Critique of Nock's Claim That All Studies Of Same-Sex Parenting Have Fatal Flaws

All ((The word “all” here is used literally, not hyperbolically.)) the legitimate social science research on the subject has shown that children of lesbian and gay parents turn out fine. This is a finding that horrifies the gay-bashers in the so-called “marriage movement,” and they’ve been working hard to deny these findings. One such paper frequently cited by anti-equality activists is Professor Steven Nock’s affidavit for the Canadian case Halpern v. Canada.

Unfortunately, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz’s excellent and thorough critique of Steven Nock – an affidavit from that same trial – has not been read nearly as often. I suspect this is because the Stacey/Biblartz affidavit, while available on the web via a single obscure webpage, has not been on the web in a format that search engines can read and index.

For that reason, and with Professor Stacey’s kind permission, I’m posting a more search-engine-friendly version of the Stacey/Biblarz affidavit, in both .pdf format and html format. Hopefully, this will help bring Stacey/Biblartz’s critique of Professor Nock to the attention of more readers.

I’m sure I’ll find reasons to link to and quote Stacey and Biblarz in the future, but for now I’ll just quote their conclusion:

Research in the most rigorously peer-reviewed journals in child development and sociology provide generally accepted social scientific evidence that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as similar heterosexual parents. Likewise these studies find that children of same sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. Research even provides some suggestive evidence that there may be certain hidden advantages that lesbian parents and their children seem to enjoy. There is neither theory nor evidence that leads in the opposite direction.

Therefore, it seems surprising, if not disingenuous, that Professor Nock, who elsewhere emphasizes the benefits of marriage to parents, their children and society, is unwilling to anticipate that the same benefits, or least some of the same benefits, and perhaps additional benefits, would apply to same-sex marriages and their progeny.

Finally we would underscore that the issue before the court concerns the impact of marriage on lesbian and gay parenting. Lesbian and gay people have parented for a long time and will continue to do so. The question is under what conditions. Is it preferable for them to parent under conditions of invisibility, conditions of discrimination, or conditions of equality? It is difficult to imagine how anyone could argue in good faith that it is preferable to parent without access to equal recognition, social and legal resources, and benefits that other parents and their children enjoy.