In a number of our publications, including our submission to the Constitutional Convention on the issue of marriage, we have used (among other quotes) a very serviceable one from Child Trends, a US-based NGO.

The quote is taken from a document called ‘Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?’

It reads as follows: “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.”

It goes on to say: “There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.”

Whenever we have used this quote, it has been to explain why the marriage of a man and a woman receives special status as distinct from any other family form.

The reason is clear; it is the most beneficial family form that we know of from the point of view of children.

The key words there are, ‘that we know of’.

To draw reliable conclusions about the effects of family structure you need large, random samples of each of the family types being examined.

When such data is available, the results are clear; the married biological family emerges as the ‘gold standard’ (to use the words of child law expert, Geoffrey Shannon).

There is simply no getting away from this fact.

The available data does not allow us to say how well children raised by same-sex couples fare compared with the biological married family.

It would be invalid, therefore, and a misuse of the Child Trends paper quoted above to pretend the available research shows that children raised by same-sex couples do worse than children raised by their own married, biological parents.

And of course, we have never used the quote in this way, nor will we.

Child Trends itself quite rightly warns against using the quote in such a manner: “This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents.”

But the above quote must be read against those who pretend the available evidence says the children of same-sex couples are not doing fine and against those who say they are. 

This is absolutely crucial. If it is invalid to state that the research shows children raised by same-sex couples do worse than children raised by their own married, biological parents, it is equally invalid to say they do as well, or better.

Take careful note of what the above quote from Child Trends says. It says that in 2002 “neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys”.

This is why Child Trends did not draw any conclusions about children raised by same-sex couples in its paper. It couldn’t draw any conclusions because the available studies on the matter weren’t big enough to enable it to do so.

And to this day it remains the case that there are no large national surveys that allows us to draw reliable conclusions about the children of same-sex couples.

One question which then arises is why, back in 2005, the American Psychological Association was so quick to come to the conclusion that ‘the kids are alright’ given the lack of large national surveys examining how the children of same-sex couples actually fare?

Those trying to use the Child Trends quote against organisations like the Iona Institute need to be aware that they are hoist by their own petard because what the quote really does is expose the fact that those claiming ‘the kids are alright’ have jumped way ahead of the available evidence.

(For more on this read this paper by Loren Marks of Louisiana State University)