “How about we agree to deal with those issues when such legislation is ever introduced or those petitions begin circulating?” Well, that wasn’t the case when the California Supreme Court overturned 150+ years of California statute and precedent in May, was it? They simply overturned the law on a whim of judicial activism. Having read the 100+ page Supreme Court ruling, I found their reasoning justifying same-sex marriage could just as easily be used to justify polygamy. In fact, since polygamy is a commonly accepted part of the world’s second largest religion, one could even more forcefully argue for a Constitutional right to polygamy on the grounds that, to deny it, would be to deny a person their free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment (the equal protection clause — “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”).

    This line of reasoning is seen in Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters’ May 18th piece that was otherwise largely sympathetic with same-sex marriage where he closed with the observation that:

    “Finally, declaring that one is free to marry whomever one chooses makes it at least conceivable that plural marriages – polygamy – could be equally valid. How’s that for a can of worms?”

    This has been one of my main points from the start of this debate. Once you start changing the traditional definition of marriage, where do you stop? Especially, Ed, when the change was not at all done through the legislative or initiative process, as you proposed, but instead by Court fiat?

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    California State Assemblyman, 70th District
    http://www.ChuckDeVore.com

  7. July 18, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    As for Bill, you miss my point. If the standard that you are going to use is the statement that state-sanctioned same-sex marriage does no direct harm to my marriage, then I can just as easily use the standard of direct harm to justify me not paying my taxes to fund government health, welfare and abortion. After all, I do not benefit from these things. The direct harm argument is very weak – that’s my point. And, if you persist in using such an argument to bolster your case, I can come up with even a larger array of arguments to justify a minimalist libertarian government that most readers of the OCLiberal.com would find completely unacceptable.

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    California State Assemblyman, 70th District
    http://www.ChuckDeVore.com

  8. Dan Chmielewski
    July 18, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Chuck — are you saying that the courts, the third branch of government, are not as important as the executive or legislative? Was the US Supreme Court being activist when they upheld that individuals had a right to gun ownership? Wwere they activist when they appointed George. Bush, president, in violation of state’s rights? Why are justices activist when they vote against conservatives, but not otherwise?

    Are you threatening us Chuck? Bring on your minimalist libertarian ideas; and good luck in getting any of them passed in a very Blue State. No one here is afraid to debate you.

  9. July 18, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Dan, now you’re missing the point between a coherent argument and political power. Don’t mistake a debate for governing. If you say I should support same-sex marriage because you assert it has not caused my wife to divorce me, then I can argue in the same vein that why then should I support the modern welfare state because my wife and I derive no benefit from it?

    As for the Supreme Court, whether U.S. or California, their job is not to make law, that’s my job in the Legislature. My response was to Ed trying to have his cake and eat it too when he said I shouldn’t be speaking of polygamy because it had not yet been legislated or put into an initiative. That was precisely my point. Same-sex marriage hadn’t passed as law yet either, but the Court made a sweeping ruling that voided large parts of settled statute meaning they just as easily could do the same with regards other parts of family law, such as polygamy, all in the name of religious equality.

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    California State Assemblyman, 70th District
    http://www.ChuckDeVore.com

  10. July 18, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Actually, sir, I did not miss your point. Your point is a distraction and therefore still a non-answer. Your distractions undermine your argument and diminish your credibility. Because you cannot, or choose not to, answer directly the original question your arguments are rendered moot. That you persist in the distractions suggests that you missed *my* point. Meanwhile, I do hope you have a good weekend.

  11. Carl Weibel
    July 18, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Dan- Excellent point on the gun ruling. While I didn’t have a problem with the ruling myself, I think it exposed the hypocrisy and phoniness of the right wing. When the courts rule to overturn laws like the ones banning same-sex marriage, the right wing screams accusations of “judicial activism” and complain that the will of the people is being overturned. However, when the same exact thing happens and it helps a conservative cause, they celebrate. It’s either “judicial activism” in both cases or it isn’t in both cases. The right wing needs to make up its mind and stop being so dishonest.

    In my opinion, the whole “liberal activist judges” talking point is a scam. In 2003, when the “sodomy laws” were overturned by the Supreme Court, the right wing used the same accusation. However, I believe 7 of the 9 Justices at that time were Republican-appointed. Likewise, the judges who recently ruled against Prop. 22 in California are considered to be conservative, yet they too are being accused of liberal activism. Seeing a pattern here? The right wing doesn’t want non-partisan judges. They want conservative judges who will legislate from the bench THEIR way. To do this, they falsely label non-partisan judges like Ronald George and Anthony Kennedy as “liberal activists”, pressuring judges to move to the right and pressuring politicians to appoint right wing judges. I hope more Americans will wake up and not fall for this right wing scam!

  12. demmother
    July 19, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    I just skimmed the responses.

    Domestic Partnership is not Marriage. It is separate and inherently unequal.
    What about rendering unto Cesar what is Cesar’s?

    How does Full marriage equality tear our society apart.? Several religious groups already recognise and support marriage equality.

    What I have had is the privilege of witnessing love and support from the community at large. If anyone is concerned about the disintegration of society, let’s improve education, provide universal healthcare and find ways to help those who are the most disenfranchised by society.

    It seems to me that a strong, cohesive society would value every human being, not just a few.

  13. Eric
    July 20, 2008 at 10:45 am

    Is Chuck DeVore so afraid of Mike Glover that he now has to start trolling for liberal votes?

  14. Homewrecker
    July 21, 2008 at 9:44 am

    All we need to do is get ol’ Jimmy Baker over here. He’ll take care of everything. He’ll know how to make it “right.”

  15. Tamara Wilcox
    August 3, 2008 at 10:12 pm

    Why is it that opponents of Prop 8 insist that same-sex relationships should be equal with marriages between a man and a woman? We’re talking about relationships that affect a very small percentage of our society and have really only been around (domestic partnerships) for a few years, versus the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, which has been around for thousands of years. For thousands of years, marriage has been the institution that produced children and families, formed the core foundation of every society, and has been the most stable unit of mankind. Laws protecting marriage between a man and a woman have done so to protect children and society.

    Domestic partnerships are an unproven newcomer. In no way, have they been proven to promote the welfare of a society, to further the interests of mankind, or even to be a contributing factor to solving human tragedy, whereas marriage between a man and a woman is proven to extend life, improve health, raise stable & responsible children, increase wealth and productivity, and endure many trials. (I am not ignoring the fact that many marriages now end in divorce, because I am sure that many domestic partnerships are also dissolved.) However, a successful marriage between a man and a woman should continue to be the ideal for all marriages and the raising of children.

    The other way in which same-sex relationships can never be equal with marriage between a man and a woman is biologically. No one can dispute that, yet most people try to gloss over or ignore this most basic fact. Homosexual partnerships will never produce children–how can they be considered equal? A same-sex relationship is and always will be very different from a marriage between a man and a woman. Why should it be called marriage? Why should it be allowed to change the definition of marriage which has been proven for the history of the world?

  16. August 4, 2008 at 7:48 am

    Tamara,

    My wife and I married knowing that we would not produce offspring. Should we not have been allowed to be married?

    Gary

  17. Dan Chmielewski
    August 4, 2008 at 10:40 am

    Tamara — so once a woman is past child-bearing age, she should no longer be able to marry. And if you’re infertile, no marriage for you. Is that what you’re saying.

    Roll back the history of marriage a thousand years or so and you’ll find most were arranged marriages for the sake of retaining property and stature.

    Marriage is part of our constutional right to pursue happiness.

    And there is abolsutely no reason, through the use of sperm banks and surrogates,why gay parents cannot produce biological children of their own. What not just come out and say you don’t like gay people and that you think they should be treated as second class citizens in their own country?

  18. Homewrecker
    August 4, 2008 at 11:42 am

    I seriously don’t understand why straight people care. Open your eyes and look around you: We live in a society where people are fat, unhappy, overmedicated, prejudiced, stuck in a consumerist mentality, and children don’t receive love and discipline. This is the world that heterosexuals have created, but they would deny a gay person’s reach for happiness and chance to create a family. So much for “values.” The kind you preach, honey, you can cram up your you-know-what.

  19. Tamara Wilcox
    August 4, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Gary, Dan, and Homewrecker,
    Of course, I am speaking of ideals. A marriage between a man and a woman who do not wish to produce children or who cannot produce children is a valid marriage. But the fact that a relationship between a man and a woman could and most likely will produce children gives it significance to our society that makes it worth protecting and promoting as the ideal.

    Obviously a minimum of reproducing has to take place for mankind to continue to exist. When children are born, they need a father and a mother to care for, provide for, and nourish them. Men and women are so biologically different that neither of them alone is able to provide for all of the emotional needs of their children. So, if you want the most ideal society, it would rely on successful marriages between a man and a woman and children who are cared for by both parents.

    Yes, I KNOW there are far too many examples of less than ideal families among heterosexual marriages. However, I do not know any single mother raising a family who does not wish she had the help of a caring, loving husband and father. I do not know any widowed men who do not wish they had a wife who would help care for and nourish his children. I do not know any abandonned or neglected children who do not wish they had a mother AND a father to love them and provide a stable home for them. And as far as all of the other societal ills you mentioned, there are fewer of them in stable heterosexual marriages…and that is proven.

    To change a centuries-old definition of the ideal is to dilute marriage and its significance, confuse future generations of children, and eventually, remove whatever support government has been willing to provide in the way of tax and other benefits–because the marriages our “new age laws” will produce will not benefit society.

    In Spain, where there have been same-sex marriages for several years now, hardly anyone marries anymore. The importance of marriage has been heavily diluted. Families are not as stable; children are not as secure. Few commitments are made and kept. The government is now having to pay its citizens to bear children. It is a very sad example of how quickly a society goes downhill when marriage is undermined.

    Dan and Homewrecker,
    I do not dislike gay people–do they dislike me? I definitely feel a lot more hatred directed at me than I have ever felt towards any other human, gay or not.

    And by the way, marriage is not a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution. Pursuing happiness is, but the ways in which we pursue happiness are not guaranteed.

  20. Dan Chmielewski
    August 4, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Its not hatred directed at you, but perhaps contempt. Gay marriage has been around the Nordic States for a number of years and very liberal civil union laws exist in France and Germany. There are studies that indicate children raised in a home with two gay parents are not any better or worse off than kids raised by two straight parents.

    Government cannot regulate who you fall in love with. Your arguments mimic that of those who were against interracial marriage (Loving vs Virginia). And if marriage is not a consistitutional right, why is it your side wants to amend the consistitution to define it as such.

    Churches can certainly decide what marriage is for their members; but for state issued marriage, you cannot deny the rights to gays and lesbians that are available to straights.

  21. Tamara Wilcox
    August 5, 2008 at 7:46 am

    Why not? States have always reserved the right to limit marriage, in the best interest of their citizens. In most states, cousins are not allowed to marry. A parent and his/her child are not allowed to marry, and minors are restricted from marrying without parental consent. Polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage are also forbidden. Why then, can the states not deny marriage to same-sex relationships, when it is not in the best interest of their citizens?

  22. Dan Chmielewski
    August 5, 2008 at 9:07 am

    In is not in the best interest of citizens to deny the same set of rights to a group of people simply based on their sexual orientation. States also used to deny the right to marry for interracial couples. Was that in the best interest of their citizens.

  23. Tamara Wilcox
    August 5, 2008 at 9:45 am

    No, I do not believe it is in anyone’s best interest to deny interracial couples to marry. Perhaps there was a time when legislators, or even the citizens themselves, believed they were protecting interracial couples and their children from rejection or being ostracized. As a society, we have come a long way in overcoming racial prejudices, for which I am very grateful.

    As much as homosexuals deserve understanding and must be treated with the same respect and concern as any other member of society, I cannot accept that their choice of lifestyle should be allowed to infringe on mine or that of our society. Embracing homosexual marriage means blurring the distinction between genders, changing the titles of Mr and Mrs, Mom and Dad, woman and man, and eventually changing the make-up of a family unit so profoundly as to weaken its potency.

    This is what I have taught my children: there is no greater joy in life than to be a part of a happy family with a mother and father, married to each other, who love each other and who are committed to raising their children in a secure and happy environment. I know that this kind of family is the keystone of our society, the hope of our future. Every politician and government official (when not attempting to be politically correct) would admit that most of the problems in our society would disappear if there were more families like this.

    The citizens of California have come a long way in extending tolerance and understanding to homosexuals. Their life is certainly not an easy one. Domestic partnerships allow most, if not all, of the benefits homosexuals have requested. As with interracial marriages, Californians have shown great ability to erase prejudices. But a homosexual marriage is very different from an interracial marriage, and it is not ideal.

    We have the opportunity to support and confirm an ideal marriage as the standard for the state of California. I will be doing only that when I vote yes for Prop 8.

  24. Dan Chmielewski
    August 5, 2008 at 9:57 am

    **I cannot accept that their choice of lifestyle should be allowed to infringe on mine or that of our society**

    Tamara — Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Is Heterosexuality a choice? Would heterosexual lifestyles infringe on gay lifestyles? There is no difference between straight marriage and gay marriage except for the gender of the partners involved. This statement tells me you don’t know many gay people and if you do, the fact the one would chose to be belittled, discriminated against simply because of their sexuality is just flat out wrong.

    The idea situation is for children to be raised in a loving household. But lets be frank here; I’m not going to change your mind on this issue and you’re not going to change mine. I will be celebrating my 25th wedding anniversary in a month; Gay marriage does not harm my marriage in any way, shape or form.

    But I would like to ask you, which right would you like taken away from you previously granted under law while other ethnic or gender groups might still enjoy?

  25. Tamara Wilcox
    August 11, 2008 at 11:22 am

    I would not choose to give up a right I already have; however, it is clear that I might soon have many rights taken away from me…the right to speak out against homosexual marriages, the right to listen to conservative radio, the right to protect my children from sex education that includes homosexual sex, the right to protect my children from school assemblies where homosexual partners promote alternative lifestyles and further confuse my children along with all the others, and the right to enjoy laws that were once founded on morality.

    Homosexual marriage is not a right that was ever guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, nor was minority rule. Most of our country’s laws are based on the Bible and the Ten Commandments, but if we continue to throw out moral laws, what will happen to laws that protect us from theft, murder, rape, deceit, etc.? We open a Pandora’s box when we start re-defining the most basic foundations of our society!

  26. Dan Chmielewski
    August 11, 2008 at 11:39 am

    Tamara – my understanding of the public education system in California is that you can have your children opt out of sex education. Your choice of course. As far as assemblies promoting a Gay lifestyle, perhaps you can provide some concrete examples of that because I don’t see the point and have not heard of gay lifestyles being promoted. And frankly, so what if they were — an assembly cannot persuade someone who is not gay to become gay. You are or you aren’t.

    Straight marriage is also not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority. To say most of our laws are based on the Bible and Ten Commandments is wrong. You can’t kill and you can’t steal. Those are the only two Commandments based on Law.

    But since you brought up the Bible, let me ask you this: do you eat pork? do you eat shellfish? Yes or no questions. And both sins according to the Bible. Enjoy your shrimp.

  27. Tamara Wilcox
    August 11, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    If only this were a perfect world…
    Yes, I should be able to have my children opt out of sex education…if I could get the administrators or teachers to tell me when they will be teaching it–they won’t. I could have my children stay home on the days when the school is “exploring” other lifestyles during assemblies if they would let us know they were going to happen ahead of time, but they don’t. I could keep my children home on “silent” days when no one is allowed to talk, to show support for homosexuals, if it was on the calendar. And if do find out in time to keep them home, they are ostracized and ridiculed for not attending. Teachers are regularly encouraging students to experiment with their feelings and try all options before determining “what they are”–doesn’t this assume that people can “choose” what lifestyle they want?

    I do eat shrimp; the scriptures you refer to in the Bible form a health code for a day when there was no refrigeration.

  28. August 12, 2008 at 12:22 am

    Tamara-
    Theft, murder, rape and deceit are unlawful because they do harm to another party.
    Since gay marriage hasn’t been shown to harm another person, it should be legal.
    And you’re explanation for shrimp is amusing – you’re admitting that some rules in the Bible can be adjusted as times change, but others should hold firm. How do I join the committee to determine which are which?

  29. Tamara Wilcox
    August 12, 2008 at 9:51 am

    Is there no harm to a child raised with two fathers? Or to a generation of youth who no longer value marriage? Or to a young girl raised by two mothers who often share their bitter feelings towards men?

    Since nearly all marriage laws are enacted to protect children (tax benefits free up money to raise children, custody laws protect children, etc.), I would assert that children’s welfare must be at the forefront of this discussion, rather than the desires of the adults involved. Making sacrifices for the good of others is an honorable thing. And since children are often the innocent victims of the selfish and unthinking acts of adults, for once, it would be awesome if we would put their needs first!

    As for interpreting the Bible, I didn’t get the impression you were a Christian. If I’m wrong, please forgive me. There is no committee for deciding what the Bible means. There is a living prophet, who speaks for God…his name is Thomas S Monson. All men have also been given the Light of Christ (otherwise known as a conscience), and there is also the gift of the Holy Ghost, which reveals God’s word to us. Number one commandment in the Bible: the Golden Rule–“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” . And “Whatever is praiseworthy or of good report, we seek after these things” That is all I have ever tried to do.

  30. Marlon Smith
    September 3, 2008 at 9:56 am

    I will vote yes on Prop 8 on November 4. Prop 8 is not about depriving gays of their rights. It is about preserving an institution that has proved to provide the most stable and caring environment for children throughout the history of the world.

    Many, many studies have indicated that children need the nurturing and love of both a father and a mother in order to lead fulfilling and productive lives. The combination of the two parents – one male and the other female – provides a balance that contributes to the emotional and spiritual well-being of children. Same-sex parents can not provide the influence of both genders to children.

    In one nation where same-sex marriage was legislated, only two percent of gays even bother to marry. At the same time there has been a dramatic increase in that country of out-of-wedlock babies. Such children enter this world extremely disadvantaged because a great percentage of them end up having only a mother to raise them. This leads to poverty, decreases educational opportunities, and makes more likley a host of other problems including but not limitted to suicide, teenage pregnancies, drug abuse, and law-breaking.

    If passed, Prop 8 will not take away from domestic partnerships the benefits assured by law. But it will preserve traditional heterosexual marriage, which studies have shown will provide the nurturing environment of a mother and a father that best meets the emotional/spiritual/physical needs of children.

  31. Dan Chmielewski
    September 3, 2008 at 10:15 am

    *Many, many studies have indicated that children need the nurturing and love of both a father and a mother in order to lead fulfilling and productive lives.*

    Actually Marlon, there are a number of studies that show kids raised by gays and lesbians are just as well off and just as smart and happy as those kids raised in traditional familie. Your argument on Domestic Partners falls short in several ways, most notably because DPs do not have the same rights as those enjoyed by married couples.

  32. Marlon Smith
    September 8, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Dan,

    Can you please cite specifically a couple of studies or scholarly papers that show what you say is true? Same-sex domestic relationships in which children have been raised have not been followed long enough to view all of the long-term effects upon the children. I am prepared to share with you multiple studies which show that children who have a stable father and mother home relationship fare better in virtually every category that is measurable as compared to those raised in homes that have only a motherly or a fatherly influence. Heterosexual marriage is geared to protect the best interests of the children, whereas same-sex marriage is involved primarily, in my humble opinion, with the desires and interests of the adults in the relationship.

    Lamentably, many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, which creates undue burdens on children. However, the fact that there are divorces should not make us feel that we should abandon ship. Rather, we should repair the leaks that will allow for more families to continue on the journey together.

    Some proponents of same-sex marriage state that it would be better for a child to be in a loving home of same-sex parents than be in a home of a father and a mother where marital vows are not kept or in which dysfunction exists. This is comparing apples and oranges, and discounts the fact that the best thing for a child is to have a loving home with influence being provided from both a father and a mother. Every child has the right to be raised in such a home.

  33. Dan Chmielewski
    September 8, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Thanks for asking; but you’re wrong about not enough research available; there is quite a bit of it —

    *The American Psychological Association, representing more than 155,000 psychologists, states that children of gay and lesbian parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents.

    *The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation’s leading pediatric authority with 57,000 members, says that children who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents.

    *The National Association of Social Workers, with nearly 150,000 members, agrees that research on gay and lesbian parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children.
    “
    *Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.” — Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, 2004

    There’s a lot more out there.

  34. Dan Chmielewski
    September 8, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    Research has been going on for 25 years…..

    Research shows that gays and lesbians are just as fit to parent as heterosexuals, possessing the same abilities to nurture and provide stable homes:
    David K. Flaks et al, Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Homosexual Parents and Their Children, 1995.
    Charlotte J. Patterson & Raymond W. Chan, Gay Fathers and Their Children, 1996. Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter, 2001.

    Children of gay and lesbian parents experience no significant differences in quality of peer relationships, nor do they experience more struggles with self-esteem.
    Susan Golombok et al., Children in Lesbian & Single-Parent Households Psychosexual & Psychiatric Appraisal, 1983; Fiona Tasker & Susan Golombok, Growing up in a Lesbian Family, 1997.
    Sharon L. Huggins, A Comparative Study of Self Esteem of Adolescent Children of Divorced Lesbian Mothers and Divorced Heterosexual Mothers, 1989. Mary E. Hotvedt & Jane B. Mandel, Children of Lesbian Mothers, 1982.

    Gay and lesbian couples enjoy the same degree of relationship health and satisfaction, and stay together long-term at the same rates, as opposite-sex couples. Charlotte J. Patterson, Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men, 2000. Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, American Couples, 1983. L.A. Peplau and Susan D. Cochran, A Relationship Perspective on Homosexuality, 1990. Lawrence A. Kurdek, Lesbian and Gay Couples, in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan: Psychological Perspectives, 1995; Relationship Stability and Relationship Satisfaction in Cohabitating Gay and Lesbian Couples: A Prospective Longitudinal Test of the Contextual and Interdependence Models, 1992; and Relationship Quality of Partners in Heterosexual Married, Heterosexual Cohabitating, and Gay and Lesbian Relationships, 1986.

    Please note: Studies cited above represent only a sampling of gay and lesbian parenting research, which comprises more than 50 peer-reviewed studies over 25 years.

    ——————————————————————————–

  35. Tamara Wilcox
    September 26, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Here is a link to the Family Research Council and a study which compares heterosexual couples to homosexual couples in 6 different areas:
    1) relationship duration
    2) monogamy vs. promiscuity
    3) relationship commitment
    4) number of children being raised
    5) health risks
    6) rates of intimate partner violence

    The link is http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

    What is really interesting is the section on relationship commitment where it states that even in “committed” homosexual relationships, their definition of fidelity is very different than that of heterosexual relationships. Often homosexual couples desire some stability in a single relationship, but still long for and maintain multiple sexual relationships on the side. Not such a great atmosphere for raising children, if you ask me!

    “Committed” homosexual couples do NOT stay together as long. Children being raised in such relationships are more likely to be dragged between homes and relationships. Homosexual couples engage in more risky sexual activity and violence than heterosexual couples.

    It’s a very eye-opening article. Read it! And if you live in California, please vote YES on Prop 8, so we can restore the best definition of marriage!

  36. Dan Chmielewski
    September 26, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2278.pdf

    Tamara — I hate to break it to you, but straight married people cheat too. Any informaiton about the affect of divorce on kids?

    Risky sexual activity occurs with straights too.

    Your eye-opening article made me yawn. I’m voting no on Prop 8. But tell me Tamara, which one of your civil rights would you like me to vote on?

Comments are closed.