Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The American Family Association's news outlet reports:
The New York Times reports that the statistics represent a major trend slowdown between 2004 and a previous survey in 1990 versus a dramatic loss in two-parent homes and an increase in single-female parent homes between 1970 and 1990. Mike McManus, co-founder of Marriage Savers, says the traditional family -- and children who would otherwise suffer the devastating effects of divorce or dysfunctional homes -- could use the good news. He calls the statistics "a good sign" and notes that "more and more marriages are staying together and fewer and fewer children are having [to suffer] these kinds of effects."
You mean families are getting stronger just when gays are gaining civil union and marriage rights around the country? How is that possible? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
I went ahead and read that article.
I'm unconvinced. It seems marginal at best and all other stats show the younger generation's marriages breaking up right as the 50% level.
That being said I don't find divorce to be as terrible an event as a loveless marriage. I think these people simplify the human condition to simple stats. Oh that couple is married so henceforth the kids are ok. In reality staying married is no great accomplishment in and of itself and likewise a divorce is no real failing and in fact may improve conditions for all parties involved.
Human relationships are so complex using stats to access the quality of the nations families misses the point.
Which is why gay marriage won't affect a thing except for gay couples who seek to marry.
Posted by: GH | March 27, 2008 11:10 AM
>> You mean families are getting stronger just when gays are gaining civil union and marriage rights around the country? How is that possible? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
To say that the one has led to the other is ridiculous. How can gay unions make the family stronger when gays aren't even bothering to get married? In Massachussetts, where gay "marriage" is legal, the amount of gay people getting "married" has utterly fallen off a cliff. It doesn't seem that gays are that thrilled about the prospects of marriage in that state anymore. If the family is getting stronger, maybe it is because people are wising up to the fact that kids do a heck of a lot better in stable, healthy mom-and-dad families. The parents are better off as well - financially and mentally. This is common sense, yet common sense doesn't seem to be that common these days.
Posted by: mroberts | March 27, 2008 2:52 PM
Oh Ed, PLEASE respond the the mroberts asshole. I am exhausted and just cannot get it up. PLEASE oh PLEASE give the bigot a good one-two.
PLEASE?!?
Posted by: W. | March 27, 2008 3:18 PM
mroberts:
Oh REALLY?!?
1. Your "use" of "quotes" around "marriage" reveals your true agenda - you hate gay people.
2. you said :"to the fact that kids do a heck of a lot better in stable, healthy mom-and-dad families. The parents are better off as well - financially and mentally. This is common sense, yet common sense doesn't seem to be that common these days."
Please tell me, according to whom? You insist it is "common sense" but to whom? For you, sure - you hate gay people so of course it would make sense. What about to the kids of gay parents? What about gay kids? What studies are you quoting? What "facts" do you have to prop up your hate?
Hmm?
Huh?
**crickets**
Posted by: W. | March 27, 2008 3:23 PM
Well said MrRoberts I believe the breakdown of the traditional American family is the cause of most of the major ills we have today in soceity. Children do best in a man-woman married family situation. Too many people today are not willing to work hard at making marriage work. I have been married for 18 years and we have had our rocky patches but worked them out and our children are far better off for it in the end. Any good news on the family front is welcome these days.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | March 27, 2008 3:23 PM
Mroberts, the anti-gays claimed that the mere changing of the definition of marriage would destroy the family and society regardless of whether or not any gays got married. Clearly that has not been the case. If it had been the other way around the anti-gays would be claiming that the change in the definition of marriage had caused the decline, by their logic the change must be responsible for the improvements in the traditional family.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | March 27, 2008 3:24 PM
AFSGTSAM:
Again ACCORDING TO WHOM?!? Children do best in a house where PEOPLE LOVE THEM! Are you saying that your kids are better off because you are straight or because you worked very hard?
"Traditional American Family" what the FUCK does that mean?
Posted by: W. | March 27, 2008 3:26 PM
AFSGTSAM the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that children of same sex couples do as well, if not better than children of opposite sex parents.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | March 27, 2008 3:27 PM
Further to Priya Lynn:
These studies also show that difficulties kids in gay headed households are GENERALLY PREDICATED UPON THE SHITE THEY GET FROM GAY HATERS.
Posted by: W. | March 27, 2008 3:29 PM
mroberts wrote:
Who said that one has led to the other? I certainly didn't. The point was this: every measure that protects gays against discrimination in even the most obvious of ways (like employment discrimination) gets the same response from the religious right, that this will "undermine hte family" or even "destroy the family" and sometimes even "destroy society." I'm sure you will agree that the last couple decades has seen a great change in societal norms toward more acceptance of gay rights than ever before, including lots of laws to protect their rights in a variety of ways (though there is still much to be done). So we've seen an increase in equality for gays, including the passing of domestic partnerships and civil unions in many states, while at the same time the "traditional family" has actually become more common. Clearly, the religious right's argument is wrong then, isn't it? I'm not claiming a cause and effect relationship; I'm arguing that the cause and effect relationship argued by the anti-gay crowd, that increasing rights and protections for gays hurts the family, is contradicted by this evidence.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 27, 2008 3:34 PM
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/PDH090507.htm
"Research has consistently shown little difference in children's social competence, parental socialization, and family functioning between families of heterosexual parents and families of gay or lesbian parents," the paper says. "The few differences that do emerge consistently suggest that (1) gay and lesbian couples tend to have a more egalitarian and satisfying balance of child-care tasks than heterosexual couples, (2) gay and lesbian parents may be marginally more effective socialization agents than heterosexual parents, and (3) children with gay or lesbian parents may be more concerned with or even experience more discrimination due to their parents' sexual orientation, although this does not appear to interfere with their social competence. From the perspective of risk and protective factors, the marginally, more effective socialization practices of gay and lesbian parents might act to protect their children from the adverse effects that could otherwise result from concern about or experience of teasing, bullying and discrimination because of the sexual orientation of their parent(s). Additionally, the marginally more positive home environment that likely results from lesbian and gay parents' greater support of each other's childcare activities might provide a marginally more supportive context for children's development of feelings of security and self-worth."
Posted by: Priya Lynn | March 27, 2008 3:37 PM
AFSGTSAM wrote:
So why doesn't this logic apply to gay couples with children? There are nearly a million of them now, you know. Why wouldn't it be a good thing for the children of gay couples to have their parents make the commitment that marriage entails and have all of the protections that come with having their parents in a legal, committed relationship? Why is only good for the children of straight couples?
And this notion that children are better off with a mother and a father is irrelevant. Even if you continue to prevent gay marriage, gays and lesbians aren't going to say, "Okay, I guess I won't be gay anymore since that's not good for children."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 27, 2008 3:38 PM
The APA on lesbian and gay parents:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgplgparents.html
The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). A recent study of 256 lesbian and gay parent families found that, in contrast to patterns characterizing the majority of American parents, very few lesbian and gay parents reported any use of physical punishment (such as spanking) as a disciplinary technique; instead, they were likely to report use of positive techniques such as reasoning (Johnson & O'Connor, 2002). Certainly, research has found no reasons to believe lesbian mothers or gay fathers to be unfit parents (Armesto, 2002; Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner & Bozett, 1990; Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989a, 1989b; Bos et al., 2003, 2004; Bozett, 1980, 1989; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Chan, 1996; Sbordone, 1993; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Victor & Fish, 1995; Weston, 1991). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive home environments for children.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | March 27, 2008 3:48 PM
I can't help but notice that, as usual, AFSGTSAM fails to provide any evidence for his assertions.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 27, 2008 4:21 PM
AFSGTSAM,
I've been married for 16 years, and we're going strong, too, with 3 very bright and well-behaved children.
And I fully support same-sex marriage. Because I have yet to figure out how it can harm marriage. It's certainly not going to have a negative effect on mine. I'm willing to wager that you'd say gays getting married won't diminish the strength of your own marriage.
Neither would same-sex marriage harm my family. Would you say that two gay people getting married is going to harm your family? How would it?
So just whose marriages are going to be negatively affected? Which families are going to be harmed? And if the answer is nobody's, then how will same-sex marriage harm marriage? How will it harm families?
How and whose? Please tell me.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 27, 2008 4:31 PM
It's easy to come onto a blog and say "ya, my views are right, these people aren't a family, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" and just move on, and it seems that's what they're doing because they refuse to even think about the goddamn subject. What makes a man-woman relationship better than anything else? Many hets get married young or when they're unready for it, for many reasons. Maybe they get an unlucky unplanned pregnancy, maybe it's just family or society telling them they have to in order to be normal. And we wonder why there's dissatisfaction and divorce? Gays don't get married to each other for pressing reasons like this, negating very big sources of friction (though of course not all sources). When gays decide to stay together and adopt, they're fighting huge uphill battles. They love each other, and they love their kids. There's nothing dysfunctional or damaging about that. And neither studies nor common sense show otherwise, you fuckwit trolls. None.
Posted by: paul | March 27, 2008 5:01 PM
Funny how this conversation seemed to get directed into some gay marriage discussion. The article cited does not address that topic at all. We seem to have a lot of people here obsessed with homosexuality for some reason. My biggest concern is the high divorce rate (I have seen plenty of it in my family) and mostly women either by accident or choice raising fatherless children. These to me are root causes of many problems we face from crime to drugs to unemployment. While for personal reasons I disagree with Gay marriage and the lifestyle the main focus should be to solve the one parent dillema.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | March 27, 2008 5:59 PM
DAMN. You had me going. I thought that I'd finally be able to marry my fourth wife.
Posted by: tehghey | March 27, 2008 6:05 PM
AFSGTSAM said:
and
Uh hello..... I think you started this conversation with the above comment.
Posted by: JoH | March 27, 2008 6:16 PM
We seem to have a lot of people here obsessed with homosexuality for some reason.
Yeah, I guess we do. You were the one who implicitly brought it up with your (still unsupported) claim that children "do best in a man-woman married situation).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 27, 2008 6:58 PM
AFSGTSAM- It's not an obsession, just a reaction- and one reason I find reading this blog on a daily basis so enlightening is the fact that there is outrage when it comes to this topic, because there sure as hell isn't in our society in general. I find it funny that you didn't even notice what you peddled in your opening post about traditional family breakdown and how much more important a man-woman married family situation is. Maybe that thinking is just too ingrained that you didn't realize how offensive it was, though anyone outside of that norm is of course going to take offense to that crap.
Posted by: paul | March 27, 2008 9:06 PM
One of the things that always amazes me about the defend-marriage crowd is the way they treat the nuclear family as if it was some magic formula for raising well-adjusted kids. The only thing I can figure is that they can't understand math. Children do best in stable, happy homes. Unhappy couples generally get divorced. Married-household children are better adjusted in large part because divorce removes most unhappy-household children from the married-houshold population. The married-household kids are doing better because their parents are happier, not because they're hetero.
Also, the divorced-family kids aren't doing as well as the happy-family kids, but they're doing a damn sight better than they would if their parents were more unhappy because they decided to stick with an crappy marriage.
Posted by: SeanH | March 28, 2008 9:42 AM
Right on, SeanH! I used to wish that my mother would leave and take us with her. She never did, and her children still suffer the aftereffects of "life with father" and growing up in a marriage that, psychologically, resembled trench warfare. It doesn't hurt me if my gay friends get married--more power to them.
Back to the main topic: can the increase in "traditional" families be explained by a simple demographic effect such as the baby boom's echo or their progeny being at the family-formation & reproducing stage of life?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 28, 2008 11:50 AM
paul -
I find it funny that you didn't even notice what you peddled in your opening post about traditional family breakdown and how much more important a man-woman married family situation is.
You just don't understand. What people like Sam find offensive is people claiming that their family is a family, unless it is headed by a man and a women who are married (or a single parent if the other died). I'm sure Sam probably has no problem with people being gay, as long as they don't shove it down his throat.
I have actually run across people who actually loathe me and my family more than uppity queerfolk. Because my family is headed by my (female) partner and I, who are not and really aren't keen on getting married. Even worse, we are interested in a civil union. We were also separated for over a year and don't want to apologize or even feel guilty about it (excepting how it affected our oldest son).
In that vein, AFSGTSAM, my family is indeed a family. Our single parent friends are also families, just as vital and important as yours. Our gay friends with children, some of whom are friends with our oldest are also families. Indeed, some of our gay friends who don't yet have, or don't want kids are also families. Assholes like you don't have any sort of monopoly on family. Families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, including all sorts of people. Your notion of a "traditional" family is a load of crap.
My own family of origin is rather less than traditional. My mom had my brother with a rather less than decent sort of guy. Later on she met the guy who contributed his DNA to make me. Thankfully, he cheated on her when she was pregnant with me and the first time he laid eyes on me, was when I was eighteen (also the last time). Later still she met my dad (also our venerable host, Ed's dad) and he adopted my brother and I, marrying her.
But it gets even less traditional. Because my dad also had a big hand in raising the children of his first wife, by her first husband. This blessed me with three siblings that aren't even my adoptive father's blood relations, as well as three brothers from that marriage. Now we aren't exactly the closest family across the board. But I wouldn't trade it for the world. I got one of the greatest dads possible out of the deal and a whole lot of influences from a large number of very diverse siblings. The eldest sibling in particular, though I have seen little of him in the last ten years or so, has had a fairly profound impact on my life, not the least being teaching me to read when I was two.
You can take your notion of a "traditional" family and shove it up your ass. If I had come from a more "traditional" family, the scum sucking asshat that contributed his DNA, would have been the one who raised me. I cannot begin to tell you how grateful I am, every time I consider it, that my dad raised me, instead of him. I am not trying to knock families headed by married, opposite sex couples. When it works its great. But they are not, nor should they be the
endall of family, fuck you very much.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 28, 2008 3:05 PM
>> Oh Ed, PLEASE respond the the mroberts asshole. I am exhausted and just cannot get it up. PLEASE oh PLEASE give the bigot a good one-two.
PLEASE?!?
Please W, can you do better than that? Your response is so typical these days. To simply DISAGREE with anything the pro-homosexual crowd is pushing means I am a bigot, homophobe, hater, etc. Sorry if I don't believe that gay marriage is true marriage. If I am a bigot because of that, so be it. I've heard it plenty of times before and it really doesn't bother me.
Posted by: mroberts | March 29, 2008 1:42 AM
Ed said:
"I'm not claiming a cause and effect relationship; I'm arguing that the cause and effect relationship argued by the anti-gay crowd, that increasing rights and protections for gays hurts the family, is contradicted by this evidence."
I disagree with this. Actually, I think the move toward homosexual "marriage" is actually a cause AND a symptom of the disintegration of the family over recent decades. I tthink if the traditional family model had been preserved and defended over the last few decades we would see less frivolous divorce, less single parenting, and no push toward "alternative" families. I believe there are some legit reasons for divorce, but today many parents separate for stupid reasons, and the poor kids are stuck in the middle of the devastating mess. Stats have shown that divorce contributes to poverty, early sexual activity (in girls), and makes boys more prone to getting into crime. I also believe that so-called alternative families, such as those with homosexual partners, are less than ideal for children as well. Nature set things up so that it takes male and female to create a child, and both male and female bring something to the table when raising the child that is lacking in male-male or female-female couples. There is no substitute for what nature has brought about, and I don't think we should be re-engineering millions of years of nature's design and testing it on our kids. There is absolutely no substitute for a traditional male-female family arrangement with two parents, lovingly committed in marriage to one another. Certainly many homes are not loving even with a traditional family structure, and it is unfortunate, but why would we strive for anything less than the best for our kids? I'm not saying that gays cannot be good parents, or cannot love kids. What I AM saying - and some of you won't like this - is that two men or two women can NEVER give to a child what a loving, committed, man and woman can. Nature made it so that it takes a man and a woman to create offspring, and both the man and the woman bring something to the raising of the child that cannot be substituted with a gay family arrangement.
>> And this notion that children are better off with a mother and a father is irrelevant.
That is the biggest problem today. The needs of the children are largely "irrelevant". I hear this all the time. People jumping into marriage within two months of meeting each other, making a kid, then deciding they aren't happy. So they divorce and the poor kid is devastated. Or two people don't even bother to get married, they just live together and make a kid and the poor child is stuck in a home where the parents say they are committed to each other, but apparently aren't committed enough to tie the knot down at the courthouse. Often the couple breaks up, the child ends up living with mom, who then moves in with some other stud, and the chances of child abuse go through the roof. Plus, the poor child doesn't even have a committed father. Folks when you are the caretaker of a child, IT IS NO LONGER ABOUT YOU. Your happiness is secondary to the needs of the child. If you and your spouse are not feeling happy in your marriage, you MAKE IT WORK for the sake of your kids. My wife's parents did this. They had a rocky marriage, but they stuck it out, kept the conflict behind closed doors, and MADE IT WORK for the sake of their kids. Their commitment to their marriage was selfless and honorable because it best served the needs of their children. Marriage is not about happiness, it is about COMMITMENT. The truth is that you are not always going to be happy, but you must remain committed because that is what you promised your spouse. The selfishness of parents these days is astounding. When you have children, your purpose becomes doing what is best for them, even if you don't feel like it. If you think otherwise, DO NOT BECOME A PARENT. This is why I think that we should strive for nothing but the best in family arrangements in America. Truly selfless people will think about what is best for the child, and I think it is pretty apparent that the BEST family arrangement for the child is one man, one woman, in loving committed marriage. Ed, I'm sorry that you feel that the design of nature - the mom and dad family - is irrelevant. I find it astounding that you could so easily dismiss what has been normal for humanity for millions of years. I find it astounding that you so easily dismiss the ideal family arrangement that best serves children.
Posted by: mroberts | March 29, 2008 2:24 AM
mroberts,
The response you call "typical" is the only response of its type in the thread. The other posts that engage the substance of your comment, well, you've simply ignored them. Which seems to confirm that you are a troll, rather than someone interested in supporting an unpopular argument.
As for gay marriage being "true marriage", if the government grants a license then it's true, regardless of your opinion. And I think that people here are arguing for the former rather than the approval of the latter.
Finally, it doesn't surprise me that you don't mind being called a bigot. Quite the opposite. All of the outspoken bigots I've known have taken great pride in trying to get a rise out of others with their views. After a while, it just becomes tiresome.
Posted by: Matthew | March 29, 2008 2:30 AM
Your argument more or less comes down this -
(a) it's all about the children;
(b) male-female parents bring something to the table gay parents don't.
You are remarkably vague about what this something is. Please explain it in detail. Furthermore explain why it is so significant that we should blindly bar people that will be loving gay parents - or for that matter gay people who don't even want kids - from being married, while allowing people who will be bad parents or don't want kids to be married because they happen to be of the opposite sex.
Posted by: strech | March 29, 2008 9:37 AM
mroberts -
Or two people don't even bother to get married, they just live together and make a kid and the poor child is stuck in a home where the parents say they are committed to each other, but apparently aren't committed enough to tie the knot down at the courthouse.
Fuck you asshole. Seriously, fuck you.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 29, 2008 9:42 PM
I find it astounding that you so easily dismiss the ideal family arrangement that best serves children.
And I find it astounding how ridiculously narrow-minded you are. Your appeals to "nature" are misguided in the extreme and merely serve to justify your bigotry. I would suggest you take Duwayne's advice and fuck off.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 29, 2008 9:50 PM
Mroberts,
For the moment, I'll go along with you and ignore the numerous studies that show children of committed same-sex couples are just as well-adjusted as those of committed hetero couples. You claim that those same-sex couples can't give children all the nebulous goodness that, say, my wife and I have given our sons.
The question that arises is: so what? Why are you comparing same-sex couples to an ideal situation, instead of to the increasingly common situations of unmarried couples, divorces, single parents, etc? You mention those, and decry them, but you propose no solution for them - instead, you propose to ban the one situation that is clearly AT LEAST second-best to the ideal, and certainly much better than all those heterosexual failures.
How, exactly, does banning gay marriage or gay adoption help fix all those other problems? And until you do manage to solve all those others, why are you trying to stop something clearly better for the children involved? When you sound the plaintive cry "Think of the children!", you should remember that the key word there is THINK.
Posted by: BobApril | March 30, 2008 3:43 AM