Am College Pediatricians - Mass DOMA Cases

Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116162492 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2011 Entry ID: 5521401
Case Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207 and 10-2214

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
DEAN HARA,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
NANCY GILL, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
KEITH TONEY; ALBERT TONEY, III,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
HILARY RODHAM CLINTON,
in her official capacity as United States Secretary of State,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-11156-JLT, 1:09-cv-10309-JLT
(Honorable Joseph L. Tauro)
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF

PEDIATRICIANS, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AND IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL
David Ramos John Anthony Simmons, Sr.

Bar No. 82,633 Bar No. 1,139,144
Cond. Regency Park 886 Lafayette Road
Calle Carazo 155, Suite 607G Hampton, NH 03842
San Juan, PR 00969 Tel: 603-929-9100
Tel: 787-423-3114 Fax: 603-929-9101
FRAP RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Amicus curiae, American College of Pediatricians, has not issued shares to
the public, and it has no parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate that has issued
shares to the public. As it has no stock, there is no publicly held corporation that
owns 10% or more of its stock.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................................................................ 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4
I. The District Court’s Acceptance Of The False Assertion That Children
Are Unaffected By Same-Sex Parenting Contradicts A Broad Base Of
Research Indicating That Children Raised By Their Married Biological
Parents Benefit In Significant Ways. .................................................................. 4
A. The alleged “consensus” that children are unaffected by same-sex
parenting relies on flawed studies and disregards a large body of
evidence, which casts substantial doubt on that claim. ................................ 5
B. The optimal parenting model is not a question of whether two
parents are better than one, but whether the optimal model links a
child with his or her biological mother and father through marriage,
which increases the probability of positive outcomes at many stages
of life. ......................................................................................................... 11
C. There is consensus that the presence of a non-biological parent—
which is a necessity among same-sex couples—correlates with
greatest risk for children............................................................................. 12
II. Children Benefit From Having Both A Father And A Mother. ........................ 17
A. Mothers and Fathers each provide different benefits for their
children that same-sex parenting is unlikely to provide. ........................... 17
B. Eliminating DOMA’s model of opposite-sex parenting will have
negative effects on children. ...................................................................... 25
III. Caution Is Appropriate When Using Social Science Data To Inform

Judicial Decision-Making. ................................................................................ 26
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 28
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management,

699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010) ..................................................2, 3, 4, 5
Goodridge v. Department of Health,

440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) ................................................ 7
Grutter v. Bollinger,
539 U.S. 306 (2003)....................................................................................... 24
Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services,

358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 7
United States v. Carolene Products Company,

304 U.S. 144 (1938)....................................................................................... 28
Other
Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive,

Social and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 15 Future of
Children 75 (2005).........................................................................................10
Paul R. Amato, More Than Money? Men’s Contributions to Their

Children’s Lives?, in Men in Families, When Do They Get Involved?
What Difference Does It Make? (Alan Booth and Ann C. Crouter, eds.
1998) ..............................................................................................................20
Paul R. Amato, Parental Absence During Childhood and Depression In

Later Life, 32 The Sociological Quarterly 543(1991) ...................................12
Paul R. Amato and Fernando Rivera, Paternal Involvement and Children’s

Behavior Problems, 61 Journal of Marriage and Family 375 (1999) ...........23
Timothy J. Biblarz and Judith Stacey, How Does the Gender of Parents
Matter?, 72 Journal of Marriage and Family 3 (2010).................................. 27
iii
Lorraine Blackman et al., The Consequences of Marriage for African-

Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review, 24 Institute for
American Values (2005) ...................................................................................... 11
Boyz2Dads CD-ROM Pre-Post Pilot Evaluation Results Summer 2007,

National Fatherhood Initiative,
http://www.fatherhood.org/Document.Doc?id=39........................................25
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook

(Department of Labor 2008) .......................................................................... 21
Linda Carroll, “Dads Empower Kids to Take Chances”, MSNBC,

June 18, 2010, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37741738 .................................. 21
Scott Coltrane, Family Man (1996) ......................................................................... 19
Committee on the Judiciary Report on the Defense of Marriage Act, H.R.

Rep. No. 104-664 (1996) reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905-23,
1996 WL 391835 ............................................................................................. 4
Daly and Wilson, Evolutionary Psychology and Marital Conflict: The

Relevance of Stepchildren, in Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and
Feminist Perspectives (1996) ........................................................................ 12
Suzanne A. Denham et al., Prediction of Externalizing Behavior Problems

From Early to Middle Childhood: The Role of Parental Socialization
and Emotion Expression, 12 Development and Psychopathology
(2000) ............................................................................................................. 27
M. DeWolff and M. van Izjendoorn, Sensitivity and Attachment:

A Meta-Analysis on Parental Antecedents of Infant Attachment, 68 Child
Development 571 (1997) ..................................................................................... 19
Martha L. Fineman, Custody Determination at Divorce: The Limits of Social

Science Research and the Fallacy of the Liberal Ideology of Equality,
3 Canadian Journal of Women and Law 88 (1989)....................................... 27
David K. Flaks et al., Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study

of Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents and Their Children, 31
Developmental Psychology 105 (1995) ............................................................. 6, 7
iv
Norval D. Glenn, The Struggle for Same Sex Marriage, 41 Sociology 25

(2004) ...............................................................................................................5
Susan Golombok, et al., Children Raised in Fatherless Families from

Infancy: Family Relationships and the Socioemotional Development
of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers, 38 Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 783 (1997) ............................................. 8
Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, Father Absence & Youth

Incarceration, 14 Journal of Research on Adolescence 369 (2004) ............. 13
Sandra L. Hofferth et al., The Demography of Fathers: What Fathers Do,

in Handbook of Father Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives
(Catherine Tamis-Lamonda and Natasha Cabrera eds., 2002)......................19
Femmie Juffer and Marinus H. van Ijzendoorn, Adoptees Do Not Lack Self-
Esteem: A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Self-Esteem of Transracial,
International, and Domestic Adoptees, 133 Psychological Bulletin
1067 (2007) .................................................................................................... 10
M. E. Lamb et al., Effects of Gender and Caretaking Role on Parent-Infant

Interaction, in Development of Attachment and Affiliative Systems
109-118 (R. N. Emde & R. J. Harmon eds., 1982 ) ...................................... 18
Hilary M. Lips, The Gender Wage Gap: Debunking the Rationalizations,

Womens Media, http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-
gender-wage-gap.shtml (last visited Jan. 24, 2011) ...................................... 21
Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai, No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell
Us About Same-Sex Parenting, Washington DC: Marriage Law
Project (2001) ..............................................................................................5, 6
Shelly Lundberg and Robert A. Pollack, The American Family and Family
Economics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 2007 ....................... 10
Eleanor Maccoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together

(1998) .................................................................................................19, 20, 23
v
M. Main and J. Solomon, Discovery of an Insecure-

Disorganized/Disoriented Attachment Pattern, in Affective Development
in Infancy (T.B. Brazelton and M.W. Yogman eds., 1986) ................................ 25
Wendy D. Manning and Kathleen A. Lamb, Adolescent Well-Being in

Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families, 65 Journal of
Marriage and Family 876 (2003) ................................................................... 10
Jim Manzi, What Social Science Does – and Doesn’t – Know: Our Scientific
Ignorance of the Human Condition Remains Profound, City Journal,
Summer 2010 ....................................................................................................... 27
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With A Single Parent:

What Hurts, What Helps (1994) ....................................................... 10, 14, 21
C.A. Nelson and M. Bosquet, Neurobiology of Fetal and Infant

Development: Implications for Infant MentalHealth, in Handbook of
Infant Mental Health (C.H. Zeanah Jr., ed., New York: Guilford Press
2d ed. 2000) ................................................................................................... 18
Affidavit of Steven Lowell Nock, Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada

(2002), 60 O.R. 3d 321 (Can. Ont. C.A.) (No. 684/00 Ontario Sup. Ct.
Justice)................................................................................................................ 6, 9
Daniel Paquette and Mark Bigras, The Risky Situation: A Procedure for
Assessing the Father-Child Activation Relationship, 180 Early Childhood
Development and Care 33 (2010) ........................................................................ 22
Ross D. Parke, Fatherhood , Developing Child Series 7(Jerome Bruner et al.

eds., Harvard University Press 1996) ............................................... 19, 20, 22
Christi Parsons, Obama Pledges to Support Responsible Fatherhood, Los

Angeles Times, June 22, 2010,
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/22/nation/la-na-obama-fathers-
20100622 .............................................................................................................. 25
Ellen C. Perrin et al., Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent

Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, 109 Pediatrics 341 (2002) ............................... 12
David Popenoe, Life Without Father (1996) ........................................................... 21

vi
Thomas G. Powers et al., Compliance and Self-Assertion: Young Children’s

Responses to Mothers Versus Fathers, 30 Developmental Psychology
980 (1994) ...................................................................................................... 22
Kyle D. Pruett and Marsha Kline Pruett, Partnership Parenting: How Men
and Women Parent Differently – Why It Helps Your Kids and Can
Strengthen Your Marriage (2009) ....................................................................... 26
Sarah H. Ramsey and Robert F. Kelly, Social Science Knowledge in Family

Law Cases: Judicial Gate-Keeping in the Daubert Era, 59 University
of Miami Law Review 1 (2004) ....................................................................27
Sarah H. Ramsey and Robert F. Kelly, Using Social Science Research in

Family Law Analysis and Formation: Problems and Prospects, 3
Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 631 (1994) ....................27
Mark D. Regnerus and Laura B. Luchies, The Parent-Child Relationship

and Opportunities for Adolescents’ First Sex, 27 Journal of Family
Issues 159 (2006) ........................................................................................... 23
Michael J. Rosenfeld, Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress

through School, 47 Demography 755 (2010) ........................................................ 9
Diana E. H. Russell, The Prevalence and Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse:

Stepfathers vs. Biological Fathers, 8 Child Abuse and Neglect 15 (1984) ......... 13
Walter R. Schumm, What Was Really Learned from Tasker & Golombok's
(1995) Study of Lesbian & Single Parent Mothers?, 94 Psychology
Report 422 (2004) ............................................................................................ 5
Shmuel Shulman and Moshe M. Klein, Distinctive Role of the Father in

Adolescent Separation - Individuation, 1993 New Directions for Child
and Adolescent Development 41 (1993) ....................................................... 22
Summary of Formative Evaluation Findings: Doctor Dad Pilot Test, Center

for Social Work Research, University of Texas at Austin, Spring
2004, National Fatherhood Initiative,
http://www.fatherhood.org/Document.Doc?id=52...................................... 26
vii
Margaret Somerville, Children's Human Rights and Unlinking Child-Parent

Biological Bonds With Adoption, Same-Sex Marriage and New
Reproductive Technologies, 13 Journal Family Studies 179 (2007) ............. 14
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of
Parents Matter? 66 American Sociology Review 159 (2001) ............................ 28
Fiona Tasker, Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers and Their Children; A Review,
26 Developmen and Behavior Pediatrics 224 (2005) ...................................... 6
Fiona Tasker and Susan Golombok, Growing Up In a Lesbian Family;

Effects on Child Development (1997).............................................................. 8
Pierre L. van den Berghe, Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View

(1979) ............................................................................................................. 10
Jennifer L. Wainright and Charlotte J. Patterson, Delinquency, Victimization,

and Substance Use Among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex
Parents, 20 Journal of Family Psychology 526 (2006) ................................... 8
W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters:Twenty-Six Conclusions

from the Social Sciences, Institute for American Values (2d ed.
2005) ............................................................................................11, 12, 13, 23
viii
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The members of the American College of Pediatricians (“the College”)
devote their professional lives to promoting the health and wellbeing of children.
As a medical association, the College has an interest in the broad spectrum of
factors that impact the physical, mental and social development of the young
patients in their care. This interest extends to family structure and environment,
which drives many of the outcomes for pediatric patients across a variety of key
developmental categories.
The collective membership of the College has observed firsthand the effect
of varied and changing family structures on the wellbeing of pediatric patients, and
it is also familiar with the significant academic analysis and sociological data that
augment understanding of these issues. The College submits this brief to present
to the Court its professional perspective concerning the effect of various parenting
models and family structures on the development and wellbeing of the children
under the care of America’s pediatricians.
This brief is filed pursuant to the consent of Counsel of Record for all
parties. No party or party’s counsel authored any part of the brief nor contributed
money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief; and no
person—other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel—contributed
money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.
1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The District Court held that “‘there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts
that could ground a rational relationship’ between DOMA and a legitimate
government objective.” Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 699 F. Supp. 2d
374, 387 (D. Mass. 2010) (citation omitted). The district court based its holding, in
part, on a severely flawed assertion that “a consensus has developed among the
medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay
and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by
heterosexual parents.” Id. at 388. The American College of Pediatricians
disagrees with the district court’s assertion. There is no such consensus. The
sources cited in support of the district court’s belief, id. at 388 fn.106, reflect an
incomplete and distorted understanding of the available data and professional
consensus concerning parenting models and family structure.
In fact, no study has yet been undertaken to reliably establish the impact of
same-sex parenting on children. We do, however, know that social science
strongly suggests that certain family structures and parenting models are more
likely than others to lead to successful outcomes for children. Correspondingly,
other family structures—such as the replacement of a mother and father with a
same-sex couple—are more likely in the aggregate to lead to negative outcomes
2
for children. Social science also indicates that biological family ties are important,
and severing those ties is likely to produce unique risks for young children.
In addition to severing biological ties, it is also dangerous to dismiss the
importance of the unique contributions mothers and fathers provide to their
children. Broad legal, political, or cultural acceptance of the District Court’s
misinformed statement would significantly undermine the efficacy of efforts to
promote fatherhood in communities where the absence of fathers has contributed to
a variety of negative outcomes and social ills. We urge this Court to correct the
district court’s assertion that children are unaffected by significant parental
changes. If, instead, the federal courts embrace this false statement, societal and
governmental efforts to promote and encourage the parental choices that foster an
optimal environment for child rearing may be significantly undermined.
Surely an interest in defining marriage consistent with the optimal parenting
model constitutes a “‘conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational
relationship’ between DOMA and a legitimate government objective.” Gill, 699 F.
Supp. 2d at 387 (citation omitted). In light of the data available both when DOMA
was enacted and available now, it is entirely rational for our Congressional
policymakers to prefer that a child be raised by his or her own mother and father
over any two other adults.
3
ARGUMENT
I. The District Court’s Acceptance Of The False Assertion That Children

Are Unaffected By Same-Sex Parenting Contradicts A Broad Base Of
Research Indicating That Children Raised By Their Married Biological
Parents Benefit In Significant Ways.
In order to justify a holding that Congress had no rational basis for its
passage of DOMA, the District Court needed to dispose of Congress’ clearly-stated
rationales for the law. Those rationales included Congress’ valid concern for
preservation of “the irreplaceable role that [traditional] marriage plays in
childrearing.” Committee on the Judiciary Report on the Defense of Marriage Act,
H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 14 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905-23,
1996 WL 391835 (citation omitted). Congress was rightfully interested in
preserving what was then and continues to be the ideal model for childrearing—
marriage of the child’s biological father and mother.
Yet the District Court dismissed Congress’ concerns with the erroneous
claim that “[s]ince the enactment of DOMA, a consensus has developed among the
medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay
and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by
heterosexual parents.” Gill, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 388. While this is often asserted, it
is simply not true.
4
A. The alleged “consensus” that children are unaffected by same-sex

parenting relies on flawed studies and disregards a large body of
evidence, which casts substantial doubt on that claim.
The District Court cited scant support for its conclusion that children are
unaffected by same-sex parenting. The alleged “consensus” in the health care
community consists primarily of unsupported policy statements from various
organizations and GLBT advisory committees within those organizations. Gill,
699 F. Supp. 2d at 388 n.106. Those policy statements cite to a limited number of
studies that purport to establish that same-sex parents are no different from a
biological mother and father. Those studies, however, have significant flaws and
do not support that finding.1
The cited studies suffer from a host of flaws, including insufficient sample
sizes,2 self-selecting participants,3 premature conclusions based upon one-time
1
Robert Lerner & Althea K. Nagai, No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us
About Same-Sex Parenting, Washington DC: Marriage Law Project 6 (2001) (“We
conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies
prove nothing.”).
2
Norval D. Glenn, The Struggle for Same Sex Marriage, 41 Soc’y 25, 26-27
(2004); Ellen C. Perrin et al., Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent
Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, 109 Pediatrics 341,343 (2002)(conceding "[t]he
small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most
of the children suggest some reserve."); Walter R. Schumm, What Was Really
Learned from Tasker & Golombok's (1995) Study of Lesbian and Single Parent
Mothers?, 94 Psychol. Rep. 422, 423 (2004) (urging policymakers to exercise
“extreme caution” in “interpret[ing] research on gays and family life . . . or any
[similarly] small subset” of a broader population).
5
self-reported snapshots rather than sustained temporal monitoring,4 failure to
control for pertinent variables,5 a paucity of studies looking at gay fathers,6 and
politicized methodology that casts doubt on the validity of the conclusions
presented by those who authored or managed the studies.7 See generally Nock
Affidavit (detailing flaws in same-sex parenting scholarship and studies).8 Indeed,
one of the most glaring deficiencies of the gay parenting data is that not a single
study utilized a control group of married biological parents and their children.9
3
Affidavit of Steven Lowell Nock at paras. 39-40, Halpern v. Attorney General of
Canada (2002), 60 O.R. 3d 321 (Can. Ont. C.A.) (No. 684/00 Ontario Sup. Ct.
Justice) (hereinafter “Nock Affidavit”).
4
Lerner & Nagai, at 6.
5
Id. at 29-34.
6
Fiona Tasker, Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers and Their Children; A Review, 26
Dev. & Behav. Pediatrics 224, 225 (2005) (admitting that “[s]ystematic research
has so far not considered developmental outcomes for children brought up from
birth by single gay male couples (planned gay father families), possibly because of
the difficulty of locating an adequate sample.”).
7
Lerner & Nagai at 61-62, 67 (detailing weaknesses in the studies supporting
same-sex parenting because they fail to control the samples with measures of bias,
reliability, or validity).
8
Your amicus urges this Court to review the Nock Affidavit in its entirety, as it
provides the most thorough and comprehensive assessment of the shortcomings of
the handful of studies repeatedly relied upon by the policy statements cited in
support for the District Court’s holding. No study has emerged to alter Professor
Nock’s conclusion that “we simply do not yet know how the children of
homosexual and heterosexual parents compare at this point in time [because] this
research has not yet been done.” Nock Affidavit at para. 119.
9
We are aware of one study, not cited in the policy statements, that did include
such a control group. That study used non-representative sampling, recruiting both
its lesbian families and its heterosexual control group through a lesbian-mother
support group, ads in gay-themed publications, and the researchers’ friends and
colleagues. David K. Flaks et al., Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative
6
These critical shortcomings are one reason why other courts have quite
properly refused to allow the questionable “social science” reflected in these
studies to drive public policy and constitutional interpretation. See, e.g., Lofton v.
Secretary of the Dep’t of Children and Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 825 (11th Cir.
2004) (criticizing homosexual parenting studies due to “significant flaws in the
studies’ methodologies and conclusions, such as the use of small, self-selected
samples; reliance on self-report instruments; politically driven hypotheses; and the
use of unrepresentative study populations consisting of disproportionately affluent,
educated parents.”); Goodridge v. Dept. of Health, 440 Mass. 309, 387-388, 798
N.E.2d 941, 998-1000 (Mass. 2003) (Cordy, J., dissenting) (noting weaknesses in
the available data such as “the sampling populations are not representative, that the
observation periods are too limited in time, that the empirical data are unreliable,
and that the hypotheses are too infused with political or agenda driven bias.”).
In fact, some of the studies that purportedly demonstrate that the children of
same-sex parents fared no worse than opposite sex parents actually found that the
children of same-sex parents did suffer worse outcomes. But rather than exploring
Study of Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents and Their Children, 31 Dev. Psych.
105, 107 (1995). “[T]he resulting sample was predominantly White, highly
educated, and economically privileged.” Id. at 113. The sample was also tiny,
consisting of a mere 15 lesbian families and 15 heterosexual families, and the
sample did not include any children raised by gay male parents. Id. at 107. The
sample was also limited to young children between the ages of 3 and 9, and thus
sheds no light whatsoever on the comparative effect of different family structures
on adolescents and young adults.
7
those troubling findings, those studies either ignored the differences or dismissed
them as statistically insignificant. See, e.g., Jennifer L. Wainright & Charlotte J.
Patterson, Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use Among Adolescents with
Female Same-Sex Parents, 20 J. Fam. Psychol. 526, 528 (table 1) (2006) (showing
that the children of same-sex parents involved in the study became intoxicated and
participated in binge drinking more frequently than the children of opposite-sex
parents, and were more likely to use marijuana; engage in the risky use of drugs
and alcohol; have sexual relations under the influence of drugs and alcohol; and
engage in delinquent behavior, than children of opposite-sex parents); Susan
Golombok, et al., Children Raised in Fatherless Families from Infancy: Family
Relationships and the Socioemotional Development of Children of Lesbian and
Single Heterosexual Mothers, 38 J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 783, 788 (1997)
(finding that, “children in father-absent families perceived themselves to be less
cognitively competent … and less physically competent … than children in father-
present families”); Fiona Tasker & Susan Golombok, Growing Up In a Lesbian
Family; Effects on Child Development 133 (1997) (finding that the women with
lesbian mothers were more likely to engage in premarital promiscuous sex). These
differences in outcomes were dismissed as statistically insignificant because of the
miniscule sample sizes of the studies. But rather than dismissing the differences
that were discovered, the asserted justification of small samples merely
8
underscores the limitations of the overall studies—and same-sex parenting
literature in general. In short, no study has considered a statistically-reliable
sampling of same-sex parents. See, e.g., Nock Affidavit, at para. 115, (“Not a
single [study] was conducted according to generally accepted standards of
scientific research.” Same-sex parenting studies contain “critical defects,”
including failure to obtain sufficiently large samples of random, non-volunteer
participants) (Id. at paras. 29-38, 116).
In contrast, there does exist an accumulated body of social science literature
on childrearing that includes studies with sufficiently large sample sizes, random
sample selections, and rigorous controls. These studies do not directly compare
children raised by same-sex couples with children raised by their married
biological parents, but do compare the outcome of children raised by their married
biological parents with children raised in a variety of other family structures,
including by single parents, biological and step-parent combinations, and adoptive
parents. This broad group of quality studies strongly suggests, contra the District
Court’s conclusion, that the ideal family structure for a child is a family headed by
two opposite-sex biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Michael J.
Rosenfeld, Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress through School, 47
Demography, Aug. 2010, at 755 (noting that “[s]tudies of family structure and
children’s outcomes nearly universally find at least a modest advantage for
9
children raised by their married biological parents”).10 Unlike the statistically-
deficient same-sex parenting studies, most studies of the life outcomes of children
raised by their married biological parents involve broad national data sets and
encompass a variety of behavioral, cognitive, psychological and financial results.
The comparative reliability of this body of research further highlights the depth of
the scientific support for an objective preference for married biological parenting
in relation to other possible parenting models and family structures.
10
See also, Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the
Cognitive, Social and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 15 Future
Child., Fall 2005, at 75, 89 (suggesting family structure impacts “cognitive,
emotional, and social problems” and fewer problems are experienced in childhood
and adulthood by individuals raised by “two continuously married parents”);
Femmie Juffer & Marinus H. van Ijzendoorn, Adoptees Do Not Lack Self-Esteem:
A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Self-Esteem of Transracial, International, and
Domestic Adoptees, 133 Psychol. Bulletin 1067, 1067 (2007) (“Many studies and
several meta-analyses have shown that adopted children lag behind in physical
growth, school performance, and language abilities; show more attachment and
behavior problems; and are substantially overrepresented in mental health referrals
and services for learning programs.”); Shelly Lundberg & Robert A. Pollack, The
American Family and Family Economics, J. Econ. Persp., Spring 2007 at 3, 19
(discussing substantial benefit for children raised in traditional nuclear families
with regard to educational outcomes); Wendy D. Manning & Kathleen A. Lamb,
Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families, 65 J.
Marriage & Fam. 876, 890 (2003) (finding that “[a]dolescents in married, two-
biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family
types examined”); Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single
Parent: What Hurts, What Helps 1, 3 (1994) (“argu[ing] that growing up with only
one biological parent frequently deprives children of important economic, parental
and community resources, and that these deprivations ultimately undermine their
chances of success”); Pierre L. van den Berghe, Human Family Systems: An
Evolutionary View 33-60 (1979) (establishing that human marriage and family is a
flexible but beneficial system for reproduction).
10
B. The optimal parenting model is not a question of whether two parents

are better than one, but whether the optimal model links a child with
his or her biological mother and father through marriage, which
increases the probability of positive outcomes at many stages of life.
Congressional interest in channeling responsible procreation through the
institution of marriage is grounded in the reality that only opposite-sex
relationships can produce children, and they often do so unintentionally. Children
conceived in such situations do not have the option of being raised by two mothers
or two fathers; the issue is only whether the child will be raised by his or her
mother and father, or by a single parent (usually the child’s mother). It is widely
accepted that a child reared by two parents is generally better off than a child
reared by one parent. But a belief that some gay couples may be successful parents
does not merit abandonment of the notion that Congress has a rational interest in
having children reared by their own married biological mother and father.
Married biological parenting has been shown to increase the probability of
positive outcomes and decrease the risk of negative outcomes across a wide range
of developmental categories and life outcomes. See, e.g., Lorraine Blackman et al.,
The Consequences of Marriage for African-Americans: A Comprehensive
Literature Review, 24 Inst. for Amer. Values (2005) (delinquency, self-esteem and
school performance); W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-
Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences, Inst. for American Values 32-33 (2d ed.
2005) [hereinafter “Wilcox, Marriage Matters”] (school performance,
11
delinquency, smoking, and risk of suicide); Paul R. Amato, Parental Absence
During Childhood and Depression In Later Life, 32 Soc. Q. 543, 547 (1991) (risk
of adult depression).
C. There is consensus that the presence of a non-biological parent—

which is a necessity among same-sex couples—correlates with greatest
risk for children.
Any debate relating to the value of married biological parenting should
consider one of the clearest conclusions to be drawn from the pertinent social
science literature: Across a wide range of studies spanning several decades,
researchers have consistently found that the family structure presenting some of the
greatest risks for children is that of a biological mother coupled with a stepfather.
Researchers Martin Daly and Margo Wilson summarized that consensus, which is
very real, by observing that “Living with a stepparent has turned out to be the most
powerful predictor of severe child abuse yet.” Daly & Wilson, Evolutionary
Psychology and Marital Conflict: The Relevance of Stepchildren, in Sex, Power,
Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives 9-28 (1996). “Studies have
found that young children in stepfamilies are more than 50 times more likely to be
murdered by a stepparent (usually a stepfather) than by a biological parent. One
study found that a preschooler living with a stepfather was 40 times more likely to
be sexually abused than one living with both of his or her biological parents.”
Wilcox, Marriage Matters, at 32. Similarly, a study that utilized a random sample
12
of 930 adult women in San Francisco “revealed that 17% or one out of every six
women who had a stepfather as a principal figure in her childhood years, was
sexually abused by him. The comparable figures for biological fathers were 2% or
one out of approximately 40 women.” Diana E. H. Russell, The Prevalence and
Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse: Stepfathers vs. Biological Fathers, 8 Child
Abuse & Neglect 15, 15 (1984).
Similar phenomena exist with respect to the risk of other negative outcomes
for children, including incarceration and teenage pregnancy. For instance, a recent
longitudinal study addressing juvenile incarceration emphasized that “The
adolescents who faced the highest incarceration risks, however, were those in
stepparent families, including father-stepmother families . . . This study showed . .
. that although children in father-absent households should be an important policy
focus, marriage is not necessarily the answer to prevent incarceration unless it is
between the two parents of the child; otherwise, children in single-parent
households fare relatively better than those in stepparent households.” Cynthia C.
Harper & Sara S. McLanahan, Father Absence and Youth Incarceration, 14 J. Res.
On Adolescence 369 at 369, 392 (2004). With respect to teenage pregnancy, “girls
in stepfamilies are slightly more likely to have a teenage pregnancy compared to
girls in single-parent families, and much more likely to have a teenage pregnancy
than girls in intact, married families.” Wilcox, Marriage Matters at 14.
13
In all households headed by two homosexual partners, the presence of
children reflects either adoption by one or both partners, or a biological parent
sharing custody with a stepparent. See Margaret Somerville, Children's Human
Rights and Unlinking Child-Parent Biological Bonds With Adoption, Same-Sex
Marriage and New Reproductive Technologies, 13 J. Fam. Stud. 179, 181 (2007)
(observing that establishing same-sex families “unavoidably takes away [a child’s]
right to know and be reared within his own biological family.”). As described
above, and despite the District Court’s claim to the contrary, a substantial body of
social science research strongly suggests that neither of these family structures is
equivalent to married biological parenting in terms of producing positive outcomes
and avoiding negative outcomes for children.
The disparity is not as stark when adoptive married heterosexual parents are
compared with married biological parents. This is not surprising, because adoptive
parents, particularly those involved in private adoptions, are usually subject to
heavy screening, and often incur significant financial costs as part of the adoption
process. Such parents are disproportionately likely to be drawn from a wealthy
and well-educated demographic pool, and the evidence suggests that these
educational and financial advantages may partially offset the negative pressure
exerted on family structure by the absence of any biological tie between adoptive
parents and their children. McLanahan & Sandefur, supra.
14
There is, however, no reason to believe that stepparent families, whether gay
or heterosexual, will enjoy these same advantages. Instead, the comparative
deficiencies and increased risks that appear to inhere in many stepparent families
are well-documented. To the extent these negative outcomes derive, in part, from
the relational asymmetry that exists when one parent has biological ties to a child,
and the second parent lacks such ties, the risk of these negative outcomes can be
expected to be equally present in gay stepparent families. Moreover, to the extent
these negative outcomes are also a consequence, in whole or in part, of unique
risks presented by men who lack a biological tie to their children, then gay male
parenting may actually embody a family structure that presents a uniquely
increased probability of the negative outcomes that social science has
demonstrated are correlated with the presence of a stepfather in the home. In either
event, the comparative problems associated with stepparent families, particularly
families involving a stepfather, undermine the District Court’s assertion that
children are unaffected by the various alternative family structures in which they
might potentially be raised.
It is, of course, always important to remember that the evaluation of social
science data involves averages, probabilities, and aggregate outcomes. At the
individual level, it is undoubtedly true there are some single parent, adoptive, and
stepparent families, both gay and heterosexual, in which the parent or parents have
15
created a child-rearing environment that results in outcomes equal to or better than
the average outcomes for children raised by married biological parents.
Nevertheless, the labels and classifications that the law applies to various
social arrangements can communicate powerful implicit and explicit normative
judgments concerning the ideal social arrangements that are to be actively pursued
and embraced. The normative judgments communicated by political and legal
institutions can have significant impact on mores and behavior outside of those
institutions, because such judgments can create powerful cultural incentives for
pursuing (or avoiding) participation in particular social arrangements. The District
Court’s misstatement that there is a consensus regarding the effect that same-sex
parenting might have on children conveys an unmistakable normative judgment:
that the federal courts believe there is no legitimate empirical or societal basis to
prefer married biological parenting over any of the possible alternatives, including
the demonstrably risky alternative of stepparent families comprised of a biological
mother and a stepfather. It is difficult to predict the exact nature and magnitude of
the harm if that message is broadly embraced by the federal courts.
In light of the comparatively increased risk of juvenile incarceration, teenage
pregnancy, physical abuse, and sexual abuse presented by stepparent families in
relation to married biological parenting, Congress has a compelling interest in
maintaining a recognized distinction between married biological parenting and the
16
alternative of stepparent families. To the extent this Court believes that social
science should inform its analysis of the issues presented in this case, we urge this
Court to recognize that Congress also has a legitimate interest in promoting the
family structure that has proven most likely to foster an optimal environment for
the rearing of children as a basis for DOMA. The District Court’s unsubstantiated
statement that a consensus has emerged is not an adequate basis for ignoring or
discounting those important interests.
II. Children Benefit From Having Both A Father And A Mother.

If it is actually true that children are unaffected by same-sex parenting, then
it would follow that children receive no benefit from having both a mother and a
father, and children receive no particular benefit from having a connection to or
relationship with their biological parents. Under the District Court’s asserted
“consensus,” the only relevant parenting factor is the presence of two reliable
caregivers. In the face of unrefuted research, that is a truly bold assertion.
A. Mothers and Fathers each provide different benefits for their children
that same-sex parenting is unlikely to provide.
As discussed in Section I, social science data invalidates the District Court’s
dismissal of heterosexual parenting. Social science data strongly suggests that, on
average, children derive a host of unique benefits from being raised by their
married biological parents. Common sense reinforces this. There are, of course, a
wide variety of differences between men and women in areas such as propensity
17
for aggression and violence, health challenges and health outcomes, life
expectancy, and earning capacity. Data supports this widely-held understanding
that fathers and mothers often make unique contributions to the rearing of their
children, and that these unique contributions can have a significant positive impact
across a range of developmental categories. See, e.g., M.E. Lamb et al., Effects of
Gender and CaretakingRole on Parent-Infant Interaction, in Development of
Attachment and Affiliative Systems 109, 117 (R. N. Emde & R. J. Harmon eds.,
1982 ) (acknowledging prior authorship of statement that “[t]he data suggests that
the differences between maternal and paternal behavior are more strongly related
to either the parents’ biological gender or sex roles, than to either their degree of
involvement in infant care or their attitudes regarding the desirability of paternal
involvement in infant care”).
A broad body of social science data highlights the unique contributions
made by mothers and fathers, and the distinct ways in which separate maternal and
paternal contributions promote positive child development outcomes. For
example, the natural biological responsiveness of a mother to her infant fosters
critical aspects of neural development and capabilities for interactivity in the infant
brain.11 Mothers are also able to extract the maximum return on the temporal
See C.A. Nelson & M. Bosquet, Neurobiology of Fetal and Infant Development:
11
Implications for Infant Mental Health, in Handbook of Infant Mental Health 37-59
(C.H. Zeanah Jr., ed., New York: Guilford Press 2d ed. 2000); M. DeWolff & M.
18
investments of both parents in a two-parent home, because mothers provide critical
direction for fathers in routine caretaking activities, particularly those involving
infants and toddlers. See Sandra L. Hofferth et al., The Demography of Fathers:
What Fathers Do, in Handbook of Father Involvement: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives 81 (Catherine Tamis-Lamonda & Natasha Cabrera eds., 2002); Scott
Coltrane, Family Man 54 (1996). Fathers need this direction, in part, because
fathers do not share equally in the biological and hormonal interconnectedness that
develops between and mother and a child during pregnancy, delivery, and
lactation.
In comparison to fathers, mothers generally maintain more frequent and
open communication and enjoy greater emotional closeness with their children,
which fosters a sense of security in children with respect to the support offered by
the family structure. Ross D. Parke, Fatherhood, Developing Child Series
7(Jerome Bruner et al. ed., Harvard Univ. Press 1996) [hereinafter “Parke,
Fatherhood”]. Mothers’ typical mode of parent-child play is predictable,
interactive, and geared toward joint problem-solving, which helps children to feel
comfortable in the world they inhabit. Eleanor Maccoby, The Two Sexes: Growing
van Izjendoorn, Sensitivity and Attachment: A Meta-Analysis on Parental

Antecedents of Infant Attachment, 68 Child Dev. 571-91 (1997); M. Main & J.
Solomon, Discovery of an Insecure-Disorganized/Disoriented Attachment Pattern,
in Affective Development in Infancy 95-124 (T.B. Brazelton and M.W. Yogman
eds., 1986).
19
Up Apart, Coming Together 266-67 (1998) [hereinafter “Maccoby, The Two
Sexes”]; Parke, Fatherhood, at 5; Kyle D. Pruett & Marsha Kline Pruett,
Partnership Parenting: How Men and Women Parent Differently – Why It Helps
Your Kids and Can Strengthen Your Marriage 18-19 (2009). Mothers also impose
more limits and discipline more frequently, albeit with greater flexibility when
compared to fathers. Maccoby, The Two Sexes, at 273.
Mothers uniquely play a greater role in cultivating the language and
communication skills of their children. Parke, Fatherhood, at 6. Mothers help
children to understand their own feelings and respond to the feelings of others, in
part by encouraging open discussion of feelings and emotions within the family
unit. See Suzanne A. Denham et al., Prediction of Externalizing Behavior
Problems From Early to Middle Childhood: The Role of Parental Socialization
and Emotion Expression, 12 Dev. & Psychopathology 23-45 (2000); Maccoby, The
Two Sexes, at 272. Active maternal influence and input is vital to the breadth and
depth of children’s social ties, and mothers play a central role in connecting
children to friends and extended family. Paul Amato, More Than Money? Men’s
Contributions to Their Children’s Lives?, in Men in Families, When Do They Get
Involved? What Difference Does It Make? 267 (Alan Booth & Ann C. Crouter,
eds., 1998).
20
Fathers also make distinctive contributions to the upbringing of their
children, and positive paternal contributions play a key role in avoiding a variety of
negative outcomes that arise with greater frequency in homes where a father is not
present. In two-parent households, despite the demographic changes in workforce
participation in recent decades, fathers continue to provide the larger share of
household income. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A
Databook (Dep’t of Labor 2008), at Table 24. The comparatively higher
contribution that fathers make to household income may be attributable to the
earning power of men in the workplace, which is documented as being greater than
women’s earning power. Hilary M. Lips, The Gender Wage Gap: Debunking the
Rationalizations, Womens Media, http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-
Hilary-gender-wage-gap.shtml (last visited Jan. 24, 2011). There is no dispute that
an increase in household financial resources correlates with an increase in positive
outcomes for children in areas such as education, physical health, and the
avoidance of juvenile delinquency. McLanahan & Sandefur, supra.
Fathers engage proactively in spontaneous play with their children, and
“children who roughhouse with their fathers . . . quickly learn that biting, kicking,
and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable.” David Popenoe, Life
Without Father 144 (1996); see also Linda Carroll, “Dads Empower Kids to Take
Chances”, MSNBC, June 18, 2010, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37741738. A
21
recent study conducted by developmental psychologist Daniel Paquette found that
fathers are also more likely to supervise children at play while refraining from
intervention in the child’s activities, a pattern that stimulates “exploration,
controlled risk-taking, and competition.” Daniel Paquette & Mark Bigras, The
Risky Situation: A Procedure for Assessing the Father-Child Activation
Relationship, 180 Early Childhood Dev. & Care 33, 33-50 (2010).
Paternal modes of play activity are only one example of the ways in which
fathers encourage their children to take risks. Compared to mothers, fathers are
more likely to encourage children to try new things and to embrace novel situations
and challenges. See Parke, Fatherhood, at 6. One study summarized this aspect of
paternal input and observed that “Fathers, more than mothers, conveyed the feeling
that they can rely on their adolescents, thus fathers might provide a ‘facilitating
environment’ for adolescent attainment of differentiation from the family and
consolidation of independence.” See Shmuel Shulman & Moshe M. Klein,
Distinctive Role of the Father in Adolescent Separation – Individuation, 1993 New
Directions for Child & Adolescent Dev. 41, 53 (1993).
Fathers also utilize a different discipline style than mothers, in that they
discipline with less frequency, but greater predictability and less flexibility in
terms of deviating from pre-determined consequences for particular behavior. See
Thomas G. Powers et al., Compliance and Self-Assertion: Young Children’s
22
Responses to Mothers Versus Fathers, 30 Developmental Psych. 980-89 (1994).
Children respond differently to paternal discipline, and are comparatively more
likely to resist maternal commands and comply with paternal requests. Maccoby,
The Two Sexes, at 274-75. This may be one reason why a number of studies have
found that paternal influence and involvement plays an outsize role in preventing
adolescent boys from breaking the law, and lowering the odds that a teenage girl
will become pregnant. See, e.g., Paul R. Amato & Fernando Rivera, Paternal
Involvement and Children’s Behavior Problems, 61 J. Marriage & Fam. 375-84
(1999) (finding that paternal involvement is linked to lower levels of delinquency
and criminal activity, even after controlling for maternal involvement); Mark D.
Regnerus & Laura B. Luchies, The Parent-Child Relationship and Opportunities
for Adolescents’ First Sex, 27 J. Fam. Issues 159-83 (2006) (study of 2000
adolescents finding that father-daughter relationship, rather than mother-daughter
relationship, was key predictor of whether and when adolescent girls transitioned
to sexual activity); see also Wilcox, Marriage Matters, at 14, 17-18 (discussing
evidence suggesting that female sexual development is slowed by early childhood
exposure to pheromones of biological father, and accelerated by regular early
childhood exposure to pheromones adult male who is not child’s biological
father).12
12
It should be noted that any lack of consensus concerning the source of gender
23
The distinctive maternal and paternal contributions to the optimal
childrearing environment highlight what should be obvious: there is no legitimate
empirical basis for a claim that there is no difference between a family structure
where a mother and father are present and a family structure that deprives children
of either a maternal or paternal influence. Even in the absence of a detailed
examination of social science data, common sense would suggest that children, like
adults, benefit from balanced exposure to the diverse approaches reflected in the
typical maternal and paternal parenting models.
In the educational context, the Supreme Court has recognized the
indispensible benefits that are attained by an environment that incorporates
significant levels of diversity, and has held that promotion of such diversity is a
compelling state interest sufficient to justify differential treatment that might
otherwise be thought to run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. See Grutter v.
Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 329-33 (2003). In many ways, the home is the primary
educational environment for children, particularly in their most formative pre-
adolescent years. Congress plainly has a legitimate and rational interest, even a
differences is of little relevance. The source of the gender-based variances in

parenting style observed in the literature and studies discussed above may be
biological difference, cultural pressure, an outgrowth of evolutionary adaptation, or
some combination thereof. The State may legitimately recognize the existence of
gender differences, and account for their existence when fashioning policy, without
endorsing every cultural, social or biological input that may have given rise to the
differences in the first place.
24
compelling one, in making special provision for family structures and parenting
models that facilitate the diverse and balanced childrearing environment that on
average offers the greatest probability for successful developmental outcomes, and
is most likely to avoid the negative outcomes associated with either maternal or
paternal deprivation. We urge this Court to recognize that if the federal courts
place a judicial stamp of approval on the notion that fatherhood and motherhood
have no meaning, the effect of such approval cannot be confined to the judicial
system.
B. Eliminating DOMA’s model of opposite-sex parenting will have

negative effects on children.
Fathers lack the gestational bond forged between a mother and her children.
To encourage the involvement of fathers in the increasingly common occurrence of
young unmarried heterosexual couples confronting an unplanned pregnancy, a
variety of government programs have expended considerable public resources to
persuade unmarried fathers to step forward and embrace the responsibilities of
active fatherhood.13 A number of these programs have met with considerable
success.14 But if there is no legitimate governmental interest in specifically
13
Christi Parsons, Obama Pledges to Support Responsible Fatherhood, Los
Angeles Times, June 22, 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/22/nation/la-
na-obama-fathers-20100622.
14
Boyz2Dads CD-ROM Pre-Post Pilot Evaluation Results Summer 2007, National
Fatherhood Initiative, http://www.fatherhood.org/Document.Doc?id=39
(describing positive results from a pilot program designed to promote more
25
promoting “fatherhood” and “motherhood,” as opposed to the gender-neutral
concept of “parenthood,” one can easily imagine the host of legal and political
hurdles that will threaten the future survival of such programs.
By stating that children are unaffected by same-sex parenting, the District
Court essentially consigned the distinct concepts of fatherhood and motherhood to
legal and empirical irrelevance. But no one should be naïve enough to believe that
these findings, if broadly endorsed by the federal courts, will not undermine the
legal, political, cultural and societal support for fatherhood and motherhood in the
world beyond the courtroom walls.
III. Caution Is Appropriate When Using Social Science Data To Inform

Judicial Decision-Making.
The foregoing discussion reflects an attempt to present to the Court pertinent
social science data concerning parenting models and family structure. But great
prudence should be used when interpreting and relying upon such data in the
course of resolving a legal dispute. Social science involves assessments of
averages, probabilities, and aggregate outcomes, usually in connection with
complex aspects of human behavior where it is difficult to identify, let alone
responsible attitudes about fatherhood in teen and pre-teen males); Summary of

Formative Evaluation Findings: Doctor Dad Pilot Test, Center for Social Work
Research, University of Texas at Austin, Spring 2004, National Fatherhood
Initiative, http://www.fatherhood.org/Document.Doc?id=52 (describing positive
results from a pilot program designed to improve the awareness of young fathers as
to health and safety issues with raising young children).
26
control for, all of the pertinent variables that might affect the outcomes under
review. See, e.g., Jim Manzi, What Social Science Does – and Doesn’t – Know:
Our Scientific Ignorance of the Human Condition Remains Profound, 20 City J.,
Summer 2010. Social science cannot predict with certainty the effect of changes to
complex societal institutions such as the family unit, marriage and parenthood.
Indeed, the questionable track record of social science influence on the
development of family law in the United States is well-established.15
This unpredictability is especially pronounced when assessing gay parenting,
civil unions, and same-sex marriage, all of which are practices of relatively recent
vintage. See Timothy J. Biblarz & Judith Stacey, How Does the Gender of Parents
Matter?, 72 J. Marriage & Fam. 3, 17 (2010) (“Because legal access to same-sex
marriage is so new and rare, we do not yet have research that compares the
children of married same-sex and different-sex couples.”). This Court should also
not ignore the role of politics in this field. Two supporters of redefining marriage
admit: “[T]he political stakes of this body of research are so high that the
ideological ‘family values’ of scholars play a greater part than usual in how they
15
See, e.g., Martha L. Fineman, Custody Determination at Divorce: The Limits of
Social Science Research and the Fallacy of the Liberal Ideology of Equality, 3
Can. J. Women & L. 88 (1989); Sarah H. Ramsey & Robert F. Kelly, Social
Science Knowledge in Family Law Cases: Judicial Gate-Keeping in the Daubert
Era, 59 U. Miami. L. Rev. 1, 81 (2004); Sarah H. Ramsey & Robert F. Kelly,
Using Social Science Research in Family Law Analysis and Formation: Problems
and Prospects, 3 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 631, 674-84 (1994).
27
design, conduct, and interpret their studies.” Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz,
(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Amer. Soc. Rev. 159,
161 (2001).
In light of the inherent limitations of the social science enterprise, this Court
should be particularly reluctant to accept the District Court’s cavalier dismissal of
the longstanding legal and cultural recognition of married biological parenting as
the family structure that on average embodies the optimal childrearing
environment for the next generation of our nation’s children.
CONCLUSION
Although persons challenging the constitutionality of legislation may
introduce evidence in support of their claim that the legislation is irrational . . .
they will not prevail if “the question is at least debatable” in view of the evidence
that may have been available to the Legislature. United States v. Carolene Prods.
Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153-55 (1938). The question of how children might be affected
by same-sex parenting is unanswered and highly debatable. As a result, we urge
this Court to reject any rationale or statement that contradicts societal support for
married biological parenthood, or that would undermine critical legal, political and
cultural support for the unique contributions that fathers and mothers make to the
successful upbringing of their children.
28
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court should be
reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
this 25th day of January 2011
s/ John Anthony Simmons, Sr.

John Anthony Simmons, Sr.
Bar No. 1,139,144
886 Lafayette Road
Hampton, NH 03842
Tel: 603-929-9100
Fax: 603-929-9101
Counsel for Amicus Curiae American

College of Pediatricians
29
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 6,828 words, excluding the parts of the
brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word
in fourteen-point Times New Roman.

Bar No. 1,139,144
886 Lafayette Road
Hampton, NH 03842
Tel: 603-929-9100
Fax: 603- 929-9101

30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 25, 2011, I have electronically filed the
foregoing Brief Amicus Curiae of American College of Pediatricians in the
consolidated cases of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States
Department of Health and Human Services and Hara, Gill, et al. v. Office of
Personnel Management, Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207, and 10-2214, with the Clerk of
the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit by using the
appellate CM/ECF system.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and
will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system.

Bar No. 1,139,144
886 Lafayette Road
Hampton, NH 03842
Tel: 603-929-9100
Fax: 603-929-9101

31

Am College Pediatricians - Mass DOMA Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Am College Pediatricians - Mass DOMA Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Am College Pediatricians - Mass DOMA Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 10-2204 Document: 00116162492 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2011 Entry ID: 5521401

Case Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207 and 10-2214

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF

David Ramos John Anthony Simmons, Sr.

FRAP RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Amicus curiae, American College of Pediatricians, has not issued shares to

owns 10% or more of its stock.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2

III. Caution Is Appropriate When Using Social Science Data To Inform

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 28

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management,

Goodridge v. Department of Health,

Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services,

United States v. Carolene Products Company,

Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive,

Paul R. Amato, More Than Money? Men’s Contributions to Their

Paul R. Amato, Parental Absence During Childhood and Depression In

Paul R. Amato and Fernando Rivera, Paternal Involvement and Children’s

Lorraine Blackman et al., The Consequences of Marriage for African-

Boyz2Dads CD-ROM Pre-Post Pilot Evaluation Results Summer 2007,

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook

Linda Carroll, “Dads Empower Kids to Take Chances”, MSNBC,

Scott Coltrane, Family Man (1996) ......................................................................... 19

Committee on the Judiciary Report on the Defense of Marriage Act, H.R.

Daly and Wilson, Evolutionary Psychology and Marital Conflict: The

Suzanne A. Denham et al., Prediction of Externalizing Behavior Problems

M. DeWolff and M. van Izjendoorn, Sensitivity and Attachment:

Martha L. Fineman, Custody Determination at Divorce: The Limits of Social

David K. Flaks et al., Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study

Norval D. Glenn, The Struggle for Same Sex Marriage, 41 Sociology 25

Susan Golombok, et al., Children Raised in Fatherless Families from

Cynthia C. Harper and Sara S. McLanahan, Father Absence & Youth

Sandra L. Hofferth et al., The Demography of Fathers: What Fathers Do,

M. E. Lamb et al., Effects of Gender and Caretaking Role on Parent-Infant

Hilary M. Lips, The Gender Wage Gap: Debunking the Rationalizations,

Eleanor Maccoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together

M. Main and J. Solomon, Discovery of an Insecure-

Wendy D. Manning and Kathleen A. Lamb, Adolescent Well-Being in

Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With A Single Parent:

C.A. Nelson and M. Bosquet, Neurobiology of Fetal and Infant

Affidavit of Steven Lowell Nock, Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada

Ross D. Parke, Fatherhood , Developing Child Series 7(Jerome Bruner et al.

Christi Parsons, Obama Pledges to Support Responsible Fatherhood, Los

Ellen C. Perrin et al., Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent

David Popenoe, Life Without Father (1996) ........................................................... 21

Thomas G. Powers et al., Compliance and Self-Assertion: Young Children’s

Sarah H. Ramsey and Robert F. Kelly, Social Science Knowledge in Family

Sarah H. Ramsey and Robert F. Kelly, Using Social Science Research in

Mark D. Regnerus and Laura B. Luchies, The Parent-Child Relationship

Michael J. Rosenfeld, Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress

Diana E. H. Russell, The Prevalence and Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse:

Shmuel Shulman and Moshe M. Klein, Distinctive Role of the Father in

Summary of Formative Evaluation Findings: Doctor Dad Pilot Test, Center

Margaret Somerville, Children's Human Rights and Unlinking Child-Parent

Fiona Tasker and Susan Golombok, Growing Up In a Lesbian Family;

Pierre L. van den Berghe, Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View

Jennifer L. Wainright and Charlotte J. Patterson, Delinquency, Victimization,

W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters:Twenty-Six Conclusions

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

As a medical association, the College has an interest in the broad spectrum of