Recently, the New Zealand Listener ran an excellent article about the current status of the debate over LGBT adoption law reform in this country. David Young's piece (no relation) indicates that adoption law reform is about to enter mainstream media. Despite the happy and unshaven gay men and baby on the front cover, though, lesbians are still far more likely to undertake parental responsibilities than us boys. Mind you, the unshaven faces are realistic, as any dad or coparent with a teething infant can tell you! Insofar as adoption law reform is concerned, the Clark administration ran out of time during the current parliamentary term, given the existence of other items on its legislative agenda. I accept that- the Civil Union and Relationship (Statutory References) Acts were our major objectives for this parliamentary term, and both were passed, intact. David made some perceptive observations about probable community and public ambivalence about the ethics of adoption per se that should be expanded upon. Primarily, we want the best interests of the child and recognition of our own parental responsibilities, so that the child benefits from continuity of care and stable parenting arrangements. Therefore, coparent adoption is probably our chief priority in this context when debate is joined. When it comes to wider ethical questions, the ethics of adoption come into sharper focus. As someone who's involved in the pro-choice movement, I've encountered many women who tell me that they were forced into relinquishing their children for adoption, with no regard for the psychological consequences for either adopted children or relinquishing birthmothers. There are probably relinquishing lesbian birthmothers out there who still carry inward scars from that period of our social history, and who need a space to be heard. However, full credit to David for introducing Stacey and Biblarz to a larger audience, as well as relevant sections of the Massey University "Lavender Islands" survey. Yes, same-sex parents do deliberate before we undertake parental responsibilities. I especially appreciated the way that David undertook humanisation of Stacey and Biblarz' research through interviewing lesbian and gay parents and their adult offspring. He did an excellent job of implicitly highlighting the strengths of same-sex parenting, such as good parent-child and spousal/parental communication skills. I have one minor quibble, which is David's engagement with the Maxim Institute. I applaud his analysis of the Institute's submissions against the Civil Union and Care of Children Bill Acts, and focus on the contradictions that they presented when it came to Stacey/Biblarz. However, there were other dimensions that could have been canvassed. I would have paid stronger attention to the benefits of same-sex parenting, and placed that earlier in his article, especially the bit that related to educational achievement and employment prospects for children of same-sex parents, which do not display adverse effects from same-sex parenting. As the Institute has repeatedly made the cardinal mistake of sliding data about solo parents and same-sex parental couples together, perhaps this might have offset that. Secondly, I would have focused more strongly on the telltale citation of Paul Cameron within the Institute's Care of Children Bill, and explained to his readers that there may be ample grounds for questioning the Institute over the source of its alleged 'negative' statistics about same-sex parenting. Thirdly, I'd have pointed out that the Institute's observations about the alleged 'inadequacy' of same-sex parenting research originates from fundamental misunderstandings about pediatric and developmental psychological research methods. These tend to centre on in-depth interviews with small samples, but the depth of participant response still yields meaningful research results. That said, though, David did a marvellous job when it came to discussion of the social scientific basis of claims about the benefits of same-sex parenting. However, what has been happening overseas, within North America and Western Europe, over this specific LGBT rights debate? For the remainder of this article, I'll explore current Christian Right initiatives against same-sex parenting, which we can probably expect to see here as the debate heats up over the next few years. How have overseas LGBT communities dealt with these threats to legal recognition of same-sex parental responsibilities? Bill Maier (Deputy Leader, US Focus on the Family) visited New Zealand last year as a guest of Focus on the Family New Zealand. Several months later, he produced a co-authored book, currently available in some New Zealand fundamentalist bookstores. It doesn't say anything new. Maier and Stanton are involved in current referenda and state constitutional amendment and legislative campaigns against same-sex marriage or civil unions. What does their book have to say? Not much, and I wasn't impressed with the content. True, Maier and Stanton have learnt some lessons. Paul Cameron is nowhere to be found in either the bibliography or footnotes, nor is Judith Reisman. However, they forget the handy existence of bibliographical records and library databases. It's nice that Maier and Stanton don't deny that we can be good citizens, responsible parents, form caring relationships and deserve human dignity. Are we to assume that US Focus on the Family now regrets its temporary ringleader status in overturning Colorado anti-discrimination laws in the early nineties, until the US Supreme Court overturned it in 1996 [Romer v Evans}? In that case, why is it still distributing Larry Burtoft's excuse for that referendum? Moreover, Maier and Stanton need to clarify what their position on vanquished US sodomy laws are, after the abolition that occurred in Lawrence v Texas [2003]. James Dobson, US FOF President, supported their retention, according to last year's (US) book, Marriage Under Fire. However, Mark Jordan has argued that sodomy laws were only ever a badly patched together grab-bag of concepts. Doesn't retention of "sodomy" discourse contradict their earlier claim that they have 'compassionate' views about lesbians and gay men? Maier and Stanton have no real arguments against lesbian/gay relationship equality per se within this text.Most of their book is focused on attacking the legitimacy of same-sex parenting. In New Zealand's case, it will no doubt be cited against eventual inclusive adoption law reform in the event of a third-term Clark administration. As I read through this book, I became aware of frequent tell-tale gaps and issue avoidance within the text. For example, they state that heterosexual relationships have greater durability and permanence for purposes of childrearing. They fail to mention the Barna Group's study on fundamentalist religious adherence and divorce, which demonstrated that states that have high fundamentalist demographic proportions also have high divorce rates, and that fundamentalist religious adherence seemed to have some causal relationship to divorce. Maier and Stanton tell us that heterosexuality is an "essential" element of child wellbeing, as is heterosexual marriage. Unfortunately, they cite conservative static theoretical frameworks to 'substantiate' their argument, such as sociobiology (all social behaviours have 'natural' origins and may be unchangeable); structural functionalism (social structures have stable and durable coherent structures and functions); and conservative psychoanalysis. Moreover, they make repeated references to the so-called 'marriage movement,' which Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz have criticised for simply ignoring uncomfortable and incompatible social scientific data that doesn't meet their argument that heterosexual marriage is a vital social institution. Linda Waite and David Popenoe are the only 'social scientists' cited within that context, while Maggie Gallagher is a journalist, and David Blankenhorn's post-graduate qualifications are in the field of art history. Predictably, the authors also argue that same-sex relationship equality will lead to polygamous relationship recognition. As I showed recently in the context of New Zealand law, these are facile scare tactics with no basis in current New Zealand law. I suspect that consultation of a US family law textbook would yield similar results. Other telltale sleight of hand also occurs elsewhere in the book. As one might guess, William Byne is misquoted when he talks about genetic origins for homosexuality. While he has debated Simon Le Vay's earlier research, he doesn't rule out the possibility of possible genetic origins for lesbian or gay sexual orientation, as Maier and Stanton allege. There are other convenient glosses or errors. The authors repeatedly cite research related to solo parenthood as if it also sufficed to attack same-sex parenting. Stacey and Biblarz have hauled the 'marriage movement' over the coals for its frequent elision of two different family structures within their claims. Maier and Stanton simply ignore this massive inferential jump, which renders their claims about 'fatherlessness' inapplicable to same-sex parenting research. In the case of male children, Stacey and Biblarz cite research that indicates that lesbian divorced and remarried parents are more likely to permit ex-husband access and encourage male child interaction with grandfathers, uncles, male cousins and other positive role models, than heterosexual divorced mums. David Young does well to demonstrate this within his article. Have Maier and Stanton actually read Stacey and Biblarz' paper at all, or are they simply citing earlier Christian Right secondary sources? They make continual reference to findings related to possible adolescent propensity toward gay or lesbian sexual identity. However, they ignore findings that children of lesbian/gay parents are well-adjusted and suffer no recorded psychological impairments as a result of their parenting. For example, why haven't they responded to another core finding, which is that adult children of lesbian/gay parents do not have any difficulty with educational achievement or finding jobs, relative to their heterosexual peers? Maier and Stanton criticise Ellen Perrin et al's Academy of American Pediatrics technical report, but cite no detailed professional critiques of cited data within that report. Therefore, they have not demonstrated any substantive "case" against that work. Predictably, they also try to argue that 'exgay' research demonstrates that homosexuality is a 'changeable behaviour,' rather than attributable to hardwired genetic or infantile developmental causes. They infer that early pathologising psychoanalytic research is more trustworthy than later, compendious psychological and social scientific research related to non--pathological findings. Furthermore, gay youth suicide and substance abuse may be more attributable to homophobic social discrimination, rather than any internal psychopathology related to homosexuality per se. As Gary Remafedi demonstrated, the US Christian Right tried to use its Republican cronies to suppress research about gay youth suicide risk in the early nineties. Finally, Maier and Stanton do not tell us whether there were any heterosexual control groups within their cited negative research, so we have no way to compare allegations about propensities toward domestic violence or substance abuse, or whether intervention programmes have been able to remedy these social pathologies. It is worth remembering that one-third of all New Zealand cases of domestic violence offences occur against heterosexual married women. Is anyone really surprised that the New Zealand Christian Right's latest imported 'polite response' fails to yield any convincing rebuttals of same-sex parenting? Recommended Reading: 1. Core Reviewed Work: Bill Maier and Glen Stanton: Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Same-Sex Parenting: Wheaton Grove: Inter-Varsity Press: 2004. James Dobson: Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle: Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books: 2004. David Young: "Birth Rights" New Zealand Listener: May 6, 2005: 14-19. Rebuttal of Non-Parenting Claims In Maier et al: Mark Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Medieval Christian Theology: Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1997. Barna Group: Fundamentalists and Divorce: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm William Byne "Biological Evidence Challenged" [Scientific American 270: 50-55: 1994]: cited in Garland Allan: "The Politics of Genetic Determinism" in Vernon Rosario (ed) Science and Homosexualities: New York: Routledge: 1997. Gary Remafedi (ed) Death by Denial: Research on Gay Youth Suicide: Boston: Alyson Press: 1992. 2. Specific Positive Same-Sex Parenting Research: Ellen Perrin and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health: "Technical Report: Coparent and Second Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents:" Pediatrics: 109: 2: (February 2002): 341-344. Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz: "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review: (April 2001): 68:2: 159-183. Affidavit of Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz: Court File No 39/2001: Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court): Halpern et al v Canada (Attorney-General) et al/ Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto v Canada (Attorney-General) et al: Declaration of Judith Stacey: Circuit Court: State of Oregon, County of Multnomah: Li and Kennedy et al and Multnomah County v State of Oregon et al and Defense of Marriage Coalition et al: No. 0403-03057. Provided to: Markowitz, Herbold, Glade and Mehlhof: Suite 3000, Pacwest Centre, 1211 South West Fifth Avenue: Portland, Oregon: 97204-37. Craig Young - 5th May 2005