all couples in the U.S.
— or 594,391 people
Puff Piece Goes Poof!
By Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was originally published by
NCRegister.com on 11/27/09.
“‘Gayby Boom’ Fueled by Same-Sex
Parents” screamed a headline on the website
of ABC News this past summer. “Post-
1980s Children of Gay Parents Thrive in
School, More Open Society,” the subhead
declared.
Was there some new information in this
story?
Nope. It was just another human-interest
story in the noble-homosexuals-who-
overcome-adversity-and-stay-true-to-
themselves template.
Unfortunately for ABC, a closer look at the
source of the few facts in this story tells
another story — one the “gay rights” lobby
and its allies in the media probably would
rather you didn’t hear: Same-sex “marriage”
is a completely disproportionate response to
an overwrought problem.
Most of the feature consisted of interviews
with same-sex couples who have raised
children together. But among the obvious
ploy for sympathy were a few facts,
including this eyepopper: “Just under 1% of
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse • 663 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road Suite 222 San Marcos CA 92078
www.jennifer-roback-morse.com • email: drj@jennifer-roback-morse.com • 760/295-9278
©2007 No part of this document may be reproduced or disseminated in any way without the expressed written consent of the
Ruth Institute.
— identify themselves as gay, lesbian or
transgender, and about 20% of them are
raising children under the age of 18.”
Yes, you read that correctly: Two-tenths of
1% of couples in America are same-sex
couples raising children.
One of the most appealing rhetorical
questions posed by advocates of same-sex
“marriage” is: “Gays and lesbians are
already raising children. Why shouldn’t they
and their children have the legal protections
of marriage?” But these figures, produced
by the Williams Institute, a pro-
homosexuality think tank, show that a truly
tiny percentage of children is at stake. We
are being urged to redefine marriage to
protect the children of two-tenths of 1% of
all the couples in America. And we’re bigots
if we resist.
This puts new perspective on demands for
same-sex “marriage.” In many states, same-
sex couples can use some combination of
domestic partnerships or second-party
adoption to share legal parenting rights.
Why is it bigotry to insist that same-sex
couples solve their practical problems with
the legal tools already available?
Often, advocates of same-sex “marriage”
will respond that it is demeaning that they
should be treated differently by the law. But
it is no disgrace to say that the law should
treat exceptional situations as exceptions.
Biology is the ordinary way we assign legal
parenting rights. Adoption exists to
accommodate the unusual situations in
which the biological parents are not
available.
Adoptive parents must get fingerprinted and
investigated before adoptive children can be
placed in their homes. Do we really believe
that adoptive parents are second-class
citizens?
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is an
economist and the Founder and President of
the Ruth Institute, a nonprofit educational
organization devoted to bringing hope and
encouragement for lifelong married love.
She is also the author of Love and
Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a
Village and Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long
Love in a Hook-Up World.

No. The steps serve to protect the principle

that biology is the basic way we assign
parenting rights. All other cases are treated
as exceptions.

I don’t know how the homosexual-rights

lobby gets the major news media to do these
unreflective booster articles transparently
designed to garner sympathy for same-sex
couples and, by extension, for same-sex
“marriage.” But this particular puff piece
blew up in the face of one major
mainstream-media outlet. You’d think the
others would notice.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse • 663 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road Suite 222 San Marcos CA 92078
www.jennifer-roback-morse.com • email: drj@jennifer-roback-morse.com • 760/295-9278
©2007 No part of this document may be reproduced or disseminated in any way without the expressed written consent of the
Ruth Institute.