Same-Sex Parenting: A Review of Previous Research and Potential Future Directions
Caleb Cooley
As the landscape of family forms shift over time, so must the research which attempts to understand these alternative family groups. Since access to legal same-sex marriage is so novel, there is a dearth of research that directly compares the children of married same-sex and different-sex couples. Despite this, scholars have achieved a surprisingly high degree of agreement that unmarried lesbian parents are raising children who develop at least as well as their counterparts with married heterosexual parents (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Stacey and Biblarz 2010; Tasker, 2005
In the years leading up to nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage, a great deal of family and sociological research focused on the development and outcomes of children of same-sex couples. This research was in part a response to public and legal discourse regarding concerns of child wellbeing for those raised by two parents of the same sex. The social and legal contexts in which same-sex marriage was debated has helped jumpstart research to better understand these emerging family forms. The overwhelming conclusion of these studies show that children of same-sex parents do not experience worse developmental or health outcomes. I aim to explore the new directions this line of research is heading in the future, and where there is room for new contributions. In this review, I will also discuss some of the major themes that I have found in my review of the literature of sexual minority parents. I aim to understand what groups are opting into marriage and parenthood, or not, and how intersecting identities may influence decisions to marry, and have children.
Framing the Research
Political Concerns
Much of the research on same-sex marriage in the United States prior to nationwide legalization was cited within legal discourses and focused on the impacts that allowing partners of the same sex to marry might have on the institution of marriage. Stacey and Biblarz (2001) bring to light how the framing of research on LGBT marriage and parenting of this time had serious political implications. The authors note that a branch of psychological research (Cameron & Cameron 1996; Cameron, Cameron & Landess 1996; Wardle 1997) subscribes to the notion that homosexuality is inherently wrong, and damaging to children raised by these couples.
Cameron (1996) and Wardle (1997) published works which were written to incite fear of how homosexuals raising children would be detrimental to their overall health and achievements. These bodies of research were also utilized to promote anti-homosexual legislation, such as limiting foster care and adoption to heterosexual parents. Wardle (1997) uses a similar technique to elicit fear in terms of painting same-sex parents in a negative light. Essentially positing that children with same-sex parents will suffer in their relationships with peers, and endure a life of stigma because of their parent’s sexuality. Although Paul Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association, his research was cited in several policy hearings which lead to restricting foster child placements to heterosexual parents (Woodruff 1998; Stacey & Biblarz 2001). These legislative decisions were implemented in several southern states such as Mississippi, Arkansas, and Florida (Herek 2000, Stacey and Biblarz 2001). This prejudiced branch of research is highly criticized by many scholars in the social sciences literature (Patterson 2006; Stacey and Biblarz 2001).
More commonly, social scientists take a cautious and sympathetic approach to research same-sex marriage. Considering the vital policy implications of this body of research, it is easy to understand taking a more cautious approach. In a climate where a persons’ sexual orientation determined the custody of a child, family fertility services, and adoption rights, scholars tend to focus less on differences among same and different sex parents (Stacey & Biblarz 2001). The authors point out that minimizing the differences among same and different sex parents forfeits the opportunity to disentangle the effects of parent’s gender on a number of child outcomes. Stacey & Biblarz (2001) also note that ideological and political pressures may hinder the progress and understanding of same-sex families and their children’s well-being. Considering that a large portion of public and legal discourse surrounding legalization of same-sex marriage focused on parent’s suitability to raise children, this is an area of careful consideration for scholars (Biblarz & Savci 2010; Gates 2015; Patterson 2000; Rosenfeld 2010).
Another area of political discourse, particularly among conservative groups, centered around the notion that providing same-sex couples the legal right to marry will decrease the value of marriage. Dillender (2014) cites the 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s campaign statement that allowing same-sex couples to marry would "cheapen marriage and make it into something less valuable" (The Des Moines Register 2011). Dillender also notes that the demise of marriage frame was the prominent rationale behind Proposition 8, the California state constitutional amendment that restricted marriage to a union between a man and a woman. In his study, Dillender constructed a state-level panel data set and supplements his data with individual level information from the Current Population survey. After estimating difference-in-differences models with flexible time effects, he finds no effect on opposite-sex marriage rates by allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Estimating Marriage rates & Child well-being
Methodological Constraints
The well-being and outcomes of children is a dominant area of inquiry in the literature of same-sex marriage and parenting. There is quite a contention in the literature regarding the methodological and theoretical rigor, and thus conclusions drawn, of many studies on sexual minority parents and their children. According to Rosenfeld (2010): “Children raised by same-sex couples are one of the most difficult populations in the United States to study systematically because of their small numbers and their geographic dispersion” (p. 770). Another major issue discussed in the literature regarding same-sex parents is the relatively limited number of large nationally representative surveys which explicitly measure sexual orientation. In a community study of children with lesbian parents (Golombok et al. 2003) indicates that existing research on children with sexual minority parents has largely relied on volunteer and convenience samples.
From the extensive review of 33 studies of two-parent same-sex parents, Stacey and Biblarz (2010) point out that since access to legal same-sex marriage is so novel, and not nationally available, there is not yet research that directly compares the children of married same-sex and different-sex couples. The authors note despite this limitation, “scholars (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 2005) have achieved a surprisingly high degree of agreement that unmarried lesbian parents are raising children who develop at least as well as their counterparts with married heterosexual parents” (Stacey & Biblarz 2010, 5). Stacey and Biblarz also indicate that among the 33 studies on same-sex parents, 30 focused on comparisons of lesbian and heterosexual co-parents, one focused on gay male co-parents, and two compared lesbians to gay male co-parents. The extremely limited number of studies investigating gay male fatherhood certainly indicates the need for future research to explore these families. Another methodological constraint has been estimating actual rates of marriage for same sex couples.
Rates of Marriage
Gates (2015) discusses the difficulties of estimating the number of married same-sex couples in the US. The author contends that there is significant variation in states collection of administrative marriage data which explicitly identifies same-sex couples, in addition to the measurement issues inherent to Census Bureau data. Gates (2015) provides the following estimate of same sex marriages:
Based on NHIS data, I calculated that there may have been as many as 130,000 married same-sex couples by the end of 2013. By contrast, ACS estimates from the same year suggested that there were more than 250,000 married same-sex couples. The NHIS and ACS estimates both were made before the majority of states allowed same-sex couples to marry. Gallup estimates from data collected in March 2015 found 390,000 married same-sex couples. Regardless of the accuracy of these estimates, it's clear that same-sex couples are marrying at a rapid rate. The population of married same-sex couples appears to have doubled or even tripled in just one year (Gates 2015: 72).
As more time passes since the nation-wide recognition of legal same sex marriage, data should more accurately identify demographics of same-sex couples who marry. Innovations in data collection and analysis of marriage rates among same-sex couples is needed to provide a better understanding of how many LGB couples are actually marrying. Depending on the data source, estimates vary significantly making it difficult to know the true population of same-sex couples and parents. As more data is collected on sexual minorities, this provides more opportunity to explore the rates and groups who are opting in to marriage and parenthood and is an area that deserves further study.
Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex Parents
Much of the research which focuses on the academic achievement and psychological well-being of children of same-sex parents indicates little to no difference when compared to children reared by different-sex parents (Bos et al 2007; Gartrell & Bos 2010; Wainright & Patterson 2006, 2008; Wainright et al. 2004; Potter 2012). Potter (2012) utilizes a dynamic model of the family which is typically applied to different-sex nontraditional families to measure differences in outcomes in alternative family structures. He applies this framework to compare same-sex parent families across various non-traditional family structures. Potter finds that while there are baseline disparities in children’s academic achievement in same-sex parent families, those disparities were attenuated by the transitions that children experienced. These transitions were likely the result of a homosexual parent who was previously in a relationship with a heterosexual partner before coming out as homosexual. He notes that the results conform to results drawn by scholars who studied opposite-sex nontraditional families (Cavanaugh et al. 2006; Fomby & Cherlin 2007; Sun & Li 2009, 2011).
Wainright, Russel and Patterson (2004) conducted one of the first studies drawn from a large national sample of adolescents who were living with parents of the same sex. Using data drawn from the Quality Education Data for ADD Health, the authors rigorously compared differences in several outcomes of children of same and different-sex parents. They found that on almost all of their variables regarding academic and personal adjustment produced no significant differences of adolescents raised by same-sex parents from matched by characteristics similar to adolescents living with opposite-sex parents, thus supporting the “no difference” hypothesis which has been mostly accepted among the literature. Wainright et al. (2004) also conclude that regardless of parent’s sexual orientation, parents who indicated having close and satisfying relationship with their adolescents were found to be more well-adjusted in school and at home.
In a review of the findings of Stacey and Biblarz’s (2010) work, Tasker (2010) indicates that the number of studies has just become acceptable to conduct meta-analyses examining if an association exists between parental sexual orientation and various child outcomes. In a meta-analysis by Crowl, Ahn, and Baker (2008) the authors investigate differences between children raised by same-sex and different-sex parents across 19 different studies. In their summary, the authors find no significant differences between children of heterosexual or same-sex parents in four realms including cognitive development, psychological adjustment, gender identity, or sexual partner preference (Crowl et al. 2008; Tasker 2010). As new data become available it will be beneficial to revisit these studies which have been criticized for sampling methods and sample sizes to further understand the “no difference” hypothesis.
It appears that despite the aforementioned limitations regarding research on same-sex parenting and child outcomes, emerging studies find little evidence linking parent’s sexuality to poor child health outcomes. Biblarz and Stacey (2010) find that Lesbian co-parents seem to provide better outcomes of child well-being among comparable heterosexual parents on several measures, even when they were not able to opt in to legal marriage. This general consensus has resulted in what has been termed the “no difference” hypothesis among the literature
Another area of promising research has begun to investigate the outcomes of children being raised by same-sex parents, from the perspectives of those children as they transition to adulthood. Huggins (1989) conducted a study of 36 adolescents with divorced heterosexual parents and 18 with divorced lesbian parents and found no significant differences in adolescents’ self-esteem. This study was focused on lesbian parents who had left a heterosexual marriage after disclosing their sexual orientation. Huggins found that daughters of lesbian mothers reported higher self-esteem when the mother had a romantic partner who was also living in the home. The author also reported that adolescents of lesbian mothers experienced higher self-esteem if the father did not display negative attitudes towards their mother.
Gershon, Tschann, and Jermin (1999) investigated children of lesbian mothers in terms of their self-esteem and perceptions of stigma. They conducted 76 qualitative interviews with adolescents and found that adolescents who had experienced discrimination and had higher rates of perceived stigma reported lower self-esteem. In this study however, the majority of the adolescents were born to mothers who had exited a heterosexual relationship. The authors hypothesize that there may be increased incidences of stigmatization if the family transition happened at an older age in adolescence compared to having same-sex parents from birth or a very early age. Another common theme is the need to study families led by gay fathers, as very few studies have done so. From a 2010 ASR review piece Stacey and Biblarz also indicate that among the 33 studies on same-sex parents, 30 focused on comparisons of lesbian and heterosexual co-parents, one focused on gay male co-parents, and two compared lesbians to gay male co-parents. The extremely limited number of studies investigating gay male fatherhood certainly indicates the need for future research to explore these families.
As the social acceptance of same-sex relationships increases, it is likely that there will be a decrease in couples who have children in a heterosexual relationship before expressing their sexual orientation (Wainright et al. 2004). Considering the research that shows that transitions in family structure may be detrimental to child outcomes (Amato 2010; Kim 2011; Manning & Lamb 2003; Fomby and Cherlin 2007), it may be fruitful to revisit some of the previous work that has investigated same-sex couples and their children as these structures may have changed. Also of note, the majority of these studies have focused on lesbian parents, which leaves a large absence of understanding regarding same-sex father’s experiences, as well as their children.
Egalitarianism among same-sex couples
A trend in researching same-sex couples in the pre-legalization era was to investigate how these couples frame and evaluate their relationship satisfaction. Cherlin (2013) states: “Studies that have compared gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples have found no significant differences in love, satisfaction, or the partners' evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of their relationships” (2013: 64). This research illustrates that there are little to no differences in the meanings and perceptions of love and marriage between same and different sex couples.
In Civettini’s (2016) work, she investigates the gender differences of gay and lesbian couples’ delegation of household labor. She found that although same-sex couples do breach the normative gender roles of household labor, they do so in different ways. Lesbians tended to incorporate a more masculine identity and avoid stereotypically feminine housework. On the other hand, gay men were found to adopt a more feminine approach to take on more household labor than would a stereotypical heterosexual male. Although these notions of gender norms are somewhat outdated, they do show that same-sex couples are more likely to breach gender norms and take on a more egalitarian partnership in the home. This egalitarian relationship could be beneficial in allowing a more equal distribution of household and occupational labor. Despite these findings, little research has explored whether this egalitarianism of same-sex couples may improve their health behaviors and outcomes. Similar studies also indicate that same-sex couples tend to strive for egalitarian distributions of labor and reject heteronormative roles in parenting. According to Goldberg (2013), studying housework among same‐sex couples challenges the often-dichotomized nature of housework as gendered or non-gendered, equal or unequal, feminine or masculine. Goldberg contends that in the same‐sex couple context, the meaning and relevance of such dichotomies are upended.
The Families and Work Institute (FWI) is a nonprofit center dedicated to providing research for living in today’s changing workplace, changing family and changing community. In 2015 the institute conducted a study drawn from a sample of 103 sexual minorities in relationships and 122 opposite sex couple the author found that. Same-sex couples are more likely to share household chores, partitioning work around the house based on time availability and preferences rather than relying on heteronormative gender roles to determine who does what around the house. Same-sex couples were much more likely to share child care duties, the study found. About 74 percent of the same-sex couples shared routine child care and 62 percent shared sick child care, versus 38 percent of straight couples sharing routine child care and just 32 percent sharing the care of sick children (Matos 2015).
How same-sex couples actually have children may be a source of egalitarian divisions of parenting. According to Goldberg (2010): “The process of adopting is more egalitarian than that of pregnancy in that it demands both partners' active engagement in the process, and neither partner experiences the hormonal changes of pregnancy and breastfeeding, which may promote attachment” (p. 814). This of course is not the case for all lesbian parents as a great deal of research has focused on donor insemination, and how the biological mother may take on more traditional motherhood roles (Goldberg et al. 2004). Ciano-Boyce and Shelley-Sireci (2002) conducted a study of 10 lesbian couples who had biological children through insemination, 26 lesbian adoptive parents, and 22 heterosexual parents. The authors found that in their study that heterosexual couples were less equitable in their division of child-care related tasks. This work has received criticism for its small sample sizes and the statistical inferences drawn from them (Goldberg et. al 2012). This is an area of research that may be further investigated as new larger data become available regarding same-sex couples. Large nationally representative data collection, such as the National Health Interview Survey and American Community survey among others, have begun to ask questions directly regarding sexual orientation. This novel data allows for more direct investigations of sexual minority marriage and parenting patterns.
In one of the few studies focusing on gay fathers, Tornello, Sonnenberg and Patterson (2015) investigate the division of labor among same-sex fathers. The authors found that the gay fathers in this study also, on average, reported dividing their household and childcare labor in an egalitarian manner and preferring to divide their labor in this way. In addition, the discrepancy between how they did divide labor and how they would ideally want to divide labor was relatively small among these fathers. The authors indicate that understanding the differences in preferences in egalitarian divisions of labor and actual practices is a fruitful area of family research. Another area of inquiry in the literature is building theory and methods to investigate how same sex couples “do gender”. There is a robust literature illustrating how opposite-sex couples enact gender roles in division of labor and parenting, and this area is budding for sexual minority parents enact these roles.
“Doing Gender” Gender Socialization Among Sexual Minority Parents
“Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micro-political activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine and feminine ‘natures’” (West and Zimmerman 1987:126).
Another prominent area in the literature is how LGB parents socialize their children in terms of gender roles and norms. A branch of this research (Goldberg 2009; Berkowitz & Ryan 2011) has investigated the gender preferences sexual minority parents have for their children. The most often mentioned reasoning gay men mentioned for wanting girls, was that boy children would likely experience greater occurrences of discrimination on their sexuality for having two gay fathers than would girls. Lesbians who wanted boys oft cited their own gender-atypical interests and gender non-conformity as the rationale for their preference (Berkowitz & Ryan 2011). Research has detailed that sexual minority parents express concern about socializing their children to act in accordance with societal norms (Kane 2006; Berkowitz & Ryan 2011). Goldberg (2010: 132) states that “such concerns may lead some lesbian and gay parents to guide their children’s gender performance in such a way that their behavior will not be considered radical or deviant.”
In a Dutch study focused on gender development (Bos, van Balen, Sandfort, & vanden Boom, 2006) found that sons from lesbian mothers compared to single heterosexual mothers do not differ in terms of gender behavior or identity, or experiencing peer pressure to adhere to gender normative behaviors. The authors did find that sons from lesbian mothers displayed a lower sense of gender superiority, they attribute this finding to the fact that their positive experiences of fatherlessness. Biblarz and Stacey (2010: 14) state that “fatherlessness had trivial influence on gender development in children generally and particularly that it encouraged gender flexibility in boys more than girls.” These findings challenge the previous notions that two biological parents provide the most effective family structure to rear children, and is certainly an area of future research could expand on.
Stacey and Biblarz (2010) indicate that data comparable for children raised by single heterosexual mothers and children raised exclusively by men is needed to disentangle the impacts of gender and sexual orientation.
Discussion & Conclusions
The social and legal contexts in which same-sex marriage was debated has helped jumpstart research to better understand these emerging family forms. As the landscape of family forms changes, so must the research which attempts to understand these alternative family groups. Since access to legal same-sex marriage is so novel, there is not yet research that compares the children of married same-sex and different-sex couples. Despite this, scholars have achieved a surprisingly high degree of agreement that unmarried lesbian parents are raising children who develop at least as well as their counterparts with married heterosexual parents (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Stacey and Biblarz 2010; Tasker, 2005).
As Gary Gates (2015) points out, same-sex couples raising children provides researchers the opportunity to assess how parents divide labor without gender differences between spouses or partners. Early research regarding same-sex couples and parents tended to downplay differences in children raised by heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals in an effort to avoid producing scholarship which may be used to harm sexual minorities in a legal sense. Scholars are now more likely to acknowledge these differences as the political landscape around same-sex marriage and parenting is not as charged. This focus on differences may allow researchers to begin to tease out what sexual minority couples might reveal about the complexity of gender differences in parenting and their meanings (Bos and Sandfort 2010; Goldberg 2010; Stacey and Biblarz 2001; Berkowitz & Ryan 2011).
Despite significant limitations regarding data collection, and the recent advent of nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, both sociological and psychological research overwhelmingly show that children of same-sex parents do not experience worse developmental or health outcomes than similar children of opposite-sex parents. However, much of the literature regarding same-sex marriage has been drawn from largely white, middle-class samples. This limited view indicates the need to provide more intersectional approaches to shed light on the often-invisible groups who likely experience significant economic disadvantage and discrimination. Data collection targeted to these more marginalized groups is vital to understanding groups which have previously been invisible in the literature.
The literature also indicates that there is a substantial need to develop stronger theoretical frameworks which effectively guide research to better understand the mechanisms which undergird the experiences and outcomes of same-sex couples and their children.
References:
Berkowitz, D., & Ryan, M. (2011). Bathrooms, Baseball, and Bra Shopping: Lesbian and Gay Parents Talk about Engendering their Children. Sociological Perspectives, 54(3), 329-350.
Bos, H., Van Balen, F., & Van den Boom, D. (2007). Child Adjustment and Parenting in Planned Lesbian-Parent Families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(1), 38-48.
Cameron, Paul and Kirk Cameron. 1996. "Homosexual Parents." Adolescence 31:757-76.
Cameron, Paul, Kirk Cameron, and Thomas Landess. 1996. Errors by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Educational Association in Representing Homosexuality in Amicus Briefs about Amendment 2 to the U.S. Supreme Court. Psychological Reports 79:383-404.
Cavanagh, S., Schiller, K., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (2006). Marital Transitions, Parenting, and Schooling: Exploring the Link Between Family-Structure History and Adolescents' Academic Status. Sociology of Education, 79(4), 329-354.
Cherlin, A. (2010). Demographic Trends in the United States: A Review of Research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family,72(3), 403-419.
Cherlin, A. J. 2013. Health, Marriage, and Same-Sex Partnerships. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(1), 64-66
Civettini, N. 2016. Housework as Non-Normative Gender Display Among Lesbians and Gay Men. Sex Roles, 74(5-6), 206-219.
Crowl, A., Ahn, S., & Baker, J. (2008). A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(3), 385-407.
Denney, J., Gorman, B., & Barrera, C. (2013). Families, Resources, and Adult Health: Where Do Sexual Minorities Fit? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(1), 46-63.
Dillender, M. (2014). The Death of Marriage? The Effects of New Forms of Legal Recognition on Marriage Rates in the United States. Demography, 51(2), 563-585
Fomby, P., & Cherlin, A. (2007). Family Instability and Child Well-Being. American Sociological Review, 72(2), 181-204.
Fulcher, M., Sutfin, E. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). Individual differences in gender development: Associations with parental sexual orientation, attitudes, and division of labor. Sex Roles. 58, 330-341.
Gartrell, Nanette, & Bos, Henny. (2010). US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents. (Clinical report). Pediatrics, 126(1), 28-36.
Gates, G. (2015). Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples. The Future of Children, 25(2), 67-87.
Goldberg, A., & Kuvalanka, K. (2012). Marriage (In)equality: The Perspectives of Adolescents and Emerging Adults with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(1), 34-52.
Goldberg, A., & Smith, J. (2008). Social Support and Psychological Well-Being in Lesbian and Heterosexual Preadoptive Couples. Family Relations, 57(3), 281-294.
Goldberg, A. (2013). “Doing” and “Undoing” Gender: The Meaning and Division of Housework in Same‐Sex Couples. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(2), 85-104.
Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-Somers, J., Stevens, M., & Golding, J. (2003). Children with lesbian parents: A community study. Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 20-33.
Heck, Julia E., Randall L. Sell, and Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin. 2006. Health Care Access Among Individuals Involved in Same-Sex Relationships. American Journal of Public Health. (96) 6: 1111-118.
Liu, H., Reczek, C., & Brown, D. (2013). Same-Sex Cohabitors and Health: The Role of Race-Ethnicity, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,54(1), 25-45.
Liu, Hui, Corinne Reczek, and Dustin Brown. 2013. "Same-Sex Cohabitors and Health: The Role of Race- Ethnicity, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status." Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 54.
Patterson, C, and Wainright, J. (2012). Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, in Adoption by Lesbians and Gay Men: A New Dimension in Family Diversity, ed. David M. Brodzinsky and Adam Pertman. New York: Oxford University Press. 85-111.
Potter, D. (2012). Same-Sex Parent Families and Children's Academic Achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(3), 556-571
Reczek, C., Liu, H., & Spiker, R. 2014. “A Population-Based Study of Alcohol Use in Same-Sex and Different-Sex Unions.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(3): 557-572.
Rosenfeld, M. (2010). Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School. Demography ,47(3), 755-775
Ross, Catherine, and John Mirowsky. "Refining the Association between Education and Health: The Effects of Quantity, Credential, and Selectivity." Demography 36 (1999): 445-460.
Stacey, J. (2006). Gay Parenthood and the Decline of Paternity as We Knew It. Sexualities, 9(1), 27-55.
Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. (2001). (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review,66(2), 159-183.
Sun, Yongmin, & Li, Yuanzhang. (2009). Postdivorce Family Stability and Changes in Adolescents' Academic Performance: A Growth-Curve Model. Journal of Family Issues, 30(11), 1527-1555.
Sun, Yongmin, & Li, Yuanzhang. (2011). Effects of Family Structure Type and Stability on Children's Academic Performance Trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(3), 541-556.
Tasker, F. (2010). Same-Sex Parenting and Child Development: Reviewing the Contribution of Parental Gender. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 35-40.
The Des Moines Register. (2011, June 27). Santorum: Same-sex marriage undermines marriage, faith. Retrieved from http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/201 1/06/27/santorum-same-sex-marriage- undermines-marriage-faith/
Wainright, J., Russell, S., & Patterson, C. (2004). Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents. Child Development, 75(6), 1886-1898.
Wardle, Lynn D. 1997. The Potential Impact of Homosexual Parenting on Children. University of Illinois Law Review 1997:833-919.