An SFU professor has testified in a federal court trial in Detroit, Michigan, which is challenging the definition of marriage as one man, one woman. The state has claimed that children of same-sex marriage do not do as well in school as those raised by heterosexual couples.
The case is a response to an initial challenge to Michigan’s definition of marriage, which was brought to court by a lesbian couple who wanted to marry and secure adoption rights as a couple for their individually adopted children.
Four social science researchers were called upon to testify in defence of Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage: one of those researchers is SFU economics professor Douglas Allen.
Allen was called to speak on three research topics: his survey of 60 papers on child outcome research published between 1995-2013, a replication of the Rosenfeld study, and his own paper on high school graduation rates among children of same-sex households.
For the latter, Allen looked at data collected from the Canada census and concluded that children in same-sex households were less likely to graduate high school than children from households with heterosexual parents.
He says of his results, “I am not aiming to make any conjecture about why this was found to be the case. I am only presenting what I found.”
Allen initially aimed to correct the findings of a study conducted by Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist at Stanford University, whose results showed that children of same-sex and heterosexual parents show the same levels of educational achievement. Summarising a range of research in the field, Rosenfeld testified, “It’s clear that being raised by same-sex parents is no disadvantage to children.”
In his criticism, Allen cited problems with the child outcome literature in general as it draws conclusions based on small, biased samples, making it easy to conclude that children from all households achieved the same rates of academic success.
Allen has come under fire for his response to a question posed at the end of the trial: The plaintiff’s attorney asked if he thought homosexuals were eternally damned, yes or no, to which Allen replied, “Without repentance? Yes.”
Allen explained to The Peak that he was only allowed to give a yes or no answer to the question, and that sexual orientation was not a factor in his testimony. His reply was based in his beliefs that all sinners, if they do not repent and turn to Jesus, will go to hell, no matter their sexual preference.
A long time researcher of the economics of family dynamics, Allen sees the relationships of every household as unique. He said, “I am not opposed to same-sex marriage. I just don’t think that there should be one rule governing different types of relationships.”
Nevertheless, Elise Chenier, a professor in the SFU Department of History and the director of the Archive of Lesbian Oral Testimony, challenges this view. Her research involves the study of sexuality and gender in 20th century United States and Canada, as well as aspects of same -sex marriage.
Chenier is not affiliated with the proceedings of the case, however she says of the defence’s argument, “I think that when you’re opposed to something, you will marshal whatever resources you have to argue against it.”
Regardless of the nature of the research, Chenier has issues with the general focus of the trial. She said, “[The defendants] are equating how well you do in school with your overall quality of life. I don’t necessarily think that’s the single determining factor on a child’s life. Whether they succeed or they fail, this will prevent same-sex couples from having the same legal rights and benefits that opposite sex couples currently enjoy.”
Final closing statements for the case were given last Friday, March 7. The trial’s verdict is expected to come out within the next two weeks.
