UPDATE (7/23): The rousing debate in the comments has convinced me that I was uncharitable to Franken. I focused too narrowly on the factual point in dispute in the video clip rather than on the larger argument being made. See Franken v. Minnery Redux for a fuller explanation. I’ve closed the comments here; go there if you’d like to continue the discussion.
Original post and update from that day below:
_____________________________
Senator Al Franken called Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery a liar in yesterday’s hearing on DOMA. Franken was the one being dishonest.
FRANKEN: Mr. Minnery, on page 8 of your written testimony, you write, quote, “children living in their own married biological or adoptive — with their own biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”
You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study that I have right here, from December 2010, to support this conclusion. I checked the study out. And I would like to enter it into the record if I may.
And it actually doesn’t say what you said it says. It says that nuclear families, not opposite sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes. Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?
MINNERY: I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife.
FRANKEN: It doesn’t. The study defines a nuclear family as ‘one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family. And I frankly, don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.
Brian Powell of Equality Matters classifies this is “torpedoing” and John Cole of Balloon Juice says Franken “absolutely destroyed” Minnery.
Well, not so much.
You see, I checked the study out. It’s available in PDF here.
The title, “Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States: Findings From the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007” gives a slight clue.
Yes, as Franken notes, the study defines a nuclear family as “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family.” But, as Wikipedia reminds us, “Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in at least 42 states. Currently, 30 states have added amendments banning same-sex unions to their constitutions. There are five states that recognize or will soon recognize same-sex marriage.”
Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004. Connecticut (2008), Iowa (2009), New Hampshire (2010), Vermont (2009), and New York (2011) have since joined the club.
So, from the period 2001-2003 and the first few months of 2004, every single “nuclear family” studied consisted of opposite sex couples. For the remainder of the survey, married same-sex couples in Massachusetts with children qualified as “nuclear families.” Massachusetts has 6.5 million people; the other 49 states and the District of Columbia contribute an additional 301 million people. And, I’m led to believe, many people in Massachusetts still chose to marry people of the opposite sex.
In short, the number of same-sex couples qualifying as “nuclear families” in the study in question amount to a rounding error. And Al Franken, who’s a pretty smart fellow, damned well knows that.
What’s particularly infuriating is that he’s using the power of his office and of the subpoena to humiliate a citizen for his own amusement and, presumably, those of his supporters. And not even for good cause. I’m on Franken’s side and against Minnery on the question of whether gays ought to be able to adopt. But there’s no need to distort studies to find an argument in support of our position because actual studies–indeed, pretty much every reputable study done on the subject–support our position! A quick Google search:
- The Gay Science: What do we know about the effects of same-sex parenting? – (Slate, 2004)
- Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids – (WebMD, 2005)
- Study: Same-sex couples just as good, if not better, at parenting (Ottawa Citizen, 2007)
- Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers (TIME, 2010)
It’s hard to find a study done by someone other than an advocacy group that finds gay parenting is harmful. The worst we can say is, as Ann Hulbert does in the Slate piece, that the sample sizes, methodological restrictions, and the fact that homosexuality existed mostly underground until quite recently make it really hard to do good studies on this question.
UPDATE: Some commenters argue that Franken is simply pointing out that Minnery is attempting to use a study that has nothing to do with same-sex versus opposite-sex couples to argue that same-sex couples are less able to raise children. That’s a perfectly valid point for Franken to make but it’s not the one he made.
He specifically says what he’s arguing against in his setup:
Mr. Minnery, on page 8 of your written testimony, you write, quote, “children living in their own married biological or adoptive — with their own biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”
This, in fact, is precisely what the study says.
Franken then goes on to say, “It says that nuclear families, not opposite sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes.” Which, as Minnery acknowledges, is true. But, as my post points out, this is a distinction without meaning in terms of the study.
Now, if Minnery otherwise misrepresented the study to say that it was proof that same-sex couples are bad, then he’s an idiot or a liar. But Franken doesn’t rebut that, but rather a specific claim.
UPDATE (7/23): The rousing debate in the comments has convinced me that I was uncharitable to Franken. I focused too narrowly on the factual point in dispute in the video clip rather than on the larger argument being made. See Franken v. Minnery Redux for a fuller explanation. I’ve closed the comments here; go there if you’d like to continue the discussion.
