Children need their own mother and father. Mountains of social science research now support this common sense observation. After thirty years of experimenting with different family forms, the results are definitely in. Those diverse families that were supposed to usher in a new era of freedom and equality do not serve the interests of children. Children have the best chances in life when they live with their own biological mother and father who are married to each other.

The children of unmarried parents have greater problems in virtually every area of life. Children of unmarried parents have poorer health, starting with lower birth weights. These children are also more likely to have accidents. Children of unmarried parents are more likely to have mental health problems, including depression, substance abuse and suicidal tendencies. Children of unmarried parents have lower educational achievement, are more likely to repeat a grade of school and to drop out of high school. Children of unmarried parents have greater difficulty forming life-long attachments themselves as they grow older. Fatherless boys are particularly more likely to have trouble with the law, and end up in jail.

These kinds of problems show up in families in which the parents were never married, or the parents lived together without being married, or the parents were married and divorced, or married, divorced and remarried. Each of these "diverse family forms" has significant problems for kids, and some have distinct problems all their own.

Many of these problems are the result of adults who subjugate the rights of children to their own, as my colleague David Blankenhorn has persuasively argued in his recent address, The Rights of Children and the Redefinition of Parenthood.

"Now, as we know, a basic problem when we use the language of human rights is the tendency and the temptation to treat each specific right as if it stands alone, in splendid isolation and reigning in absolute mastery, conveniently disconnected from other rights that may conflict with it -- and also disconnected from any overarching anthropology or system of values that alone permit us to adjudicate rights in conflict and also to understand rights in relationship to duties, obligations, and other human goods that cannot easily be expressed in terms of rights. The obvious danger in this take-your-pick, cafeteria-style, essentially de-contextualized approach to human rights is that each right, in its isolated supremacy, tends to get expressed in absolutist, totalizing terms. I fear that we in the United States, trained as we are in what we call our “bill” of rights, are particularly prone to this temptation, and that as a result, we Americans have much to learn from the typically more holistic, integrated human rights frameworks that are evident in a number of other countries, including Denmark."

The social revolution in family structure was supposed to bring about greater freedom and equality. As a society, we have become less judgmental, more accepting of differences. We even demand that the government take steps to level the playing field among the different types of families. Neutrality. Fairness. Impartiality. The state should not "privilege" marriage over other types of families. Society is racing toward this goal of government impartiality, particularly with the movement to treat same sex unions on par with opposite sex married couples.

The irony is that more freedom and equality for adults results in less freedom and equality for children. The children of unmarried parents are certainly not equal to the children of married parents in terms of their prospects for a happy and prosperous life. The only way they can be made equal is for the state to intervene on behalf of the children of the unmarried. By spending tax dollars for educational, medical, psychological and social programs, the state can attempt to level the highly skewed playing field that naturally emerges between the children of the married and the children of the unmarried. But trying to create equality for the children creates gross fiscal inequalities: the state must tax the married to pay for the children of the unmarried.

Likewise, the promise of greater freedom for adults to choose their own style of living, sexual coupling and child-rearing brings about a decrease in freedom for their very own children, and in some respects, for themselves as well. When spousal or parental cooperation breaks down, the government becomes intimately involved in rearing children. It isn't unusual for unmarried parents to be unable to work together to make and keep a plan for visitation and support of children. When this happens, the family courts become involved. Divorced parents face the prospect of court supervision of the minutiae of family life. So too, do the single mothers when their child's father decides he wants to be involved with his child.

Family courts regularly rule upon how much time and money the non-custodial parent spends on children. The courts may get involved in who gets to see the children on Thanksgiving, which parent gets the child's report card first, whether a parent gets to move out of state, and whether the non-custodial parent can drop in at a Little League game. These invasions of privacy would be considered outrageous in any other context. Yet America considers this routine, business as usual, for the children of divorced or separated parents.

The far-reaching fiddling with family forms has been destructive for children. That much is blindingly obvious from the social science research. But this social tinkering has not attained its stated objectives of equality and freedom, even for adults. It is time to exercise some judgment, declare the experiment a failure and restore the two-parent married couple family as a social norm.

That sound you just heard is the earth shifting.

In a recent address titled The Rights of Children and the Redefinition of Parenthood presented to the Danish Institute for Human Rights, David Blankenhorn warns of even more difficulties for children as experimental family forms continue to evolve.

In Britain, in February of this year, the government health service, worried about a drop-off in donated sperm and eggs, began an active recruitment campaign to ask new sperm and egg donors to come forward. In the United States, after same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Massachusetts, public health officials in that state proposed striking the words “mother” and “father” from the birth certificates of all children in that state, replacing these words with the phrases “Parent A” and “Parent B.” More broadly, the entire field of reproductive technology as well as the broader fertility industry in the United States continues in an almost entirely unregulated environment.

In Canada, in an amazingly contradictory pair of moves, it is now the right of an adopted child to know the identity of his or her biological parents; whereas in the case of donor-conceived children, revealing to the child the identity of his or her biological parents is a federal crime, punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both. Also in Canada earlier this year, the federal government, as a part of its implementation of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, proposed striking the term “natural parent” from all of Canadian law, and replacing it with the term “legal parent.”

That sound you just heard is the earth shifting. The social change I am describing contains a number of dimensions and carries with it a number of important likely consequences for families and for society, including (but probably not limited to) an increase in personal freedom and autonomy, greater recognition of the rights and dignity of gays and lesbians, a weakening of marriage as a pro-child social institution, and direct strides toward the marketization and commodification of human reproduction. Each of these likely consequences -- and please notice that as a group, by most reckonings, they would appear to be a decidedly mixed package -- is important and deserves serious consideration.

This erasing of the biological basis of parenthood from the law... not only represents a dramatic transfer of power from private life to the state, but is also, I believe, contrary to the best interests of children. But I want to focus today on just one of the dimensions and consequences of this trend. I am referring now to a fundamental redefinition of what it means to be a parent and how we decide who are a child’s parents. Specifically, I am referring to the phenomenon of erasing the biological basis of parenthood from law and replacing it with the idea of the state-defined “legal” parent. This erasure not only represents a dramatic transfer of power from private life to the state, but is also, I believe, contrary to the best interests of children.

Blankenhorn calls for greater consideration of the rights and needs of children and cautions against the redefinition of parenthood.

Human rights proponents today and in the coming period should work creatively to develop and expand, particularly in light of new medical and technological developments, the rights claims of children with respect to marriage and the family. So here is my recommendation. Just as human rights theorists in recent decades have worked creatively to develop and expand the rights claims of adults with respect to marriage and the family, so human rights proponents today and in the coming period should work creatively to develop and expand, particularly in light of new medical and technological developments, the rights claims of children with respect to marriage and the family. To make my own small and initial contribution to this worthy endeavor, let me conclude with four propositions about the rights of children.

1. Every child has the right, in so far as society can make it possible, to know and be raised by its two natural biological parents, except when it is contrary to the child’s best interests. The implication of this right is that society should recognize and support the institution of marriage, since marriage is our only social institution that seeks fully to unite, in the persons of the spouses, the biological, social, and legal dimensions of parenthood. The great good and goal of marriage is to give to each child the gift of the two persons who brought the child into the world. For this reason, marriage is society’s most pro-child social institution and probably ultimately society’s single most important protector and guarantor of the rights of children.

2. Every child has the right to a natural biological heritage, defined as the union of the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg. Society should typically refrain from actions that would efface or deny the child’s natural biological heritage, or what the French philosopher Sylvianne Agacinski calls the child’s double origin.

3. Every child has the right to know his or her biological origins. Individuals and society should typically refrain from creating genetic orphans, or children who do not and can not know their natural origins.

4. Children have the right to be heard. Today, the rights claims of adults tend to come through loud and clear. Children’s voices are much harder to hear.

Click here to read the full text of the speech

The ACLU Defends Polygamy.

In a little-reported speech offered at Yale University earlier this year, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." Yale Daily News says Strossen was responding to a "student's question about gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy." She continued, saying that her legal organization "defend[s] the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals," making the ACLU "the guardian of liberty ... defend[ing] the fundamental rights of all people."

The ACLU's newly revealed defense of polygamy may weaken the pro-homosexual argument for changing the traditional definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" have long insisted that their effort to include homosexual couples in that definition would only be that. However, conservative and traditional marriage advocates predict "other shoes will drop" if homosexual marriage is legalized -- perhaps including attempts to legalize polygamy and to change current legal definitions of child-adult relationships.

Will physicians be forced to offer all medically available services to every patient on demand, even if it violates their own religious convictions?

Another round of court hearings is scheduled in a case brought by a lesbian couple against a fertility clinic when the doctor, because of her religious convictions, referred the couple to another physician instead of providing artificial insemination services to them.

This case raises many thorny questions and illustrates the modern notion that once something becomes medically possible, it can be framed as a medical necessity, and then quickly deemed a legal right.

When Rights Collide

Fertility doctors struggled when insemination technology first became available with questions of who should be allowed to receive treatment, and it was at first limited to married couples. While those restrictions have loosened over time, fertility doctors often feel responsible for the children they help bring into the world and do not want to introduce children to an unhealthy family situation, Gates said.

"But then, when is it prejudice and when is it good judgment?" she said. "That's a really hard line to draw. Here in California, it's discrimination, but maybe somewhere else it's good judgment."

SFGate.com

Reproductive tourism is on the rise as people travel worldwide to shop for the lowest price and the most lenient legal options.

Another little-discussed reason for fertility tourism looms large. Many aspiring parents dislike the laws that control fertility in the UK and are attracted by the more flexible foreign policies.

Consider 'Mary', whose story was told by The Telegraph. For years, British women have traveled abroad to find egg donors; Mary joined their ranks. She went to a Spanish clinic and became pregnant at the first try. She preferred the Spanish clinic for two reasons. First, there was the issue of anonymity. As of April 2005, the identities of British sperm and egg donors will be a matter of record, allowing children conceived from those donations to track down their genetic parents.

Mary stated, "I would hate to think that she [her daughter] would ever find out. As far as I'm concerned, she is my daughter. I carried her and my partner is her biological father." But the anonymity involves more than merely maintaining parental control over information. With the UK's family law in flux, a biological parent could possibly press for visitation rights or similar intrusions.

The second reason Mary preferred Spanish clinics was the wide availability of donated eggs in contrast with the shortage in the UK. Anonymity plays a role in the supply of eggs as well.

Why cohabitation is harmful for children.

One study in Great Britain did look at the relationship between child abuse and the family structure and marital background of parents, and the results are disturbing. It was found that, compared to children living with married biological parents, children living with cohabiting but unmarried biological parents are 20 times more likely to be subject to child abuse, and those living with a mother and a cohabiting boyfriend who is not the father face an increased risk of 33 times. In contrast, the rate of abuse is 14 times higher if the child lives with a biological mother who lives alone. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the most unsafe of all family environments for children is that in which the mother is living with someone other than the child's biological father. This is the environment for the majority of children in cohabiting couple households.

A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead

JUST RELEASED!

In a new report, Daniel Cere of McGill University, examines the fragmentation of parenthood and its impact on the lives of children.

The Future of Family Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America.

Family law today appears to be embracing a big new idea,” Cere writes. “The idea is that marriage is only a close personal relationship between adults, and no longer a pro-child social institution.”

Cere examines the impact of this idea on two recent, highly influential reports: the Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution, published in 2002 by the American Law Institute and Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships, published in 2001 by the Law Commission of Canada.

Embracing the idea of marriage as merely a close personal relationship between adults, both of these reports argue that family law’s primary responsibilities are to protect adults’ choices to enter and exit these relationships as they please and to promote family diversity.

But what is missing from these reports, Cere writes, is any appreciation of the historical function of marriage as a social institution that “secures the basic birthright of children, when possible, to know and be raised by their own mother and father.” The vision outlined in these two reports may give adults the freedom to form the families that they choose, but social science data strongly suggest that not all forms of parenthood are equally child-friendly. “Further fragmentation of parenthood means further fragmented lives for a new generation of children who will be jostled around by increasingly complex adult claims,” Cere writes. Family law has turned its back on the age-old injunction to protect the best interests of the child. “What is needed now,” he argues, “is family law from the child’s perspective."

JUST RELEASED!

Jennifer Roback Morse, this week's tothesource author, warns parents of casual sex pitfalls awaiting college students.

(AgapePress) - Dr. Jennifer Morse, a popular writer and speaker on family issues, says modern patterns of dating on college campuses are destructive when it comes to finding life-long married love.

Morse has written a new book called Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World (Spence Publishing Company, 2005). In it, she warns parents who are sending a child to college this fall that most can expect casual sexual encounters, co-ed dorms, and even co-habitation to be part of their kids' lives for the next four years.

The author says hookups -- that is, encounters involving casual, recreational sex -- are not conducive to making a proper judgment about who will be one's lifelong partner. "If you start off with the idea that sex is a recreational activity with no moral or social significance," she asserts, "you're going to be drawn to the wrong persons, you're going to be doing the wrong kinds of things -- you're just not going to be in the right kind of mode for finding somebody with whom you can share life-long love."

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.