Transcript of Press Teleconference on LGBT Parenting Research

Listen to this teleconference call

OPERATOR: Welcome to the Soulforce and Truth Wins Out Telephone press conference on LGBT parenting research. At this time all participants are in a listen only mode. Later we will conduct a question and answer session. I would now like to turn the call over to Cathy Renna. Miss Renna you may begin.

CATHY RENNA [MODERATOR]: Thank you very much, my name is Cathy Renna, I'm with Renna Communications, I'm going to be moderating this call. I just want to give you a little bit of structure for the call. I'll introduce the speakers, we'll spell their names. There are full Bio's available on each of the speakers on the Soulforce website, and if you need those I can direct you to those at the end of the call. Then following each speaker's comments, we will have a Q&A session and the operator will give you directions on how to get into the que for questions. So with that I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Jeff Lutes, J-e-f-f L-u-t-e-s, he's the executive director of Soulforce. Jeff...

JEFF LUTES: Thanks Cathy and welcome everyone. Soulforce and Truth Wins Out convened this press conference to speak out about an alarming disinformation campaign in America that we believe is destroying families. Those who oppose civil equality for gays and lesbians are actively distorting, cherry-picking, and misrepresenting the social science research in their attempts to justify discrimination. James Dobson's December article in Time magazine, about the pregnancy of Mary Cheney and her partner, is perhaps the most recent and well known example of that kind of distortion. The problem is that the general public reads articles like Dobson's, and believes mistakenly that research supports discrimination against same gender parents and their children, and unfortunately, the media often reports these distortions without investigating and fact checking them. Politicians and legislators then use that misinformation to pass bans on marriage equality, as well as foster parenting and adoption by same gender parents.

In my state of Texas for example, we're anticipating legislative efforts this year to discriminate against same gender foster parents, and this is where for me, the abstract becomes personal. Because my partner and I have an adopted son and two foster children. So while the Texas child protective services thanks us for the stable environment we're providing our children, anti-gay politicians seek to break us apart. When child protective services is telling us they see positive changes in the children since being in our home, legislators are working to make sure that we can never again help children in need. Unfortunately Texas is not the only state facing those discriminatory measures. So today we hope to shed some light on what the reputable mainstream research says about lesbian and gay people, and the loving families that they create. And give you some specific examples of how such research is distorted, so that you, the media, will recognize it and correct such distortions when you hear them in the future. So we thank you for joining us on the call today. Thanks Cathy.

CATHY RENNA [MODERATOR]: Great, thanks Jeff. Our next speaker is Wayne Besen. Wayne - traditional spelling, Last name B-E-S-E-N. Wayne is the Executive Director of Truth Wins Out. Wayne...

WAYNE BESEN: When I - This summer I saw an article by Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc from the University of British Columbia, and not long after I saw it, Focus on the Family had said her study said that lesbians committed suicide at a higher rate because nobody told them that they could change sexual orientations. It was absolutely such an absurd reading of the study I thought; the researcher couldn't have meant this. So I called Elizabeth Saewyc and I said, did you see how your study's been used? And she was shocked, and spoke out about this. And later on in the year as Jeff pointed out with Time magazine, Dr. Dobson quoted two other researchers, Dr. Carol Gilligan from NYU and Dr. Kyle Pruett from the Yale School of Medicine, and once again I said this can't be, and I called them as well. And then I called another Doctor, Dr. Robert Spitzer, and Dr. Angela Phillips, another researcher. And all of them in their words were mortified, of the way their research was manipulated and cherry picked. And I think the moral of the story here is - I'm five for five, Soulforce has called other researchers. And we have - Soulforce and Truth Wins Out have yet to be turned down by a mainstream researcher that wasn't absolutely floored by the way their research was distorted. So I think the question becomes - not just with Focus on the Family but with the Religious Right in general - is not will they misrepresent research, the bigger question is have they told the truth yet? And there's no evidence that they have told the truth on any of this research relating to GLBT families.

So, why are they doing this? Simple, they have base, it's a very powerful base in America, it's, looking at election polls, between 25 and 33%, based upon election returns it's a fair number. However that does not give you a majority to pass legislation that would discriminate against GLBT families. So if you can't win on scripture you have to coopt the science. And I think this is the effort that we're seeing right now.

But it's frustrating because I don't think they have much credibility left and today Truth Wins Out launched a new website called Respect My Research dot org (www.respectmyresearch.org) which is inviting scientists who've had their research manipulated, cherry picked or twisted, to report this distortion. We also list examples from truth wins out and Soulforce of researchers we've spoken to.

Ultimately I'll end by saying that, since they've lost their credibility I think it's so important to check out every fact they say and I think if they can't prove it, don't use it. Thank You.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great, thanks Wayne. I should also mention that on both Soulforce and Truth Wins Out's websites, they have links to the video - with a variety of these researchers including Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett.

Dr. Judith Stacey who's with the department of Sociology at New York University here in New York has spoken extensively about this, and we really appreciate her joining us on the call. Dr. Stacey...

DR. JUDITH STACEY: Thank you, thank you for having me. I'm participating today because I'm one of the researchers, such as the one's that Wayne mentioned, who've had her publications distorted and misused, not only by Focus on the Family, but after them and through others - by many mainstream newspaper columnists and many court cases and judges etc. So I've wound up spending a lot of time trying to correct the record. And it really is troubling to see things that one has published and worked on very carefully taken out of context.

In particular the Time Magazine article that's been mentioned several times, that one did not mention me in particular, but it has now been picked up and many very respectable journalists have believed the kinds of claims that are made there. I want to speak - I'm thinking for example of Leonard Pitts who is very positive in general about gay rights but has written recently that this is the one time that he agrees with Dr. Dobson that children need fathers. I want to speak to that issue because I think that it's an issue that journalists and many researchers often misunderstand.

It's very important to - it makes a lot of sense to people and it intuitively feels right to say that children do best if they are raised by a mother and a father, and that men and women are not interchangeable, and these are the claims that are made over and over again. Well of course men and women are not interchangeable, no two people are interchangeable, but that is not what the research shows at all. And I would like to explain the major distortion that's going on there.

When people say that "thousands of studies have demonstrated that," first of all that's rhetorical, there are not thousands of studies on that issue, but secondly, they are not talking about research that has ever studied gay and lesbian parents. They are talking about research that by and large demonstrates that children who grow up with two parents, two heterosexual parents, are on average better off than children who grow up with one heterosexual parent. They are mainly looking at the research that compares children who's parents have divorced and then are being raised by one of them, or children who are born outside of marriage, with children who are still in a married couple family. None of that research is the research that has compared gay and lesbian parents with heterosexual parents. So it's a real confusion and it's an easy confusion to make, and those are the studies they're citing.

In fact, when you look, as I have with my colleague Tim Biblarz at the University of Southern California, at all of the research that has been published that does look at lesbian and gay parents, though primarily lesbian parents, because the research on gay men who are parenting is still too young - all of those studies find that the children with lesbian parents, if you compare two lesbian parents with a heterosexual married couple, those children do at least as well as the children with the heterosexual parents. The same thing is true when you compare children raised by a single lesbian mother and children raised by a single heterosexual mother.

There are some minor differences, and Dobson and Focus on the Family have used the fact that Tim Biblarz and I say there are some mild differences to say that we disagree with all the researchers that say that gay and lesbian parenting is as good as heterosexual parenting. But that is also a distortion, because we say, accurately reading the research, that differences are by no means necessarily disadvantages. In fact, on average, planned lesbian co-parents - parents like Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, who make the decision to parent together - their children have some small advantages on average, over the average child who is raised by heterosexual married couples. Not because lesbianism is better than heterosexuality, but because those are children who are so deeply wanted that they have been selected, and typically parents like Mary Cheney and Heather Poe are a bit older, more educated, have better resources, and have made a very careful decision to parent.

So the main problem that children raised by lesbian and gay parents have, compared to other children, is the social stigma and the discrimination that those families face, and that's something that this kind of distortion only makes worse. So I really would wish that journalists would take the time to speak to the researchers directly, and to check out the articles themselves and not believe the claims that are made over and over again about what "thousands of studies say." Thank You.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great, thank you very much Dr. Stacey.

Our next speaker is Dr. Serena Volpp. The first name is spelled S-E-R-E-N-A, last name V-O-L-P-P. She is the chair of the committee on gay and lesbian, bisexual issues, for the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Volpp...

DR. SERENA VOLPP: Thanks Cathy. Since 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder, the APA has deplored all discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people. More specifically in terms of gay and lesbian parenting, in 2002 the APA passed a position statement in support of the rights of same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children. This position was based on the fact that - and I quote from the statement itself:

"Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientations -- as professor Stacey was just mentioning -- do better than children with only one parent."

And I would be happy to answer any other questions about the position of the APA on this.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great, thank you Dr. Volpp.

Our next speaker is Dr. Brian J. Dew, with the American Counseling Association. Dr. Dew...

DR. BRIAN J. DEW: Great, thanks. As president of the American Counseling Association's - Association for Gay and Lesbian & Bisexual Issues and Counseling, it's an honor to talk today about an issue that many of our members feel so passionately about. In fact the timing today could not be better as the American Counseling Association just elected an openly gay person, Dr. Colleen Logan in DC as president elect for it's nearly 41,000 members. Dr. Logan and her partner are the proud parents of a baby boy, and of course are incredibly passionate about equality for GLB persons who are seeking to become, or who are already parents. So you can look to the American Counseling Association to take even more proactive stances regarding this issue in the next two years.

Personally, as a representative of ACA, I also have a history that started out within a very conservative Baptist Church, so I kind of bring a unique approach/perspective on this issue I believe.

The American Counseling Association stands along side such mainstream professional organizations as we just heard, the American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Bar Association, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, in favoring the view that the adjustment, development, and psychological well being of children, is really unrelated to parental sexual orientation. And that the children of these gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those from heterosexual parents to flourish.

It is important to note that the endorsement of these organizations does not, and I mean does not represent a small minority of pro-gay persons that have somehow infiltrated and pressured the larger membership of such organizations. Rather - I know in the American Counseling Association - passage of a 2004 resolution regarding the rights of GLB parents to foster and to be parents - that decision was unanimous by all 19 divisions of the American Counseling Association. Not one single division, including the Association for Marriage and Family Therapists opposed this measure.

Dr. Volpp I believe, and Dr. Stacy clearly articulated the research that's already been done to discriminate against GLB persons from both parenting, and in really my opinion from obtaining full societal acceptance, as well as highlight the lack of psychological and adjustment distinctions between children raised in/by heterosexual homes as same-sex homes. So I'm not going to spend a great deal of time refuting particular studies that promote discrimination, or talk about the - how self esteem, psychological adjustment, anxiety, family relationships, are similar in families where you compare apples to apples, so to speak.

However what members of the American Counseling Association have witnessed, especially among school counselors - which is one of ACA's largest divisions - what we've noticed is the impact of homo-prejudice on the lives of these children.

It is true that children of lesbian and gay parents may encounter some anti-gay sentiments in their daily lives. I remember so clearly upon hearing a statement by Dr. Kevin Jennings who is the, excuse me, Kevin Jennings who is the founder and president of the Gay and Lesbian Straight Education Network, GLSEN, was once quoted as saying that the hallways of our schools are the most homophobic places in America.

And in a study that was conducted, I believe in 2005 by Gartrell & Associates - Dr. Gartrell - they found that a substantial minority of children raised in homes where gay and lesbian parents, had encountered some anti-gay sentiments among their peers. And their school counselors are reporting that children are feeling upset, sad, angry, after hearing these sentiments.

But what I want to stress here is that our school counselors are noting that it's the children not only from homes where gay and lesbian parents are raising the children, but also children not from homes with gay and lesbian parents. These are children who are raised in heterosexual homes who are seeing their peers, and their friends, and their neighbors - who are being discriminated against - as causing these children as well as children from gay and lesbian homes to have negative reactions. But I want to be very clear that even though these children are reacting in this way, there has been no documentation, there remains no evidence that such encounters are impacting children's overall adjustment. That evidence is simply lacking.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great, thank you Dr. Dew.

Our next speaker is Dr. Clinton Anderson. Anderson spelled A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N. He is the director of the Office of Gay and Lesbian and Bisexual Concerns for the American Psychological Association.

DR. CLINTON ANDERSON: Hello, good morning. Just to correct one thing, we actually use the order Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns in our title of the Office.

I wanted to just point out that APA is always available to the media to provide interviews, to provide referrals to experts in the field, and we also have quite substantial documentation of research issues that are available for you. Our media - our Public Affairs Office can always be reached at 202-336-5700, and they can always get you to me if you need to talk to someone about the APA's positions. My office website is also a resource available to you. APA has a number of policy statements that provide substantial information that I think could be helpful to you in writing stories. In particular in this area we have policies on sexual orientation and marriage, and on sexual orientation parenting and children.

We also file Amicus briefs, some of which we file jointly with the American Psychiatric Association and with the National Association of Social Workers, on cases challenging same-sex marriage and parenting issues in the state, and those briefs are often very informative to people trying to understand the research.

And the last resource I just wanted to point out for you is a document called Lesbian and Gay Parenting, that involves a substantive research summary and also an annotated bibliography, and again, I think for media who are trying to get good background information it's an excellent resource.

Regarding the topic that is our focus today, I just wanted to make two quick points. First of all, forming public policy for children should be ultimately driven by the best interests of children. But also in our society we have I think a very strong opposition to public policy that discriminates or is biased against groups when there's no justification for that bias or discrimination. And starting in the mid fifties as our society began to submit prejudices against gay and lesbian people - to empirical test, in research - we have never had any such research show a difference between gay and lesbian people and appropriate comparison groups that justifies discrimination. And that I think is the take home message that the media should have for writing stories relevant to this topic. Thanks.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great, thank you Dr. Anderson.

One other comment before we go to the Q & A is, Dr. Quam has not joined us yet, so I'm going to try and get in touch with her while I'm sitting here.

Dr. Carol Gilligan who has been brought up a number of times. If you're interested in contacting her - she was unavailable for this call - we can provide you with her office information. So if you're interested in that, you can be in touch with myself or with Paige Schilt from Soulforce after the call.

So operator, if we want to start the que for questions...

OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, at this time we will conduct the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your phone now, and you will be placed in the que in the order received. If you question has been answered or you wish to remove yourself from the que, please press pound. We are now ready to begin. Once again, to ask a question, please press star one.

Our first question comes from Karen Ocamb, from International Los Angeles magazine. Please state your question.

KAREN OCAMB: Hi, it's Karen Ocamb from IN Los Angeles Magazine. Hi everyone.

I would actually like to ask Mr. Lutes a question. Soulforce has been quite successful in going around the country actually protesting not only the religious right, but also Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and you've raised that issue to a national level of visibility. I'm wondering if you are creating a strategy to employ one or more of these researchers or their associates to do similar kinds of protests, given that in the 19 - I'm sorry in 2008 we're anticipating broadsides against gays raising children - both in foster and adoption - that's going to be the new anti-gay approach it seems to me, since they've already handled same-sex marriage.

[Pause]

Did you get that?

JEFF LUTES: Yes I think so.

KAREN OCAMB: Are you going to be the new ACT-UP, in other words?

JEFF LUTES: This is Jeff Lutes from Soulforce. Soulforce is based on the principles of non-violence that were taught by Ghandi and King. And Ghandi and King both taught that there are really two steps to the work that we do to seek justice. The first is dialogue or negotiation, and the second is direct action. Unfortunately we have tried for years and years to have healthy reasonable dialogue with people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council. We've tried to initiate conversations, particularly with Dobson in the last several years. We've written eight or nine letters, we've made two phone calls, and again and again we're told that they're not interested in having us around the table to have a conversation.

So Ghandi and King taught that then you move to direct action, in order to educate the public as well as apply some healthy pressures, some healthy tension, to create change. So while we do not have a specific plan in mind to recruit social scientists to protest, we certainly hope that they will continue to speak up, and if they want to join in any direct action that helps the public get at the truth we would certainly welcome that. Thanks.

KAREN OCAMB: Could I have a follow up?

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Yeah sure, go ahead Karen.

KAREN OCAMB: Thank you.

Are you - I mean this does seem to be the next wave of political anti-gay energy - and I'm wondering, I mean I understand what you just said and that sets us up - but are you not planning to do some specific strategic direct action, given that we have the '08 elections in front of us - and I'm not talking specifically in a partisan way - I mean, you know, both the Democrats and the Republicans will probably speak to this.

JEFF LUTES: We currently have a series of direct actions that are in place around Focus on the Family because we believe that while James Dobson and Focus are not the only ones misusing the research, they're the - perhaps the most well heard - with I believe Dr. Dobson's program being in about 162 countries in 21 languages. He reaches millions of people each day - so we do have an organized campaign this year at Focus on the Family. And again we would encourage researchers as well as the general public to speak out whenever they hear untruth that leads to discrimination.

KAREN OCAMB: Thank you.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Before we move on, my understanding is Dr. Quam has been listening in on the call and is available to speak now. So Jean Quam, Q-U-A-M, is the Dean of the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota. She's a board member for the National Association of Social Workers and Chair of their National Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues. So I want to give her an opportunity to speak for a few moments, then we'll go back to questions. Dr. Quam...

DR. JEAN QUAM: Thank you Cathy.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Of course.

DR. JEAN QUAM: I represent the National Association of Social Workers and that's a professional organization of 155,000 members. NASW supports the adoption of local, state, federal, and international policies that protect the rights of children of gay and lesbian families. We believe that homophobic and heterosexist views reduce the effectiveness of support services and treatment that - provided to all families but particularly gay and lesbian families. I - we, many of the things that have already been, I think have already been said very well, but I also wanted to point out that NASW has a website, www.naswdc.org. And on that website we actually - I think pretty heavily refer to a number of things that are on the APA website - but particularly research that points out that there's no connection to a child's moral or cognitive development, well being or happiness - depending on whether or not they're in a heterosexual or gay and lesbian family.

On a personal note, my partner and I have been together for 20 years, we have two adopted sons, ages 13 and 15, and we certainly face the same issues as other parents, both positive and negative. And I won't repeat what some of the others have said.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great, thanks. So I'm glad you were on the call.

DR. JEAN QUAM: Thank you.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: So we can, operator, we can go back to the Q & A then, thanks.

OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, if you would like to state a question please press star one.

Our next question comes from Ethan Jacobs from Bay Windows. Please state your question.

ETHAN JACOBS: Hi - and I'm not sure necessarily who's really the best person to address this question towards is but - it seems like one of the reasons that James Dobson was able to get away with his Time Magazine article - at least before there was a rebuttal - is that the positions of a lot of the organizations, like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association on these issues aren't really widely known by the public. And I'm wondering if there's going to be any effort either by Soulforce, Truth Wins Out, to try and do any sort of public information campaign sort of beyond talking to the media, but just talking to the general public about these organization's positions, or just generally just what's being done to try and sort of spread the word that in fact all of these very mainstream organizations have supported all the rights of gay and lesbian people to parent, and feel it's just as healthy for their children. Like what's sort of being done to raise the public awareness of that - these positions beyond just outreach to the media?

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Jeff or Wayne do you want to...

WAYNE BESEN: Yeah, sure. I mean the first thing is that, we - posting this on the website, we are getting this out to the media, we're - Truth Wins Out, Soulforce has been on several actions as well. For example when Love Won Out - Focus on the Family's campaign where they spread a lot of this disinformation, our organizations are on the ground getting this information to both the public and the media where we can. I mean the fact is that Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, a lot of these groups have a whole heck of a lot of money to spread disinformation. So I think - I think it's more important in some ways to make sure that we get this out to people reporting on this because that's how you can reach millions of people. It's a lot easier than the resources it takes for fliers to get out where people are or advertising. But you know I think where ever we can it's got to get out.

SERENA VOLPP: If I could just add one thing, this is Serena Volpp from American Psychiatric Association. I just want to note that on the public interface of the American Psychiatric Association website, that's www.healthyminds.org, there is a fact sheet on gay, lesbian & bisexual issues, which basically answers questions that the public might have on gay and lesbian issues. Including issues around parenting and reparative therapy and coming out. So that is one thing that the public can access in addition to the press, who can access the position statements of the APA very easily on the APA website: www.psych.org. If you go to that and then search for position statements.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: And even - this is Cathy Renna - and as you know there are a lot of other organizations that do work around these issues. Just to give one example, Family Pride - which is an organization we also work with - convened a symposium last year of as many researchers as they could possibly get together. Over 150 people came, Dr. Stacey was there, Charlotte Patterson, many many others who are doing work in this field - many had never even met before. So it's really - it's something that a lot of different organizations are working on at different levels.

ETHAN JACOBS: Great, thank you.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Did you have a follow up Ethan, or if there's a..

ETHAN JACOBS: I think that's basically it.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great. Next question?

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Beth Maples from Equality Herald. Please state your question.

BETH MAPLES-BAYS: My name is Beth Maples-Bays, I am with the Equality Herald, here on the ground, on the front lines of the culture war in East Tennessee.

On a personal note, I am a lesbian mom, my children are now 33 and 31, and I raised them as an open lesbian here in East Tennessee. And in a recent conversation with Brad Sears, the Executive Director of the Williams Institute at UCLA, I made a comment about being in the minority because my children were born of a prior heterosexual marriage. And what Brad told me is that 95% of the children in LGBTQ households, are born of heterosexual relationships.

The current portrayal in the LGBTQ press, stereotypes LGBTQ parents as having all this perfect planned family - all the children are either the product of reproductive technology or adoption - and that's just really a myth. Would any of you all like to address that, and tell me how we can change that? Because I think it's important. If we're accusing other people of distorting the truth - that we not do the same thing ourselves.

DR. JUDITH STACEY: I think I can speak to that Cathy.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Sure, go ahead.

DR. JUDITH STACEY: This is Judith Stacey. First of all you're absolutely correct that the overwhelming majority of out gay and lesbian parents, are parents who had their children through heterosexual marriages or relationships. This is even more true for gay and lesbian parents of color than it is for white gay and lesbian parents - and it's more true for people of lesser economic means than it is for people who are more affluent. So you're absolutely right that in some ways Mary Cheney and Heather Poe are a misrepresentation of the actual face of most gay and lesbian parenthood in the world today, not just in the US.

However, I think that it's not correct to say that it's a myth that one is promoting a myth when you describe gay and lesbian parents, as I did, about the planned form of parenthood. Because what I was speaking about was the research that's able to isolate the impact of sexual orientation or gender on the effects on children. When you're doing the research - and I did do a - with Tim Biblarz in 2001 - we published the study "How does the sexual orientation of parents matter?" - most of the research that had been done at that time we reviewed, was in fact like about families like yours.

These were parents who had had their children through heterosexual relationships and only a handful of those studies at that point were comparing planned, usually donor insemination lesbian co-parents just like Cheney and Poe. The newer generation of studies is doing that, and the reason I focus on those, is because that's the - not because they represent most gay and lesbian parents, but because those are the only studies where you're able to come close to being able to see whether just the sexual orientation or the gender of the parent makes any particular difference.

But you're quite right, it's important to make clear that parent families like yours, parents like that, should be compared to heterosexual parents who divorced, or who had children that they weren't raising in marriage, or things of that sort. And there too we found no differences in the emotional, social, cognitive well being of those children - some mild differences in other ways. So that's a very important point, but I think there are two separate points there that you might want to keep in mind.

BETH MAPLES-BAYS: I think you're right, and I didn't mean to question your conclusions, because I understand controlling variables, I really do, however I also understand this media myth of this happy little white-picket-fence middle class family that doesn't exist, or very rarely does.

DR. JUDITH STACEY: Right, yeah, and I think it's also very important - I'm glad you raised that point - it's very important to make clear that there are some very unhappy children with gay and lesbian parents, and there are some lousy gay and lesbian parents - just as there are unhappy children in every other kind of family.

I mean one doesn't want to - it's very hard when you're doing generalizations, which is what you have to do in conversations like this to capture the full range of the complexity of human psychology and family life that we all know from personal experience I think.

BETH MAPLES-BAYS: Thank you.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Did anyone else want to comment on that question or... Ok, next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Trenton Straube from New York Blade. Please state your question

TRENTON STRAUBE: Hi this is Trent. My question would be addressed to Wayne Besen I suppose, it's a media question.

He had mentioned that groups like Focus on the Family were losing credibility by using this misrepresented research. But I wondered if there was any anecdotal evidence or any statistics to prove that they actually are losing credibility, because they seem to be popping up over and over in the mainstream media. And I was wondering basically, if you think the media is wising up to this or not.

WAYNE BESEN: Yeah, I think they are wising up - were just beginning - remember this is called a truth movement - is really in it's nascent years I think this - Truth Wins Out - we launched RespectMyResearch.org - Soulforce is in the forefront of this, and we're really laser like focused on this and we're seeing some results. For example they had an article on Mary Cheney in the New York Times and it mentioned matter-of-factly in that story - in the follow up story to the whole brouhaha - that these researchers said that Dobson distorted their work. And we're starting to see this begin to get into stories.

And it's - I think the biggest obstacle we face - is that if organizations lie enough, it's no longer news - however if they lie every now and then, it is. And what we're trying to change this and say you know it's never okay to distort studies and lie because we're talking about real lives, and real children, and real parents. And when people say - when organizations make up these studies, or co-opt them, or distort them - it affects real people. And because of this, I think with this new focus on it we are starting to see a change, but it's new. I mean we haven't - there hasn't been such a focus on this before, and I think we're seeing more of a focus because of the marriage battles and the adoption fights that are going to occur.

But I think the point to look at within the last six months and forward, you're going to see some changes. But it's just been too long where this has just gone on without being refuted, and we can't let that happen anymore.

TRENTON STRAUBE: Ok yeah, I have a quick follow up on that then. Have you - how has the mainstream media responded when you've let them know that they have quoted something that wasn't correct? Are they - do they run corrections, or are they willing to do follow up stories, or what's been the general response?

WAYNE BESEN: Well I think that we - what we're doing now is starting not from the correction stand point, because it's been - too much has happened. It's the prevention, and that - getting out in front, trying to have conference calls like today - new websites - getting these researchers on record. Soulforce has done this, we have done this where we actually commission video crews to film the researchers - so in no uncertain terms can anybody say that this - that, number one, it's just gay activists - the researchers they quoted themselves - we're asking them to stand up and they are, this is what's new. And because it's more - I think it's a prevention campaign before the fact, and getting this on record. Building a strong solid case has not been made consistently before. One that's irrefutable, and easy to access - through video, through letters - these researchers writing letters condemning the misuse of their work.

So this is really I think, something new, and I think the judgement on this - the judge on this I think - let's see how this is three months, six months, a year down the road, now that these organizations are focusing on it like never before.

JEFF LUTES: This is Jeff Lutes with Soulforce, and I would agree with Wayne that prevention is so important, because my sense is that folks like James Dobson really count on the fact that the response, or the refuting of their claims won't get as much coverage as their original article that had the misinformation in it. They sort of count on the media not covering the researchers refuting that as well. So going in before hand and trying to educate the public about some of the - what they're going to hear. For instance in the upcoming elections - what they're going to hear people say, so that they can begin to question that, and really do some good journalism and investigation to fact check those claims that are made.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Trent this is Cathy Renna, I just want to hop in real quick. I mean - I think the Time Magazine piece, which Family Pride - we work with them - and we called immediately when the Dobson piece ran, and you know pitched in place a rebuttal. But I think as Jeff said, while that's - was fantastic and did actually get some attention, it certainly didn't get as many eyeballs as the initial piece itself. So this whole education piece is very very important.

Was there somebody else that wanted to comment on that?

WAYNE BESEN: Yeah this is Wayne, I just wanted to add - it's two parts. The media - it's great that - encouraging them - we also know that they're busy covering a lot of stories. So from our end, I think our organizations are trying to make it as easy as possible and as quick as possible to access the information to see what's correct and not. So that's the other part of it I think that we're - what we're trying to do.

DR. CLINTON ANDERSON: This is Clinton Anderson and I'd like to comment on that question too if I may.

I think that one issue that is very relevant for the media is the issue of balance. Often I think that people confuse balancing opinion with balancing research, and in fact when you start reporting research as opposed to opinion, there really isn't any other side in the research. No research has come up with negative conclusions about gay and lesbian parents.

So sometimes I think people are given the opportunity to speak for supposed balance when all they really offer is opinion, not actual research on the other side. So I would just call for media to be more sophisticated, perhaps, in their conception of how you balance a story.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great. Did anyone else want to weigh in on that question?..

We'll take the next question then.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Elizabeth Perry from Washington Blade. Please state your question.

ELIZABETH PERRY: I wanted to know from either Wayne or Jeff if James Dobson has had any kind of response at all, with regard to the researchers speaking out.

WAYNE BESEN: Who is this? I missed that.

ELIZABETH PERRY: Elizabeth Perry, I'm with the Washington Blade.

WAYNE BESEN: I can tell you that I contacted Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett, and right after the fact, and they were horrified and they wrote letters and both - been very disappointed that James Dobson not only will not address their concerns, but in their cases has sort of portrayed this as a liberal conspiracy of professors and gay activists. Which I think is interesting because Dr. Dobson clearly respected these two researchers enough to use their work in Time Magazine - all of a sudden he finds their work not credible just because they're upset with him? I don't think that holds much water.

But no, they have been completely unresponsive. They think they can hide behind their 6000 radio stations, they don't have to answer to anybody as long as the money's flowing. And they have their base - and they feed their base exactly what they want to hear and they just don't think they need to address this, and we're working really hard to make sure they do have to address the truth.

JEFF LUTES: This is Jeff with Soulforce and I'll just add to Wayne's comment about their base. That's a very important concept to understand I think.

We're used to listening to broadcast news, but the religious right, the fundamentalists are very skilled at narrow-casting. And what I mean by narrow-casting is, they can access millions of like-minded folks through Christian radio and other programs that many Americans don't listen to - and they can initiate a culture of fear among those listeners and light up the switchboard in Washington by creating fear. So while it may be a minority of people compared to the general public at large, it is a minority that becomes fearful, and then is motivated to take action based on that fear - and I think what Wayne and Soulforce and others are trying to do is really prevent the misinformation before it starts.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great, thanks.

ELIZABETH PERRY: Just one more follow up. Has he changed his tune at all? Has he become either more aggressive about this or is he at least willing to admit that maybe he got it wrong?

WAYNE BESEN: Quite the opposite, I mean it's been - going into the trench and saying that they're entitled - Focus on the Family's entitled to use research for whatever means they want, and that's just not acceptable because what they're doing is the opposite of science, it's pseudo science. They start with the conclusion and they don't care what they need to do with the research to make it fit their conclusion. What separates this organization and others like it on the far right, is the complete indifference to evidence. If evidence contradicts their stated conclusion from the beginning, they don't - they will not adjust their point of view, they'll adjust the research. And that's really at the heart of what the problem is.

It doesn't - and I'll just add one more thing. I think that there's a big difference between what we do and what they do, in that we do look for evidence. Whether it's Soulforce or Truth Wins Out or PFLAG - we go to their events, we try to learn what - I spent last week at an ex-gay ministry for example, to learn - listen to what they were talking about - I can't remember the last time a representative from Focus on the Family or the Family Research Council or the Traditional Values Coalition actually went to meet a same-sex family with children. To see if these human beings that they're dehumanizing - if they're as bad as they say they are. I think there's a big difference there. There seems to be no interest in actually examining our lives and seeing if it matches up to the rhetoric. And it would be nice if they actually did that, but to them science is just sort of a - is a tactic in order to achieve their larger goals - and it has nothing to do with the actual science.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great. Elizabeth I'm assuming that was you typing, right?

ELIZABETH PERRY: Yes it was.

[mutual laughter]

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Ok, if it was somebody else I was going to tell them to put it on mute.

Can we have the next question?

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Cole Kravitz from The Advocate. Please state your question.

COLE KRAVITZ: Hi, yeah, thanks very much. My question actually was similar to one that had been raised, but I guess more specifically I was hoping - I guess this would be Wayne - if you could give - you talked about how mainstream media has been representing these stories - if you could give more examples other than the Time Magazine article, of reporters or outlets that have been using this kind of issue of balance inappropriately - in terms of using a person that gives commentary, versus over five or six accredited institutions that are presenting research that shows otherwise.

WAYNE BESEN: I think it - it's too hard to do and I'll tell you why, because at this point it's just happened too much. I mean it's every - and I think the point that was made earlier about this notion of balance - well the problem with that is it comes for sake of accuracy. And we've seen story after story where some very well respected researcher is quoted on the other side of political activists - giving their point of view. Well that's not the equivalent of a respected and esteemed scientist, and on the other side a political activist - is not the same thing, they're not equivalent. Yet that's what we see time and time again.

So I mean - it's just - it's almost - it's to the point where it's just an avalanche of stories, up until now, and I think that what we're saying is - enough - and Time Magazine I think was the enough point. And I think it's all starting, but I think that has been the trend period. That's what we've seen in the majority of stories, and on cable TV is another example - we see it all the time.

But it just can no longer go on without being refuted, because there are real life consequences to it and we can't pretend - we can't just look at this anymore and say 'oh nobody believes it, it's going to go away' because what find out in the field when we travel and we listen to people, is actually there are a lot of people that do believe this, and don't realize who these messengers are from the other side - that they either lack credentials or they're coming from a very non-scientific viewpoint.

DR. JUDITH STACEY: Maybe I can - actually I can give a number of specific examples. This is Judith Stacey.

COLE KRAVITZ: Ok.

DR. JUDITH STACEY: Because I've often been asked to debate people on the issue of the impact of same-sex marriage, on children, or the impact of gay parents on children, and almost never am I ever debating a researcher, in a whole host of forums.

I'll be asked to debate Maggie Gallagher, the columnist for example. This has happened at a number - I can name specific conferences for you, and then it's carried in the media. Or I'll be asked to debate David Blankenhorn, or people like this who have - David Blankenhorn is not a social scientist, Maggie Gallagher is a right wing newspaper columnist - and this will be the other side of the debate around the research on gay and lesbian parenting. Or perhaps there'll be a supposed scholar like professor Lynn Wardle, who's a family law professor at Brigham Young University, and completely distorts the research but has conducted none of the research himself.

And this is even in progressive venues like at the Williams Institute at UCLA - on conferences, because it's extremely difficult - next to impossible to find an actual researcher or scholar who is publishing research on the so-called other side. So they even stage the debate. Even sympathetic venues wind up pulling in people who basically are journalists or - not to disparage journalists - or are research - or are scholars in other fields, or are religious professors with a particular perspective. But they're basically are no legitimate credible researchers that I'm aware of that have been publishing in peer reviewed journals, that are finding the kinds of evidence that all that Dobson and many of these other people are reporting.

So those are just some examples, and if you want to give me a phone call I could probably look through my computer and find specific articles and things like that where this has happened. But including in the New York Times and in USA Today and many many other venues, I've seen this over and over again.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: And as Wayne has mentioned before, James Dobson in particular has quite a regular seat on Larry King's show. So..

COLE KRAVITZ: Can I ask a follow up question?

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Sure.

COLE KRAVITZ: I'm curious you know, there's been mention of the probability that legislation will be popping up around issues of adoption and foster care, and is popping up in states like Texas. Are you all partnering or building coalitions with organizations like NGLTF - that do more of the kind of legislative battling - to provide these researchers, as spokes-people, to help balance this out in the media?

JEFF LUTES: Yes very much so. I can tell you that we're working with a number of organizations, especially on our local and state levels. I'm very involved with Equality Texas in terms of trying to help them get the message out. So it's all about working together.

WAYNE BESEN: Yeah, I would say the same thing, I mean we either formally or informally, all the time, we talk to organizations and share resources and information.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: We're coming up on an hour so why don't we take a couple more questions and then we can wrap up the call.

OPERATOR: Once again, if you would like to state a question, please press star one on your phone now.

Our next question comes from Joyce Arnold from Church Street Freedom. Please state your question.

JOYCE ARNOLD: Freedom Press, but that's fine. Just - maybe more of a comment/observation. This all - I mean getting the mainstream media to pay attention I guess is what I'm thinking about, and sort of as a reflection - at least so far - I don't think I've heard anybody on this conference call in from a mainstream media. I may have missed that, and if I did I apologize. But the point is not anything negative about the people who are calling, but it seems to me like an indication of just how difficult it is to get the mainstream media to pay attention, other than in the non-balanced kind of way, and I'd say in a reactive sort of way.

In Tennessee the general assembly's now in session, and it's totally predictable that the mainstream media will - whatever bills come up in the legislature that are going to be quote unquote "anti-gay" kind of bills - that's when the mainstream media will pay attention. It'll be a reactive kind of thing. Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious - how difficult it is to get the mainstream media to pay attention to the whole thing.

DR JUDITH STACEY: I think I want to disagree a little bit - this is Judith Stacey - because I think you're right, on average that may be so, but I certainly have done numerous interviews with very fine reporters in the mainstream media. Just think for example of the New York Times Magazine cover story on gay fatherhood, and the cover story on the custody battles around lesbian parenthood, and USA Today - Sharon Jason has done some good work. I've done an interview for the Sacramento Bee where they were out interviewing the children themselves and with gay and lesbian parents and their community and all, so - I actually think there are a lot of mainstream journalists who have been doing some very good work on this issue.

JOYCE ARNOLD: Yeah, and I don't discount that, I guess I was thinking in large part of - maybe I was thinking very locally [laughs]. It's just very hard to get anything - except sort of - and there are certainly exceptions to that. But more broadly speaking - just what we've been talking about - getting mainstream media to realize the lack of balance, without discounting the good stuff that's going on, but in general, getting them to recognize what they're missing - if that makes any sense?

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Yeah Joyce this is Cathy, I mean there are actually mainstream media who are attending the call right now.

JOYCE ARNOLD: Cool. Good.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: ...She just threw down the gauntlet for someone to ask a question I guess, but..

[mutual laughter]

JOYCE ARNOLD: I really didn't mean it as a gauntlet, I was just listening and thinking I've not heard, I don't think anybody from mainstream and I always thought that was curious, so - that's great, wonderful.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: You make a good point though, they're harder to get on the call than LGBT media, that's for sure.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Ethan Jacobs from Bay Windows. Please state your question.

ETHAN JACOBS: Hi, I guess it sort of falls on that, but I'm actually curious to find out how many and which mainstream media outlets are on the call? It just seem - I mean - you know just sort of to get a sense of - are there any sort of national organizations like CNN or the New York Times, is the AP on the line, or who from the mainstream media is actually on the call?

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Well, Ethan, this is Cathy, let me go through this as quickly as I can. I mean we do have a number of mainstream media on the call, Religion News Service, The San Francisco Chronicle, and I want you to understand that - Diversity Inc.com, some others - the reality is we reached out to hundreds and hundreds of reporters and many could or could not make the call. We certainly heard from Good Morning America, they were unable to be on the call this morning, so that's why we're providing the audio after.

We really see this as an ongoing education issue as both Jeff and Wayne mentioned before, so you know, I don't think it's about naming names or laying blame with this - during this one particular call - but really starting a process where we have these researchers available to folks, and experts available to folks, and do the education that's necessary to get them to cover the issues better.

ETHAN JACOBS: All right.

OPERATOR: At this time there are no further questions.

DR. JUDITH STACEY: I wonder if I might suggest another resource to the journalists on the line, the Council on Contemporary Families is an independent organization of family researchers on a whole host of family issues. The website is contemporaryfamilies.org, and they're going to be having - and that includes attention to gay and lesbian family issues - they're having a tenth anniversary conference on what works for families of all kinds, which will include attention to gay and lesbian parenting. It's going to be in Chicago, May 4th and 5th I believe. They give out media awards for the best coverage of family stories during the year, and many mainstream media have been involved. So that's another good source for checking out and getting a whole range of researchers on any issue that you're writing about.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great. This is Cathy, do any of the speakers - Jeff, Wayne, do any of you have any final comments to make before we wrap up?

WAYNE BESEN: No, I'm fine.

JEFF LUTES: I'm okay too, thank you Cathy.

CATHY RENNA [MOD]: Great. I want to thank everyone for attending. I want to thank our speakers, Jeff, Wayne, and Soulforce and Truth Wins Out for convening this call.

If you have any questions or you want to get in touch with someone after - I know Clinton gave out his media relations office number. My number is 917-757-6123, and I'm sure everyone has my email. So again, we appreciate you taking the time to do this and we'll let you know when this full audio is available on the Soulforce and Truth Wins Out websites. Thanks.

OPERATOR: This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for attending.

Soulforce thanks Patrick Fitzgerald for creating this transcript of the Press Teleconference on LGBT Parenting Research.

Printer Icon Printable version Email Icon E-mail this article 

Email Article: Transcript of Press Teleconference on LGBT Parenting Research

Friend's Name:
Friend's Email:
Your Full Name:
Your Email:
Send a copy to yourself
These email addresses will be used to send on your behalf the Soulforce article titled Transcript of Press Teleconference on LGBT Parenting Research along with any personal message you add below. We will not add either of these email addresses to our email list from this form.
Add a personal message: (optional)