The Irreplaceable Void

I have been thinking about the controversy that exists concerning whether studies show if there are differences between children raised in traditional father-mother households versus children raised homosexual households. During the oral argument in the Supreme Court on the cases concerning whether traditional-marriage laws violate the Constitution, lead counsel for the petitioners (in favor of same-sex “marriage”) asserted that “there is, as you all have heard, a social science consensus that there’s nothing about the sex or sexual orientation of the parent, [that] is it is going to affect child outcomes.” United States Solicitor General Verrilli heartily agreed, claiming that “[a]ll of the evidence so far shows you that there isn’t a problem [with children] being raised in same-sex households.”  (In fact, some studies even claim that children raised in same-sex households are better off than children in the rest of the population. Note, however, that there is no explanation as to whether the researchers in charge of the study were comparing children in same-sex households directly to children in husband-wife households or just to children in the entire population).  Justice Scalia immediately challenged Verrilli, stating: “[T]hat’s quite a statement. All of the evidence shows there is no problem.” At this, Verrill backed off slightly, stating: “I think all of the leading organizations that have filed briefs have said to you that there is a consensus in that ….” Justice Scalia retorted: “Well, I think some of the briefs contradicted that.” (Indeed, some of the amicus briefs supporting traditional marriage, such as this one, asserted that the most reliable studies have concluded that children raised in same-sex households ended up in worse situations as adults than children of traditional-couple households). Justice Kennedy then struck a tone somewhere in the middle:

“Well, part of wait and see, I suppose, is to ascertain whether the social science, the new studies are accurate. But that it seems to me, then, that we should not consult at all the social science on this, because it’s too new. You say we don’t need to wait for changes. So it seems to me that if we’re not going to wait, then it’s only fair for us to say, well, we’re not going to consult social science.”

What people usually mean when they talk about “differences” is whether the children in same-sex households end up becoming dysfunctional in society. I do not doubt that in some cases this may occur, but the reality is that there are so many factors that affect how a child turns out — from genetics to standard of living to geography to age of the parents to the type of education the child receives — that it would be very difficult to directly attribute a child’s problems to the fact that he or she has two fathers or two mothers. For example, it is conceivable that a child who grows up in a same-sex household might end up being better off than if the child grew up in a single-parent household simply because it is likely that the homosexual couple will be able to offer the child a better standard of living.

Moreover, if there is one thing that the rash of out-of-wedlock births over the past 40 years has taught us, it is that children can be extremely adaptable; many overcome deficiencies in their upbringing. (Of course, many also do not overcome it). Both of these realities — the myriad of factors that contribute to a child’s well-being and the adaptable nature of children — make studies on this subject difficult.

Time can help dissipate (though it cannot entirely eliminate) other factors when seeking to determine the effect of a particular phenomenon on childhood development. But as Justice Kennedy noted, children residing in same-sex households is such a recent phenomenon that the studies are too new to reach any kind of consensus on the data. The reason we know what we know about how out-of-wedlock births or divorce affect children is because studies have been performed over a long period of time. The same is not true of studies evaluating child development in same-sex households.

If you think about it a little more deeply, however, a third problem with these studies reveals itself: the studies seek to demonstrate the impact (or lack thereof) of an absence which a child has never known. In other words, to say that a child raised in a same-sex household turned out “fine” is not actually the right standard. The correct standard would have to be: how did the child turn out in comparison to the life the child would have led if he or she had experienced being raised by a father and a mother? This question might be close to impossible to answer completely, but we can make some extrapolations based on historical experience.

We know that many children that are raised in adopted homes with two parents end up turning out very well, but we also know that invariably many of those children end up feeling that something was missing from their lives because they either never knew or never had the experience of being raised by their biological fathers and mothers. We know (all too well) that children raised in single-parent families have to overcome many difficulties not encountered by children raised by their fathers and mothers. Male children, in particular, who are raised without fathers tend to have social problems which sometimes end up being expressed through criminal behavior. We know that children raised in homes broken by divorce often experience difficulties because they feel pulled between two parents, caught in a contest of wills. All of these situations indicate that there are things children miss when they are not raised by both of their biological parents.

It stands to reason, therefore, that children specifically created outside of the conjugal context of a husband-wife relationship and raised without a father (in lesbian households) or without a mother (in male homosexual households) will miss out on certain aspects of life that a traditional marriage provides. In other words, the child might experience a very good life, but the child’s life is irretrievably incomplete because of an absence outside of the child’s control–namely, the child does not experience the unique attributes that a parent of the missing gender would provide.

A humble homosexual-lifestyle expert might admit all of the above-related points but then observe that many children adopted by homosexual couples would not get to experience being raised by their biological parents anyway. So, isn’t it better for those children to be raised in a loving household rather than to be bounced around in foster care? That might be true, but from a child’s perspective, this is not an argument for equating the relationship between two homosexuals with a marriage between a husband and wife. Proponents of same-sex “marriage” like to say that the existence of homosexual-couple adoptions destroys the argument that marriage exists for a procreative purpose. In other words, they think such adoptions demonstrate that same-sex relationships can be just like traditional marriages, so no logical reason exists to deny them the status of being married. But while adoption may fill an offspring void that exists for a same-sex couple, it cannot fill the void that exists for the child, who will never know what it means to be raised by both a father and a mother.

At this juncture in the argument a proponent of same-sex marriage might contend that I am falsely assuming that male and female adults bring different attributes into a child’s life that are worth preserving. It is here that we get to the underlying premise of the claim that there is no difference between children raised in same-sex households and those raised in traditional households. The premise is that there is no difference between the two sexes; that the supposed differences men and women bring to a relationship with their children are, in reality, social constructs created by a patriarchal society. On this view, the only real differences between men and women are biological, and even those differences can be altered with the help of technology. This notion is justified by claiming that there is a difference between a person’s sex (biology) and a person’s gender (a state of mind).

The problem with this premise is, of course, that it is not true and nearly everyone agrees that it isn’t true, which is why proponents of same-sex marriage do not mention it in polite company. (Although, as this recent decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicates, this absurd view may be gaining ground). It posits a distinction between body and mind that simply does not exist (outside of mental illness). Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ardent former ACLU feminist attorney, acknowledged in one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most famous gender discrimination cases that “‘the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both.’ ‘Inherent differences’ between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration ….” United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996) (quoting Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193 (1946)). Almost anyone who has had children recognizes early on that there are distinct differences between boys and girls in their personalities, interests, and gifts. Those differences become more pronounced as the children develop into adults. To be sure, a culture can sharpen or blunt these differences depending upon its ideals, but it is foolhardy to pretend they do not exist and most people do not try to do so.

Recognizing that these differences exist is not a statement on whether one side or the other has the better makeup. Indeed, one of the toxic things we humans tend to do is rank everything. Certainly sometimes people are objectively better at some things than other people — Usain Bolt runs faster than everyone else (we are aware of) — but this fact does not say anything about whether Bolt is superior to other human beings. Thus, whether men are better at some things and women are better at other things is entirely irrelevant to their equality. Those differences are not irrelevant, however, to the breadth of humanity that children are exposed to as they grow up. A child is better for having been raised by a couple that embodies those inherent differences in gender.

One would think that liberals, who constantly talk about the importance of diversity, would understand this point. But they do not because they are not focusing on the well-being of children, but rather upon the maximization of pleasure for adults. Diversity matters for them in the hedonistic sense, i.e., all forms of sexual expression must be celebrated, and children tend to be a limitation on that expression. Hence the fanatical support for”free” birth control, abortion-on-demand, no-fault divorce, and, yes, same-sex “marriage.”

The thing is that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot place your idea of marriage upon the rock of pleasure (for that is what they really mean when they talk about “love”) and then proclaim that this rock is also an ideal foundation for raising children. Anyone who has them knows that there is a lot that goes into raising children that has nothing whatsoever to do with pleasure; in fact, much of it depends upon foregoing pleasure for the sake of the child’s well-being. In other words, just because you may want to express your sexuality in a certain way does not mean that this expression will automatically benefit any children you decide to expose to that expression. You may wish that it does, but wishing for the best does not make it a reality any more than pretending that you can fly will keep you from falling if you jump off a building.

In short, proponents of same-sex “marriage” and the studies upon which they rely to justify their position gloss over the irreplaceable void in a child’s life necessarily created by same-sex relationships because their definition of marriage is wholly focused on the adult relationship rather than on children. Children may help their relationship feel complete, but let’s not pretend that the child’s needs are also fully met in such a setting. Let’s also hope the Supreme Court thinks about that before it decides to constitutionalize such a social experiment.