Professor defends homes led by same-sex couples

A sociologist testifying Wednesday at Michigan's gay-marriage trial said children raised by same-sex parents suffer no handicap when compared to other kids.
AP Wire
Feb 27, 2014


Michael Rosenfeld of Stanford University said "there is no basis" for believing that kids develop better in a household led by a man and a woman.

"It's clear that being raised by same-sex parents is no disadvantage to children," he said, broadly summarizing research in the field.

Rosenfeld testified on the second day of a trial challenging a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment that recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman. Two Detroit-area nurses are asking a judge to overturn it, saying it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In Texas, meanwhile, a federal judge said that state's gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional, although he gave officials time to appeal an injunction signed Wednesday.

In Michigan, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer are raising three adopted children at their Hazel Park home, but they're barred from jointly adopting them because same-sex couples can't marry in Michigan.

Many questions at trial have focused on the well-being of children. State attorneys are defending the gay-marriage ban by saying voters wanted to encourage families led by a male and a female.

The issue for U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman is whether there's a rational state interest in restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

While cross-examining Rosenfeld, Assistant Attorney General Kristin Heyse suggested it was rational for voters to approve the gay-marriage ban nearly 10 years ago because same-sex marriage in the U.S. was just emerging.

Rowse, 49, and DeBoer, 42, will not be testifying, although the state agreed with a statement read into evidence that describes them as "responsible and caring parents" who are providing a loving home to their children.

University of Michigan law professor Vivek Sankaran, who has much experience with the state's foster-care system, testified that more children would be adopted if same-sex couples had the same joint-adoption rights as married heterosexual couples.

It is the first U.S. trial over a gay-marriage ban since a California trial in 2010, although federal judges in other ways recently have struck down similar bans in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia. At least 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow marriage by same-sex couples.



A marriage is and always has been between a women and a man, the gay activist says and argues otherwise, Two men or two women can not get married its, not possible and a sin. The issue for U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman is whether there's a rational state interest in restricting marriage to a man and a woman. Of course !!!


Please illuminate how the government enforces bans on other sins. All of them are equal, right?

There is a ban on murder. There isn't a ban on worshipping false idols, bearing false witness (outside of a court), coveting property of others, etc. and there shouldn't be, because those are moral issues.

The truth is that the government can do nothing to restrict a marriage between a man and a woman, man and man, man and goat, man and three goats, or whatever other terrifying and outlandish scenario you can choose to fear. It can, however, violate the equal protection clause by recognizing one and not another (specifically, between two consenting adults.)

Get government out of the business of defining marriage. Let's move beyond creating government incentives to influence adults to make a lifetime commitment to another.


"Two men or two women can not get married it’s, not possible and a sin."

Whether or not a person feels or believes it is a sin is their personal opinion; stating that it is impossible is ludicrous. It is absolutely possible in 17 states, the world isn't flat, and residents and visitors to Colorado and Washington have left the reservation, thumbed their noses at federal laws, and are "feeling good" with cannabis. Not possible? What a head in the sand attitude.

My wife and I have had several, maybe even many, discussions on this issue; we agree that it really isn’t our place to take a side as it doesn’t affect us one way or the other. If we had family that this affected I bet we would take a side. We do agree however that each person will deal with their judgment, when it comes, and it sure isn’t our place, and we believe not yours either, to be doing the pre-judge. If you are so in tune with religion then please “judge not, lest ye be judged”.


The goats may have a different opinion about being coupled with gay activists


Used to be cowboys and sheep, now it's gays and goats, next it will be guys and dolls...wait, that's already been done.


Don't forget Broke Goat Mountain.


I don't care what you guys say. I love goats. I once held a baby goat in my lap for hours - it was so blissful I actually began to think of it as a baby human. And they are very entertaining. I could watch these for hours:


Ultimately, I'm not going to force others onto my beliefs and I think that people screaming about constitutional freedoms need to stay quiet as well. If you want to judge them, fine. If you don't believe what they are doing, fine. Do you really want the Government to determine that? Isn't that a little more dangerous? However, I would find it hard this "sociologist" gave an honest report. Kids are mean. I find it hard to believe that some won't be bullied growing up for having two dads or two moms. That will be true bullying too, not the new PC standard bullying.


There are lots of ways to get bullied; other kids might take advantage of a same-sex set of parents as a vulnerability to exploit, but there are plenty of things kids and parents can already do legally that can lead to bullying - many of which are not even sins! It's a fair concern but not a reason to decide this issue.


Seperation of church and state


that's what i am talking about from the beginning, the activist or groups are forcing the government and courts to make a decision whether to marry or not legally and want equal rights, i see its a forced issue and the dumb lawyers and courts have their hand out for any kind of money just to make a buck, i am not judging anyone, but blaming the system


Yes, because there is a concept of marriage defined by government and it's encoded in all sorts of laws regarding liability, contracts, taxes, medical privacy, you name it! So yes, government is forced to make a decision because the government (through the people) long ago created special treatment of married persons. I don't blame the groups wanting equal protection. The system is flawed but it can be changed. My gripe is with those who insist the system must not change - those who demand that DOMA must be upheld and that Federal Marriage must be defined as a heterosexual one.

The judicial branch was established to ensure legality of laws with regard to the Constitution. It is, by design, through the courts that these decisions need to be made. There are plenty of people who will make some economic benefit from it, maybe wrongly, but that doesn't mean following the process is wrong.

Tri-cities realist



Gay parents have no negative effects on the development of children you say? Well then explain this:
Yep that makes sense, a child at age 8 was mature enough to understand his sexuality and decide to change his gender. His parents being lesbian certainly had no part in his decision to castrate himself.


How about the hetero couple who named their child Hitler? I can find one-off anecdotes and, following your logic, make a case that no one, man or woman, straight or otherwise, should be raising children.


Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Remarks that discriminate based on age, race, religion, disability, etc..


Where did you get this "fact sheet" from? It's 'fun' in that it's completely laughable; that is to say that I can laugh because I'm a heterosexual who isn't going to be wrongly judged by outrageous garbage like this. Get a grip.


Well given that I know bullet point 2 is real, I suspect that most all of these are real and true. We live in a pretty screwed up world bud.


I know NAMBLA is real, and it's been around for a long time, but that doesn't mean most homosexuals agree with them. Just because one bullet in a list is true has no bearing on the rest of the list. The reality of the world is that there are millions of gay people in this country. How many members does NAMBLA have?


LessThanAmused, NAMBLA does not represent the homosexual community. They are a fringe group of probably not much more than a thousand people whose goals are deplored and condemned by the larger GLBT community. I know a lot of gay people. I don't know anyone who looks at NAMBLA favorably. Healthy gay relationships are like healthy straight relationships: based on relative equality and ability to consent.

Judging all gay people by NAMBLA is like judging all Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church (the folks who protest military funerals, among much else). Would that be fair to the average Christian?


I have no dog in this fight. I simply shared a link to support the premise that this group of sicko's actually exists. I responded to a post that since has been removed, so now my post is going to be taken out of context. I can't respond further without that list for the simple reason I don't remember what else was on it at this point.

I'm fully aware that making gross generalizations is a fool's errand. I'm not judging you or your lifestyle so relax.


State your source on this, I dare you. I guarantee it will be garbage.


Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks and Profane, obscene, sexual or derogatory language.


Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on Create a new account today to get started.