Same-Sex “Marriage”: The Victims. The Children.

Kelli - flags

Kelli - flags

The Supreme Court ruling on same-sex “marriage” settled the legal question, but the debates go on regarding the social and moral   ramifications.

How do supporters of traditional marriage change the hearts and minds of people that support same-sex unions?

The argument for tradition doesn’t hold much sway with secularists who place little value on it and want to fundamentally transform society. Psychiatrist Dr. Greg Popcak, popular guest on Catholic TV and radio shows says. “If you bring up the Bible and religion, some people will say, ‘I don’t believe in the Bible and I don’t care what your religion says.’”

A better approach to the same-sex “marriage” argument.

Dr. Greg Popcak is co-host of a radio show, the Executive Director of the Pastoral Solutions Institute, and the author of Broken Gods: Hope, Healing, and the Seven Longings of the Human Heart, and he thinks that a better approach is from the point of view of the children. Speaking on a recent radio show

(Listen here, June 29, Hour 2) he offered these benefits that a traditional marriage has for children that same-sex “marriage” doesn’t have:

  1. It unites children to their natural mother and father like no other institution. Divorce, co-habitation, adoption, surrogate parenthood, laboratory produced children, all of those are offenses against the child’s rights. Some of them grave offenses.
  2.  No other institution protects the financial security of women better. While many women do have careers only 37% of women have college degrees. In divorce women usually fare much worse financially. As divorce and co-habitation increase, family poverty increases.
  3. Marriage socializes men. This may sound laughable but studies show that 69% of violent crime against women is committed by single men. Only 9% of married men commit violent crimes against women. When couples are married there is more at stake and crime goes down. In same-sex marriages violence against intimate partners is significantly higher. Marriage doesn’t have the same effect.
  4.  Traditional marriage sustains fertility rates. Married couples have more children than any other group. Today de-population is the most serious social problem affecting the west.

Hammurabi saw benefits of traditional marriage 3800 years ago.

Dr. Popcak also added that marriage first held an exalted position in society in 1800 BC. Then pagan Babylonia was very liberal sexually but King Hammurabi saw the same benefits that traditional marriage had for his kingdom that we see today: that it helps children to know their natural parents and it sustains the population. He made marriage protections and laws and exalted it to the highest relationship in his kingdom.

However, our children today are being indoctrinated in the schools to the opposite way of thinking. Middle schoolers in Iowa learned about homosexual sex techniques at an Anti-Bullying Conference. We should be teaching them about the risks involved.

EWTN’s Fr. Mitch Pacwa said on July 21 on Threshold of Hope, “It is a high risk way of life. [Young men following it] have a life expectancy of 46 to 47 years according to Dr. Richard Wetzel MD’s book Sexual Wisdom. It is dangerous because it goes contrary to the way human beings are made.”

The National LGBT Cancer Network says in “Anal Cancer, HIV and Gay/Bisexual Men, current estimates are that HIV negative MSMs (males having sex with males) are 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer. Those with HIV positive are 40 times more likely.

Gay men are 27 times more likely to develop HIV/AIDS according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Based on reason: philosophy, law, political science, and social science.

Ryan T. Anderson, PhD. in Political Philosophy, of The Heritage Foundation has written a brand new book (now available on Kindle) defending traditional marriage since the Obergefell v. Casey decision: Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom (Regnery Books, July 2015).

He deftly presents his arguments based on reason: philosophy, law, political science, and social science. He covers the definition of marriage, why marriage is vital to society, the opinions of the Court, why opposition to same-sex “marriage” is not the same as racial discrimination, the status and future of religious freedom, the problems that the redefinition of marriage will bring, and the battle plan to continue the fight.

The chapter that surprised me the most, and I hope will be new information for our readers, is the one entitled “The Victims, The Children”. Mr. Anderson presents a mountain of well-researched and incisive sociological research.

The biological mother and father are best for child rearing.

I selected a few findings that I think you will find very informative. The testimony of the children of same-sex couples is most heartbreaking:

  1. When you check into a hospital in labor, you want to go home with your baby, not any baby. [i]
  2. Biology, sexual complementarity, and stability, are the 3 reasons that marriage matters and are the 3 key childrearing advantages. So with respect to two of the three main childrearing advantages, same-sex parenting cannot provide what a married mother and father can.
  3. David Popenoe, the Rutgers sociologist, “We should disavow the popular notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as ‘daddies can make good mommies.’ . . . The two are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the development of a human being.’” [ii]
  4. Reliable studies show that children raised by same-sex couples fare substantially worse—most measures found they had
  5. at least twice the level of distress—than do children with opposite-sex parents on psychological, developmental and emotional outcomes. [iii]
  6. Outcomes for children with same-sex parents were notably worse if their parents were married. . . .
  7. Same-sex parents, changing from unmarried to married substantially degrades child well-being.
  8. The longer children reside with same-sex parents, the worse the outcomes.
  9. An amicus brief filed in the Obergefell case by over one hundred scholars of marriage (the “scholars’ brief”)—stated that where marriage has been redefined, the institution of marriage has been damaged, and this damage affects the children of heterosexuals.
  10. After the adoption of same-sex marriage the opposite-sex marriage rate declined by [at] least five percent compared to a national marriage rate that, in the past few years, has been fairly stable. [iv]
  11. Professor James B. Londregan, “A picture emerges: in a cross-section of children raised by parents in same-sex relationships, life outcomes tend to resemble those of children raised by single or divorced parents.”
  12. More Catholic adoption agencies who do the bulk of the placements will most likely have to close rather than comply with same-sex adoptions. They’ve already closed in Massachusetts, Illinois, and the District of Columbia.

Statements from children from same-sex households.

  1. Adults in this scenario satisfy their heart’s desires, while the child bears the most cost: missing out on one or more of her biological parents. [vi]
  2. This is about the “missing parent.” Structure matters, and same-sex marriage institutionalizes missing parents.
  3. When one is absent, that absence leaves a lifelong gaping wound. [vi]
  4. Just because children are raised under the rainbow doesn’t miraculously wipe away all the negative effects and pain surrounding the loss and daily deprivation of one or both parents. [vi]
  5. Do not fall prey to the false narrative that adult feelings should trump children’s rights. The onus must be on adults to conform to the needs of children, not the other way around. [vi]
  6. It is strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary.
  7. A psychologist told him [a child raised by same-sex couple] that his aching sadness on Mother’s Day was the result of homophobia. [vii]
  8. The younger generation of children of gays has lived with an enormous amount of surveillance and speech policing.
  9. Contacting friends and relatives to apply pressure on them and alienate them from social support if they speak negatively about their family experiences. [vii]

We are called to be saints.

Just as Roe v. Wade wasn’t settled in 1973, significant victories are being won every day; this new struggle to preserve and protect traditional marriage by definition and consecration has just begun. As we carry on this fight to uphold traditional marriage as ordained by God with word and deed—and always with charity and compassion for our brothers and sisters—may we not forget who we are fighting for: the children.

Perilous times call for great saints. Are we ready to answer the call and become great saints?



[i] Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: The Significance of Parental Cohabitation”

[ii] David Popenoe, Life without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society

[iii] Loren D. Marks, Mark D. Regnerus and Donald Paul Sullins in Support of Respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges, 3

[iv] Brief of Amici Curiae 100 Scholars of Marriage in Support of Respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges

[v] James B. Londregan, “Same-Sex Parenting: Unpacking the Social Science,” Public Discourse Institute), February 24, 2015,

[vi] Katy Faust, “Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parents” 


[vi] Amicus Briefs/13-556 Robert Oscar Lopez and B. N. Klein in Support of Respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges, 7.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

40 thoughts on “Same-Sex “Marriage”: The Victims. The Children.”

  1. Jamey my best and blessed friend, you as always share some great points here. I would only add that, as a man with SSA, I firmly believe in the need for 2 opposite sex parents too. Much has been said about straight children with same-sex parents, and far less about my situation or similar. But both point to the need for a parent of each inborn gender. Good stuff.

    1. Thank you for your very brave voice on this, Richard. The world really needs to hear it. What a blessing you are, friend.

  2. Thank you Jamey for staying the course and tenaciously countering your detractors! Just two more points. Ryan Anderson eloquently writes that it was the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention that campaigned strongly for the Lovings in Loving v. Virginia. Do not let anyone equate the color of one’s skin to their inability to perform sexual intercourse. The church had an obvious motive in promoting valid marriage for the Lovings (and all eligible heterosexuals) over the alternatives.

    Second, even though the evidence is anecdotal, there seems to be a marked difference between adoptive hetero parents and adoptive homosexual parents when their children ask about their biological parents. There seems to be a marked paranoia among homosexual caregivers when a child wants to know where they came from. Particularly poignant was the story of the depressed son of two lesbians who was sent to a lesbian psychiatrist. He was frustrated because he wanted to know his dad and could not. The diagnosis was that he was homophobic. In a culture that promotes going with what makes one “feel good,” why did this family drop the ball?

    1. Thanks so much, Ann. That meant a lot to me. I have read some of your comments and it fires me up to know that you are using Ryan Anderson’s research also. His book will be a text book in this debate. Thanks for the additional points and keep up the good fight.

  3. “In same-sex marriages violence against intimate partners is significantly higher. Marriage doesn’t have the same effect.” Yes, specifically because there is no real marriage. My guess, the children coming out of these so-called ‘marriages’ will be the ones who will destroy the rosy-glassed lies that support them because they will have lived with and witnessed the truth about the disorder of these relationships. They will also know the true agendas behind them- first-hand. More than a few have already come out with the truth.

    1. Thanks, Windsong, for quoting Dr. Popcak. I’ve been putting this data out there for a month because it so astounded me. And you were the first to use. It really lifted my heart.

    2. jamey brown, out of the mouths of babes the Truth will come, Jesus said so Himself…has nothing to do with me, I just remembered Jesus said so 🙂 it’s just Truth. God is so good!

    3. Isn’t it One-derful how our minds call up the words of Jesus at exactly the right time? “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matt.18:6)

  4. Excellent article with all of the important data in one location. Thank you, Jamey! As Catholics, we must not be afraid to be compassionately strong in support of the truth of this matter, as well as the heinous crimes taking place in the cutting rooms of Planned Parenthood. No whitewash—-or rainbow—-can change the truth.
    Thank you!

    1. I’m right with you, Cindy. We Catholics have this font of wisdom to draw on, and we must tell the truth. “We will be hurt,” said Msgr. Charles Pope the “Kresta in the Afternoon” radio show July 29 (Hour 2)

      But, hey, we have always been hurt, since 33 AD. Now with the atrocities at Planned Parenthood we can go for the juggler. Even their name is such a lie: it’s not about parenthood at all, it about unparenthood. It should be called P.H.O.B.O.—Planned Harvesting of Baby Organs.

  5. I’m having trouble making any sense of the four, main premises of your argument. 1) Marriages between heterosexuals will still bind children to their mothers and fathers. LIkewise, children of same gender parents will also be bound to their same gender parents. While both would not be biological, it is no different than the way marriages of heterosexual parents binds them to their adopted children. 2) How does denying gay people the right to marry make women more financially stable? And if “divorce and co-habitation” cause more poverty, wouldn’t that be an argument IN FAVOR of allowing gay couples to marry rather than simply co-habitate? 3) Have you seen a study that shows married gay men have more or less violence in their relationships than unmarried gay male couples? If gay men who marry each other are less violent than gay men who merely co-habitate, wouldn’t that, too, be an argument IN FAVOR of allowing gay men to marry?? 4) How does denying gay couples the right to marry affect the population? Are you saying that unmarried gay couples are somehow more likely to have children than married gay couples? All of these points, at best, fail to show any correlation and, at worst, point to reasons IN FAVOR of equal marriage rights. Finally, why are you not using all of your arguments to outlaw single parent adoptions (who account for 1/3 of adoptions vs. a small percentage applied to gay couples!)? If this is all about children being entitled to mothers and fathers, why should Catholic adoption agencies be facilitating single-parent adoptions? Face it. The battle’s over.

    1. Didn’t you read the OP? “Biological” mothers and fathers have the 3 main advantages for child-rearing: biology, sexual compatibility, and stability. In fact, lesbian couples are the least stable; not because of sexual orientation, but because of gender. Women file for divorce more than men because they want more emotional quality in relationships.

      Same-sex adoptions do not bind children to their biological mothers and fathers. “Parent” is a very weak term compared to “mother” or “father.” Please read the OP before commenting, most answers are right there in the items quoted, i.e. #10. Where same-sex “marriage” is legalized, overall marriage rates decline at least 5%. (In Massachusetts 8.9%). i.e. Dr. Popcak #3… In same-sex marriages violence against intimate partners is significantly higher. Marriage doesn’t have the same effect.

      “There are some international programs which accept single applicants. We usually require that couples be married for a minimum of two years at the time of the application.”

      You wish the battle were over. If it were, you wouldn’t be so wildly, and inaccurately, arguing your side.

    2. Actually the battle is going to be intensified. This trend of creating surprises out of thin air like David Blaine, will continue when SCOTUS gets the first polygamy case. This all goes at the speed of government of course – like a glacier.

    3. how did disallowing gay people to marry result in more children living with both biological parents? i would assume you agree that adoptions by heterosexual couples also do not bind children to their biological parents? adoption agencies across the country place children with single parents, including catholic adoption agencies. can you send me the link to the peer-reviewed study that says marriage does not reduce the incidence of domestic violence for gay men the way it does for straight men? or the one that says married lesbian relationships are no more stable than unmarried lesbian relationships? you do know that marriage rates have been declining all across the country, not just states that have marriage equality? i know the legal battle is over and won. it will take time to trickle its way down just like it has with the introduction of racial and gender equality. nothing i have stated is the least bit wild or inaccurate, unlike the overwhelmingly discredited “studies” your side has so miserably failed at convincing judges, physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists and a strong majority of the most educated segments of society to take even remotely seriously. straight couples can still marry. gay couples can, too. the sky isn’t falling.

    4. The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that “same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent.”

      Lesbian couples’ instability:

      Lawrence A. Kurdeck, “What Do We Know About Gay and Lesbian Couples?,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 14, no. 5 (Oct. 1, 2005): 251-54; and Gunnar Andersson et al., “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden,” Demography 43, no. 1 (2006): 79-98.

      You obviously have a reading comprehension problem or else you didn’t read the OP or my comments. Ask an adult or your teacher to explain it to you, for example #10 After the adoption of same-sex marriage the opposite-sex marriage rate declined by [at] least five percent (Mass. 8.9%) compared to a national marriage rate that, in the past few years, has been fairly stable. [iv]

      You haven’t answered my question. Aren’t you concerned about the higher disease rates, and lowered longevity of gay males?

    5. Again, to stay above the pettiness, let me ask you this. If marriage equality is found to reduce incidents of violence and std rates and increase stability among LGBT couples and individuals, would you then agree that marriage equality is a good thing? You also seem not to grasp that causation and correlation are two different things. How allowing gay couples to marry has any rational bearing on the marriage rate of heterosexuals is simply ludicrous, as is the notion that your sense of my articulateness or comprehension levels have anything to do with why my responses induce such petty retorts on your part rather than the reality that they simply demonstrate how your arguments do not hold up.

    6. Answered in OP. Didn’t you read it? Obviously not. Please read before commenting. Read Dr. Popcak #3… In same-sex marriages violence against intimate partners is significantly higher. Marriage doesn’t have the same effect.

  6. Jamey, a good presentation that shows that this argument is not over and that it can be won from a non-specific religious perspective. Anyone who thinks deeply about the future of humanity sees the absurd rejection of our creation being substituted with a flawed ideology based on a complete acquiescence to unhealthy divergent desires. Not a slippery slope, but a disastrous avalanche.

    1. Very articulately said, Howard. Thank you. I just wanted to get some of Drs. Ryan Anderson, Greg Popcak, and Richard Wetzel’s sociological, and medical statements out there.

  7. Jamey,

    A well-thought out and researched post, as usual. You present the Catholic position very well and, of course, I respect that position. These are thoughts and opinions that should be considered and I am sure have been.

    While I would take exception to many arguments, it’s important to focus on reality of the children. You indicate that the children of same sex couples do not fair well compared to their peers. That statement is very questionable and should be presented in that context. Let’s look at the data:

    Here are abstracts of major studies for journalists by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

    Here is the detailed and highly footnoted research by the APA

    World’s largest study that indicates kids of same sex parents are as or more healthy and happy than peers

    Boston University

    It is necessary to present all sides of the argument when examining whether kids f gay couples fair better or worse….research indicates they fare as well and in some cases better. There are some smaller scale conflicting studies.
    On a personal note, as a retired high school principal. I can assure you that the parents who were gay coupled cared for their kids with great love and intensity; these kids often rose to the top in terms of scholarship, behavior and empathy. This is personal observation of 30 years.
    Catholics should believe what their Church presents them with, I do not argue that point. I simply assert that kids of gay couples far at least as well. That should be known and acknowledged. Blessings, again well presented, just presenting the other side.

    1. Thanks, Phil, for your very, very courteous reply. Ryan Anderson goes into great detail in his book explaining how much of his data is from 40 year studies, many of them longitudinal (the same children questioned over many years). He states in detail how the APA used a lot of very small sample groups, and often from disproportionately large numbers of SSM couples who were from high income and highly educated groups.
      Mr. Anderson used prestigious sources such as Brief Amicus Curiae signed by 100 scholars in support of respondents Obergefell v. Hodges 2; Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles signed by 70 scholars; American Sociological Review; Developmental Psychology; and the Journal of Adolescents.

    2. All of such “sources” cited by Ryan, you realize, are overwhelmingly discredited by mainstream medical and psychiatric associations and representatives.

    3. Ryan Anderson devotes several well-documented pages to this mass media firestorm in his Notes (the same MM that vociferously defends a Planned Baby Killing…I mean, Planned Parenthood director selling human baby organs because “I want a Lamborgini!”).

      Anderson: “The true objection of the APA (American Psychological Association) and ASA (American Sociological Association) to Sullins’s articles has nothing to do with their scientific rigor, but with his findings, which do not conform to the ideology of harm denial. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, the APA and ASA will doubtless continue to deny that any study has found evidence of harm to children with same-sex parents.”

    4. Thank you for another unlinked chain of thought.
      So The National LGBT Cancer Network, and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are not credible either? Interesting?

    5. Neither of those organizations have anything to do with the well being of children in relation to their parents, which is the supposed point of his argument.

    6. Wow! You can’t connect that children living with parents with a life expectancy of 47 years and a 20 times higher chance of getting anal cancer, and a 27 times higher chance of getting AIDS would not be affected?

  8. In one sense, Yes, the Supreme Court ruling “settled” the legal question. In another sense – Not! The Dred Scott decision did not settle the question of AfricanAmericans declared to be, by the highest Court in the land, subhuman property. Plessy v Ferguson 1897 did not settle the question that “separate African Americans = equal Anglo Americans”, although that is what the highest Court in the land ruled. And look around at what has happened since 1973-the Supreme Court did NOT settle the legal question by ruling that children in their mothers’ wombs are not legal persons. In Roe, 7 justices [hard to believe they are referred to as “justices”] overruled all the people in 48 states, 7 SCt votes outvoted the voters in 48 states. Similarly re “sodo-marraige” today – almost everywhere it was put to a vote it was voted down; and now 5 “justices” have outvoted all the these voters. Jamey thanks again for a poignant thought-provoking article. Guy McClung, San Antonio TX

    1. Thanks, Guy, for bringing up some vital points. Just like abortion, this one will not be settled for a long, long time.

    2. reality check. a decision denying the very humanity of an entire race is equivalent to allowing same gender couples to marry? seriously? the closer comparison is inter-racial marriages. when the supreme court struck down bans on interracial marriages, less than 25% of the population believed interracial marriages should be legal. a far greater percentage already favors same gender marriages. there will be no mass demonstrations against marriage equality — at least no more than the paltry few thousand (at best) who turned up for a so called “national” demonstration.

    3. john, you continue the same old tired argument style used by homosexuals that distorts meaning. I don’t know if this is intentional or just a habit that has burned itself into that mentality.

      Equivalency exists in that both are SCOTUS cases. The claim is that “settled” (a term fondly used by lawyers) is not the same as over with or ended. Your comparison on the other hand appeals to the shifting support of the entire population, a dubious friend in this climate of social degradation.

    4. john,you’re not clear. Do you mean yesterday’s #WomenBetrayed rallies against Planned Termination…I mean, Planned Parenthood? So, I take it, you support selling baby organs to buy PP executives Lamborginis?

      PP also gives STI and HIV/AIDs tests. Doesn’t the gay male’s 27 times more likelihood to get AIDs and 20 times more likelihood to get anal cancer concern you? Or their life expectancy of 47 years, sound terrifying to you?

    5. Reported by via emal:

      “In Washington, D.C. not only did we have Fox and MSNBC live-streaming our rally with every national news outlet in attendance, 3 presidential candidates showed up: Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul, and Dr. Ben Carson. Across the country, our #WomenBetrayed hashtag trended on Twitter and Facebook with even Planned Parenthood’s own social media accounts filled up with our messages. Our rallies were so big the mainstream media couldn’t ignore them.

      Bill O’Reilly, Bret Baier, and Neil Cavuto all dedicated segments yesterday to the story that rallies were rising up everywhere across the nation with women
      calling for federal defunding of Planned Parenthood.

      So far, our news monitoring service has told us that they’ve captured 174 TV
      stories alone about the rallies and that between print and tv coverage, more
      than 300 million saw our message, totaling more than $5 million in earned media coverage.”

    6. Now that’s some really Good News! We’ll turn those ghouls’ headquarters into a cathedral.

    7. i meant exactly what i said. marriage equality is not abortion. the more apt comparison is interracial marriage. time will tell. and i have little doubt which it will more closely resemble.

    8. But you said it so inarticulately nobody knows what you meant. But that’s okay, right john, you probably don’t know either?

    9. look, i’ll take the hit if it makes you feel better. though i disagree with your analysis of my argument, i have no interest in petty arguments. i think what you are really angry about is you DO get my points but you can’t accept the reality of them. if, in fact, this argument were still alive and well, you would see some fierce resistance by more than a few, marginal, presidential candidates and a handful of county clerks. you have never addressed how stopping gay people from marrying will somehow enable more children to live with their biological parents, lead to more security for women or result in more babies being born. why haven’t you? because stopping marriage equality will do no such things.

    10. Are you so furious you can’t even follow a train of thought anymore? Look, in countries or states where SSM has been legalized marriage rates—which have been fairly unchanged in recent years—go down at least 5%. Tragically, 8.9% in Massachusetts. When marriage rates go down, more children are raised in households without BOTH biological parents, and family poverty goes up. Look at the links I posted before. I’m not gonna explain it again. Read #11.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: