2:13-cv-00217 #43

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

1/35

PHILIP S. LOTT (5750)STANFORD E. PURSER (13440)Assistant Utah Attorneys GeneralJOHN E. SWALLOW (5802)Utah Attorney General160 East 300 South, Sixth FloorP.O. Box 140856

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856Telephone: (801) 366-0100Facsimile: (801) 366-0101Email: [email protected]: [email protected] for Defendants Gary R. Herbert and John E. Swallow

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

DEREK KITCHEN, individually; MOUDISBEITY, individually; KAREN ARCHER,individually; KATE CALL, individually;LAURIE WOOD, individually; and

KODY PARTRIDGE, individually,

Plaintiffs,

APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF STATE

DEFENDANTS MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 43 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 35

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

2/35

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tab # Description Page

PART ONE

LEGAL MATERIALS

1. Utah Code 30-1-2 1

2. Utah Code 30-1-4.1 2

3. Utah Constitution Art. 1, 29 (Amendment 3) 3

4. H.J.R. 25, Joint Resolution on Marriage (as originally filed) 4

5. H.J.R. 25, Joint Resolution on Marriage (Senate Floor Amendments) 6

6. H.J.R. 25, Joint Resolution on Marriage (final, reflecting Senate amendments) 7

7. Chart: The definition of marriage: State statutory and constitutionalprovisions

9

8. Chart: The definition of marriage: State ballot measures 13

9. Chart: The language of State constitutional bans on domestic partnership andother non-marital unions

18

10. Chart: Court decisions on the marriage issue 23


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

3/35

PART TWO

MATERIALS ON ADJUDICATIVE FACTS17. Affidavit of William C. Duncan and Exhibit 1 (curriculum vitae) 127

18. Excerpts from Utah Voter Information Pamphlet, General Election,November 2, 2004

150

19. Vote count on Amendment 3, by county, with totals, and with percentages 155

20. Campaign materials for Amendment 3 156

21. Campaign materials against Amendment 3 171

22. New accounts, press releases, and editorials regarding Amendment 3 183

23. Fund-raising and expenditures in the Amendment 3 campaign 222

24. Affidavit of Dr. Joseph P. Price and Exhibit 1 (curriculum vitae) 22325. [Reserved]

26. [Reserved]

PART THREE

MATERIALS ON LEGISLATIVE FACTS

27. INSTITUTE FORAMERICAN VALUES,WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: THIRTYCONCLUSIONS FROM THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (3d ed. 2011).

232

28. THE WITHERSPOON INSTITUTE,MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC GOOD:TENPRINCIPLES (2008)

280


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

4/35

34. Margaret Somerville, What About the Children, in DIVORCING MARRIAGE:UNVEILING THE DANGERS OF CANADASNEW SOCIAL EXPERIMENT 63-78(Daniel Cere & Douglas Farrows eds., 2004).

669

35. Margaret Somerville, Childrens human rights and unlinking child-parentbiological bonds with adoption, same-sex marriage and new reproductive

technologies, 13 J.FAM.STUD.179-201(2007).

687

36. Margaret Somerville, Childrens Human Rights to Natural Biological Originsand Family Structure, 1 INTL J.JURISPRUDENCE FAM.35(2010).

710

37. Don Browning & Elizabeth Marquardt, What About the Children? LiberalCautions on Same-Sex Marriage, in THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE:FAMILY,STATE,MARKET, AND MORALS 173-192(Robert P. George & Jean Bethke

Elshtain, eds., 2006).

732

38. Maggie Gallagher, (How) Does Marriage Protect Child Well-Being?, in THEMEANING OF MARRIAGE:FAMILY,STATE,MARKET, AND MORALS 197-212(Robert P. George & Jean Bethke Elshtain, eds., 2006).

752

39. Seana Sugrue, Soft Despotism and Same-Sex Marriage, in THE MEANING OFMARRIAGE:FAMILY,STATE,MARKET, AND MORALS 172-96(Robert P.George & Jean Bethke Elshtain, eds., 2006).

770

40. THE

SOCIOLOGY OF

GEORGE

SIMMEL

128-32(Kurt H. Wolff, trans. & ed.,1950). 797

41. CLAUDE LVI-STRAUSS,THE VIEW FROM AFAR39-42 (Joachim Neugroschel& Phoebe Hoss trans. 1985)

804

42. G.ROBINA QUALE,A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE SYSTEMS 1-3(1988). 810

43. EDWARD O.LAUMANN ET AL.,THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SEXUALITY:SEXUAL PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES 310-13(1994).

815

44. CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE:COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON A CHANGINGINSTITUTION 7-8(Kingsley Davis, ed., 1985). 819

45. JAMES Q.WILSON,THE MARRIAGE PROBLEM 40-41,168-170(2002). 823


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

5/35

52. ELIZABETH WILDSMITH ET AL.,CHILDBEARING OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE:ESTIMATES AND TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES,a Child Trends ResearchBrief (2011).

884

53. SAMUEL W.STURGEON,THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY STRUCTUREAND ADOLESCENT SEXUAL ACTIVITY, a familyfacts.org Special Report(November 2008).

890

54. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., Administration for Children &Families, Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation,Distribution of Abuseand Neglect by Family Characteristics, in FOURTHNATIONAL INCIDENCESTUDY OF CHILD ABUSE ANDNEGLECT (NIS-4)

892

55. Paul R. Amato, The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive,Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation, 15THE FUTURE OFCHILDREN 75-96(2005).

936

56. Douglas W. Allen,High school graduation rates among children of same-sexhouseholds, 11 Rev. of Econ. Of the Household (published on-line September26, 2013).

959

57. Mark Regnerus,How different are the adult children of parents who havesame-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, 41SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 752-70(2012).

983

58. Mark Regnerus, Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, andsubsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new

family structures study with additional analyses, 41 SOCIAL SCIENCERESEARCH 1367-77(2012).

1002

59. Loren Marks, Same-sex parenting and childrens outcomes: A closerexamination of the American psychological associations brief on lesbian and

gay parenting, 41SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 735-51(2012).

1013

60. WILLIAM C.DUNCAN,MISPLACED RELIANCE ON SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCEIN THE PROPOSITION 8CASE,Vol. 5, No. 6, an Institute for Marriage andPublic Policy Research Brief (2012).

1030

61. JOHN R. SEARLE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL REALITY 4-5, 27-29, 31-37, 1035


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

6/35

68. DAVID BLANKENHORN,THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE 3-4,11-21,55,91-106,120-25,171-75,179-201(2007).

1227

69. [Reserved]

70. [Reserved]

PART FOUR

CANADIAN AND BRITISH LAW JOURNAL ARTICLES71. Matthew B. OBrien, Why Liberal Neutrality Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage:

Rawls, Political Liberalism, and the Family, 1 BRIT.J.AM.L.STUDIES (Issue

2, Summer/Fall 2012, May 1, 2012).

1291

72. F.C. DeCoste, Courting Leviathan: Limited Government and Social Freedomin Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage, 42 ALTA.L.REV.1099(2005).

1352

73. F.C. Decoste, The Halpern Transformation: Same-Sex Marriage, CivilSociety, and the Limits of Liberal Law, 41 ALTA.L.REV.619(2003).

1377

74. Monte Neil Stewart,Judicial Redefinition of Marriage, 21 CAN.J.FAM.L.11(2004).

1403

Dated this 11th day of October, 2013.

JOHN E. SWALLOWUtah Attorney General

/s/ Philip S. LottPhilip S. LottStanford E. PurserAssistant Utah Attorneys GeneralAttorneys for Defendants Gary R. Herbert

and John Swallow


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

7/35

Ralph Chamness [email protected] M. Goddard [email protected] Lake County District Attorneys

2001 South State, S3500Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-1210

/s/ Philip S. Lott


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

8/35

james Q . W i lson Why Do Families Exist? 41in ways that made capitalism possible), and schools did not makefamilies less relevant (families changed in ways that made schoolsmore valuable). In later chapters we shall see how these complex alter-ations occurred.

But for now it is important to observe that the family now restsalmost entirely on affection and child care. These are powerful forces,but the history of the family suggests that almost every culture hasfound them to be inadequate to producing child support. If we askwhy the family is, for many people, a weaker institution today than itonce was, it is pointless to look for the answer in recent events. Ourdesire for sexual unions and romantic attachments is as old ashumankind, and they will continue forever. But our ability to fashiona marriage that will make the uniori last even longer than the romancethat inspired it depends on cultural, religious, and legal doctrines thathave slowly changed. Today people may be facing a challenge forwhich they are utterly unpreP.ared: a vast, urban world of personalfreedom, bureaucratized services, cheap sex, and easy divorce.

Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of gecringpeople to stay together and care for children that the mere desire forchildren, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve. Theproblem of marriage today is that we imagine that its benefits havebeen offset by social arrangements, such as welfare payments, com-munity tolerance, and professional help for children, that make mar-riage unnecessary. But as we have already seen, the advantages ofmarriage-personal health, longer lives, and better children-remaingreat. The advantages of cohabitation are mostly illusory, but it is anillusion that is growing in its appeal.


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

9/35

168 james Q . W lson

through a few of the leading studies and then suggest that the secondview is gaining the upper hand.The first view initially rested on the confident predictions by coun

selors and therapists that divorce was a way of solving marital problems and even liberating the child from parental tension. In fact, adivorce may make children more tolerant of others with an accompanying increase in cooperation and respect. And even if the child is hurtby the divorce, the hurt will last only briefly, especially if the financialJoss to the mother and child can be set right. 15 This claim about theadvanrages of divorce meant that its advocates, in Barbara DafoeWhitehead's words, had "shifted the weight of expert opinion fromprotecting the interests of children to defending the rights and prerogatives of parents to pursue their own satisfactions." 16

The most influential writings about divorce as serted that it wasmarital conflict, not divorce itself, that hun the child; divorce addedlittle lasting burden to this problem. Frank Furstenberg and AndrewCherlin, rwo distinguished students of family life, argued in 1991 thatlong-term studies of children showed that their problems mostly arosefrom marital discord. A minority of them might be hurt by divorce,but it was only a minority; children differ greatly, and most adjust reasonably well to parental breakup. And when the mother remarriedand the children acquired a stepfather, most seemed to do quite well. 17

Cherlin repeated this view tbe following year. Some studies, hesaid, showed that divorce can be beneficial in the long run for somechildren because it takes them out of a conflict-ridden family. At thesame time, he noted, it can impose serious psychological distress on


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

10/35

j ames Q. Wilson Divorce 169

divorced mothers had not seen their fathers in over a year; only oneseventh saw them as often as once a week.20

The weight of scientific evidence seems clearly to supporr the viewthat fathers matter. We have already seen thatchildren in mother-onlyfamilies are worse off, even after controlling for income, than are thosein two-parent ones. Matters may be better among the most affluentsingle moms, but most mothers will suffer a significant loss in incomeafter they divorce and at a minimum expose their children to frequentrelocations. One study found that the standard of living of a divorcedwoman fell by 27 percent whereas that of a divorced man increased by10 percent.21 Glendon has argued that the United States appearsunique among Western countries in failing to assure either public orprivate responsibility for "the economic casualties of divorce." Wehave, she suggests, "no-fault, no-responsibility divorce. "22 School-agechildren who have a father do better than those without one in cognitive development, academic achievement, and impulse control.23 Ofcourse, an inattentive father at home can produce some of the sameeffects, but father absence, owing ro a divorce, almost guarantees inattention.

Of course, many divorced women remarry, taking their childrenwith them. If that happens, we come to the second argument: stepfathers will do as well as biological ones in raising children. If the firstargument is true, then marriage itself is a questionable venture, sincefathers are not really necessary beyond providing sperm and money. Ifthe second argument is true, then all of the stories we have heardabout wicked stepfathers must be no more than fiction designed tofrighten but not teach its readers. Those who deny that divorce is very

lCase 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 43 Filed 10/11/13 Page 10 of 35

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

11/35


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

12/35

TAB 46


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

13/35


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

14/35


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

15/35

/0 SEX, I'AMII.\", AND C O M M U ~ I T ' t 'paternity. It. almost always the husband of the warnan who considered the legal f . ~ . t b c r of her duldren, whether he be their p h y s : o ! g ~ l

f . t t h ~ r or not.Cnucul!iu,rgo!

This Ciln be Jdincd a ! c ~ ; > l i s c d form of coh2bir>tion, wluch f f c r ~ fromm : t r r i > ~ ; e 111 thl t it impli , Kad:tras, Khambts (India); B a n . : ~ s , Basobo, Kulanun(I ndanc.i) .

It is no t coruct to rcgord the insututions of temporary :md !mutedpartnership dcscnhcd abo,.,, such as the p ~ r r a u r u of C. Austro!u or thepmtractcd clldtangc of prtnerJ mong the E ~ k m 1 0 , as concublllagc.

P r a s t s J u l i o ~ tTlu: ; , ~ . H ; t u : i v n o! c c : : ~ ~ .... ; ~ l c ~ n r ; c l 4 0 n l nr prostitution very l i r n i r ~ drange ~ m u n g prirruti,c peoples. has been rtportcd from M e l a n ~ 1 1 a(S:tnta Cruz, Rcsd ls!.nJ), Po!) r.e>1a (Line bLmds, Caroltnc hbnJ1,

E J ~ t c r lsl:md, H a " ' > ~ i ) , G r ~ n l a n d , N. Amcnca (Omaha), S. Ammca(Karaya, U1toto, Boro), W. Africa, E. Africa (Banyoro). ln Its relationto marcia!,!C H b.,;.-ms to pb v " , - ~ r y important p>rt only in h t ~ h c r cultut c, ,On one hJnd 1t pro, ides c ~ s y s a t i s f o ~ c L i o n for the sexual p ~ tto unmarried men ()r those who for some reason cannot colubit withtheir whes. It tim< constitutes an in>titution c o m p ! ~ m c n t a . . r y to marrige.On the other hand, in c c r ~ a i n communities of whkh Anctcnt G r ~ c c u anotable cnmpk' . i.e., ''hctairism," prostitution in 2 hi;:her and morerefined forrn, ~ l l o w c d s o m ~ women Ul devote themsclvts to cultur.1lpnrsuits and to associate with men more freely th>n -.. .1> possibk to thoselcgllh Jtllrr,.d.

On the whole it is rather subsidiary institution th>n either a rcbxtion or a Iorm of s c : < : u ~ l prcpnlliOn. Unhk.: the other f o r m ~ of se.x.uallicence, prosmuuon ts n ~ i t h ~ r ll st>sc.s of our l n : ~ > m e n t ro the condu,ion t iut theinstitution of marrjage is p r i m ~ r i l 1 ' dcmmined b) the needs of th e offspring, by the dependenc;e of the chilnc hu:d":>s otth t hou sehold. ' f f : ~ economic 35 wdi biolc,gi.:a! nann o: " fomtlr

rhus lll)thrr. ~ h i l . ! la d husbond--or c:o:ceptionJll)' both the nusb.tndond lh b:'Othcr.

In the vost nniorit)' oi hunun >ocicties the individull .fmri.l;, l:sedon n 1 o n o g ~ m o u ' m J r r i J . ~ c .1ud consisting of n1oth1ar, father and cluldn:nforn1s 3 s . c i f i 1 ' 1 ..J ~ r o u p } nor C C ~ ~ ~ = n l v houe-.cr cut c){\. {;-. 1"1 Sf)

" ' ~ r y . i t h i n (he household there ts " typocl SLh"me of dtvi,,.on mfuneticns, gin airnor unl\'llso des tined to : ; ; i , ~ r h ~ m m o s ~ of the early tcnJcr c r e ~ : to keep themw.um :1nJ de,n, t> iull thl

i n v a r i . : ~ l > l y p r c . i J c ~ the fuel ""d the water; is the actu.1! a t t c n d . : ~ m at thehe.1rth or iir.:p!.1ct.:; r n ~ n u f a c t u r c : s . tends ; ~ n c ! owns coohin;;-, - ' > ~ ~ . i s ,and 1hc is :olso rhc mau1 curicr of burdens. In the v ~ r v stmplcsr. ..:ulturcmp orrln;;c""nts (AustrJ li1ns, Bushmen. :\adJm>n h l : . n d ~ n ) . The hu;bJ:;dl'ri,tcctor and dcf ,:ndc:r ot the i.lrtt.t!)'. :tnd hi: : ~ l s o ~ ~ n o n u s : ~ i l tht. workwluch requires , t ~ r strcn_;th, courage .1nd dccisiont ~ u c h :s h u n t 1 n ~gmc, J.i,hing. hc.tv)' buildmg o! hous.,-s :::d crofc, d e a r t n . ~ tlc t i m b ~ r .

Th e dn i ion of hbour b c t w ~ m husbatld :tnd w.fc ( 'Utstcho!dfollows the l i n ~ of men'> and women's ~ - = c u p > t i o r u w!llch differ wtthcommunity, bu t on the "hok mlkc hghuns, huntin.;, n:l:nb, t : . ! work

000833


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

16/35

TAB 47


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

17/35


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

18/35

ippr

The Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) is the UK's leading progressive thinktank and was established in 1988. Its role is to bridge the political divide betweenthe social democratic and liberal traditions, the intellectual divide betweenacademia and the policy making establishment and the cultural divide betweengovernment and civil society. It is first and foremost a research institute, aimingto provide innovative and credible policy solutions. Its work, the questions itsresearch poses and the methods it uses are driven by the belief that the journeyto a good society is one that places social justice, democratic participation andeconomic and environmental sustainability at its core.For further information you can contact ippr's external affairs department oninfo!aippr.org, you can view our website at www.ippr.org and you can buy our booksfrom Central Books on 0845 458 9910 or email ipprfclcentralbooks.com.

Our trustees

Chris Powell (Chairman)Chai Patel (Secretary}Jeremy Hardie (Treasurer)


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

19/35

4. Fathers and public servicesAdrienne Burgess

4.1 IntroductionThe concept of fathe rhood is awakening innovative thinking in publ ic service policy and practice. But this is accompanied by a failure of philosophyand procedure that is causing public services and the labour market toneglect the best interests of families, and a government tha t prides itselfonpolicy led by clear core messages to present itself as incoherent.

This chapter sets ou t a case for publ ic service reform that places childrenat the centre, mobilises the assets that fathers can bring to families andtackles the failures of some fathers in family life. I t recognises that socialtransformation continues, and that involved fatherhood must play a centml and increasing part if the goals for child wellbeing set out in Every ChildMatters (HMT/DfES 2003) are to be achieved and the final chapter in theadvancement of women is to be successfully written.

The chapter begins by examining why fathers matter to children'sexperiences and outcomes. It then assesses developments in policy andpractice in relation to public services and fatherhood, particularly underNew Labour and, finally, sets out ways in which policy might drive furtherchange.

4.2 Why fathers matter~ ~ B B ~ t \ I I 1 ! ! 1 i l p g y ( ) f i ' ~ ~ l l i i l i I19W i i 1 9 i ~ f l Y ~ . Jhflt h i g h . J e y ~ l : L ( ) f i g y ( ) l g : : .


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

20/35

TAB 48


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

21/35

OTHER BOOKS BY DAVID POPENOEest: Fami(y Change and Decline in Modern Societies...--....

Pleasure, Public Plight: American MetropolitanCommunity Life in Comparative Perspective

burban Environment: Sweden and the United StatesSociology

Housing and Neighborhoods (co-editor)

LIFEWITHOUTFATHER

Compelling new evidence that fatherhood and marriage are


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

22/35


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

23/35


il d / / f

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

24/35

(_140 Why Fathers Matteraggression and general activity level, cognitive skills, sensory sensitivity,and sexual and reproductive behavior. By every indication the expression of these differences is important for child development.

Moreover, the biological father-not just any man-is the mostlikely person to bring these inputs. The biological father is by far themost plausible candidate for enduring third-party status. He not onlyhas the genetic tie to his child but also, usually, the sexual and emotional tie to the child's mother. His biologically based interest in thewell-being of the child is generally far greater than that of any othermale. Especially in modem societies, a child who does not have a closeand sustaining relationship with her or his biological father isfar lesslikely to have such a relationship with any adult male.

It is a father's task to help raise his children so that they can be constructive members of society, to transmit to his children those culruralvalues they must have to succeed in life. Many tomes have been writtenon the topic of what men bring to this task that women cannot, or ordinarily do not, bring; the list ofpossibh.: factors is great. Much of thewriting is speculative and based mostly on intuition or personal experience. Here I shall stick to those fatherly traits that have a body of socialsdence evidence in their support.

PROTECTING AND PROVIDINGThe first father roles that men presumably played in huma n evolutionwere protector and provider for women and children. Males tend to bephysically stronger than women; they arc also more aggressive and takemore risks. In times past, families without male protectors were highlyvulnerable. Even today, when families are not so vulnerable, it is almostalways the man-if available-who is e.xpected to go downstairs atnight when a strange noise is heard or break up the fight betweenneighborhood children or lead the way in the dark.

Despite t he rise of police forces, armies, and criminal jus tice systems, the male as protector has by no means outlived his usefulness.Fathers act as protectors of their daughters from child abuse bystrangers, protectors of their sons from violence, protectors o f theirwives from rape and assault, and protectors of their homes and neighborhoods from intrusion and disorder. As James Q. Wilson has observed: "Neighborhood standards may be set by mothers but they areenforced by fathers, or at least by adult males. Neighborhoods withoutfathers are neighborhoods without men able and willing to confront errant youth, chase threatening gangs, and reproach delinquent fathers. "2

Even when men are not acrually engaged in protecting, of course,their physical strength is often well put to other uses. Their gender ad-

( rj __)What Do Fathers Do? 141

vantage of at least 25 percent more "upper body strength," as everywoman knows, can prove indispensable for changing tires, lifting heavyboxes, and repairing the plumbing.

Throughout human history men have also been the main providersfor their families; they were expected to g amer resources and sh arethose resources with their wives and children. Yet men have typicallyshared the task with women, just as they do today in advanced societies. Originally it was man the hunter, woman the gatherer; in agriculrural societies both women and men typically "worked the farm." Themale as exclusive breadwinner, the pattern in the modem nuclear familyof industrial societies, has not been widespread historically.

To the degree that providing is thought of as the only father role,then, it is no wonder that some people today thi nk of fathers as superfluous. Mothers can now be breadwinners on an almost equal footingwith men. Moreovet; there is a realization that the government can stepin and be the provider if need be.Still, the provider role of men should by no means be discounted. Itis a universal male role, and one that most family men in America feelmorally compelled to play. Indeed, many men feel that breadwinning isalmost an innate quality of being an adult male and father: The lossof ajob, for example, is often catastrophic for a man's sense of worth andself-esteem.

Most women, no matter how much they themselves may contribute tothe family's resources, still expect the male LO be a resource provider. Fewmales are more scorned by women than ne'er-do-well burns. Indeed, theworld ovet, breadwinning potential ranks as a primary reason males areselected as mates. As evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss has recently noted, "The evolution of the female preference for males who offerresources may be the most ancient and pervasive basis for female choicein the animal kingdom." He finds that, even today, women "value good financial prospects in a mate roughly t\vice as much as men do."J

It is often said that just as females most want to be "cherished" bytheir mates, males most want to be "needed" by theirs. More thananything else, "being needed," for a man, involves his ability to provide resources.THE UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS OF FATHERSProtection and provision only scratch the surface of what fathers do inmodem societies. With most other male and female adults gone fromthe childrear.ing scene, fathers have come to play an indispensable direct role in childrearing. They are expected to give their children guidance, instruction, encouragement, care, and love. In giving these

000840


C 2 13 00217 RJS D 43 Fil d 10/11/13 P 25 f 35

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

25/35


C 2 13 00217 RJS D t 43 Fil d 10/11/13 P 26 f 35

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

26/35

~144 Why Fathers Matter

Mothers, of course, also play with their children. In fact, becausethey spend so much more time with their children, mothers actuallyplay more with children than fathers do. But mothers' play is different.Mothers' play tends to take place more "at the child's level." Mothersprovide the child with the opportunity to direct the play, to be incharge, to proceed at the child's own pace. In the short run, at least,children seem t o prefer their fathers' more physically arousing style ofplay. In one study of lh-year-olds who were given a choke of playparmers, more than two thirds chose to play with the ir fathers.w

The benefits of fathers' play have shown up in child development areasranging from the management of emotions to intelligence and academicachievement. Fathers' play appears ro be particularly important for the development of socially acceptable forms of behavior that do not include vi-olence and aggression-in other words, for the development of the character trait known as selfamtroL According to one expert, "children whoroughhouse with their fathers . . . usually quickly learn that biting, kick-ing, and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. "11 They learnwhen "enough is enough" and when to "shut it down."

A committee assembled by the Board on Children and Families ofthe National Research Council (a group sponsored by the NationalAcademy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) concluded, "Children learn critical lessons about how to recognize and deal with highlycharged emotions in the contexr of playing with their fathers. Fathers,in effect, give children practice in regulating their own emotions andrecognizing others' emotional clues."12

Experimental studies with animals have found thar certain forms ofplay in childhoo d are crucial to controlling later aggression. And studies among humans have found th at self-control is a trait notably lacking among adult criminals. The findings of a study of convicted murderers in Texas are probably not based on coincidence-90 percent ofthe murderers either did not play as children or played abnormally.13Competition, Risk Taking. lrulperuknce. Through their play. as well as intheir other childrearing activities, fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative, risk taking, and independence. Mothers in their caretaking roles, in contrast, stress emotional security and personal safety. Onthe playground, for example, fathers will try to get the child to swing everhighet; higher than the person on the next swing, while moth ers will becautious, worrying about the possible dangers. On an outing in thewoods, fathers will want to hike the extra mile, while mothers will bemore concerned about fatigue and the coming storm. (My own daughters remember fondly various family outings which included activitiesthat my wife considered, at t he time, t o be "life threatening.")

( )" '- )What Do Fathers Do? 145

These fundamental differences in parenting styles show up in theway fathers and mothers communicate with their children.H Fathers'conversations tend to be briefer and to be more directive an d focusedon specifics; they less often oc cur face-to-face. In content , fathers' co nversations more often relate to issues of independence and autonomy.Mothers are much more likely to share their feelings an d to engage ine.'

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

27/35

L 14 6 Why Fallters M a H ~reson" is no accident. When the emotional and come.xt-t,1ilored approach of m o t h e ~ falls shon. as sometimes happens, the fatherly rulesand narural authority come inro play. fathers set the limits; they musrbe obeyed. s ~ ~ c r a [ studies have found that fathers are more e f i i . ~ c t i v ethan mothers at getting quick action ("clean up the mys").

If educational psychologist Carol Gilligan and her followers arc correct, the two disciplinary approaches arc rooted in a fundamental difference berwet:n men and women in their moral S ( ~ n s e s . Men srrcss justice, fairness, and duty (based on ntlcs), while women stress !.ympathy,care, and helping (bll.Sed on relationships).16 This difference is apparenteven in early childhood. lnfam g i r l ~ show more interest in people andfaces than do infant boys. And in his classic srudy of the play of youngchildren, the famed psychologist jean t>iaget found that girls are moreconcerned with relationships and bO)'S with tUies.l7In the area of discipline we again clearly see a complememanty ofopposites in the parenrJng styles of men and women. While mothersprovide an imponant flt!>dbility and :>ympathy in their discipline, farhers provide ultimate predictability and consistency. Both dimensionsare critical for an efficient, balanced, and humane childrearing regime.G e n d i ! ' T ~ D i f f e n : n r i c u e d ParentingIh i . 1 B f 9 ~ t } f ? 8 . * 1 ~ d e ~ c t : ' e Y \ d e n ~ e sup podS ilie tdea.,tliat. ~ ~ ~ d , ~ r

: m ~ t e n t l a t e a p a r e n t i n g . ~ imponam for l l u m a n . d e v e l o p m e ~ t l l ~ ~t l J , e ~ ( ) g n j i J : l , l l l O J I O f f a d j e r s to childrearingiS u n i q u e , a n d u i m ~ p a c c a l J ! e : ;A broad review of psych,lloglcal research in the journal Child DLVclop-mcm, for example, concluded that children of parentS who are sex-typed arc more "competent."!& And a major study or the outcome ofchildrearing styles on adolescem development found that the most effective parenting was that which was both highly demanding andhighly n:sponsive.l9

The significance of gender-differemiated parenting undoubtedly isrdated to something fundamental in the human condition. P!,ychosocial marurity and comperence among humans consists of the imcgration of r..vo factors; communion, or the need ro be included, connected,and relar.ed; and a , ~ c n c y , or the drive. for independence, individuality,and s e l l ~ f u l f i l l m e m . These terms (and many others could be substiruted, such as expressive and instrumental. b ~ n d s and choice. or rootsand wings) refer to the balance of ps>chic and social f o r c e . ~ of whichhuman life consisL'>. One without the other is a denuded and impairedhumanity, an incomplete realization of the human potential.For many couples, to be sure, these factors arc not rigidly dividedalong standard femalcmale lines. Significant overlap can exist among

( ) ~ \Vhat Do l " a ! l t , ~ , - ; Do? 147

females and males in the range of gender-differentiated traits they express (and the degn:e of overlap is no doubt affected by culture and byenvironmental circumstance.) f'Or some couples, there may even be a"role reversal," with men largely assuming the female style and womenthe male style, Bllt these are exceptions rha1 prove the rule. Throughour. the world, gender-differentiated parenting occurs naturally in mostfather-mother families. And certainly, let us not forget. the factors ofcommunion and agency are i:.'l:tremdy difficult for either a man or awoman alom to combine effectively;Genderdifferentiated parenting is of such irnpornnce that in chtldrearing by homosexual couples, either gay or lesbian, one pannercommonly fills the maleinstrumental role while the other filLver become especially influential in the lives o[their o l d ~ r children, with whom they have more direct conracL Butthe research just discussed suggest.S. they am have a significanr 1rnpacton their younger c h i l d r ~ n as well. or special importance is the facr thatearly bonding between father and child is Strongly ll.Ssociated \vith a fa-

000843


Case 2:13 cv 00217 RJS Document 43 Filed 10/11/13 Page 28 of 35

7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

28/35



7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

29/35



7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

30/35



7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

31/35

154 Why Fachers Ma!!erhas demonsrrated beyond much doubt the powerful effect on aggressiveness and delinquency of being raised in a family that is discordant,lacking in affection, or given to i nappropriate disciplinary practices. "48

In their recent reanalysis of the pioneering data set first collected inthe late 1930s and early 1940s by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck of theHarvard Law School, researchers Robert]. Sampson and john H. Laubfound strong corroborating evidence for the imponance of early childhood experiences. The Gluecks' daca set, designed to uncover thecauses of delinquency and adult crime, compared the life course fromchildhood to adulthood of five hundred delinquents with five hundrednondelinquents, all of whom were white males who grew up in theBoston slums . The Gluecks collected data from a wide variety ofsources, including teacher repons, psychiatric interviews, health andwelfare records, employer assessmems, and extensive interviews withthe subjects and their families. Samps on and l.aub reached this conclusion: "Low levels of parental supervision, erratic, threatening, andharsh discipline, and weak parental attachment were strongly and direcdy related to delinquency. "19

A recent authoritative repon entitled Violence, prepared by the Panelon the Understanwng and Control of Violent Behavior of the NationalResearch Council, summarizes what we now know: ~ R e s e a r c h e r s haveidentified many correlates and antecedents of aggressive c hildhood behavior that are presumed to reflect psychosocial influences {incluwng]early family experiences: harsh and erratic discipline, lack of parentalnunurance, physical abuse and neglect, poor supervision, and earlyseparation of children from parents. "5 The repon continues: "Numerous studies show that violent offenders tend to come from cenaintypes of family backgrounds. In paniculcu; they tend to have been subjected to physical punishment, they tend to have alcoholic or criminalparents, and they tend to have disharmonious parents who are likely toseparate or divorce."' t

Where do fathers fit into this picture? A major conuibution of involved fathers, according to researchers, is to teach their children twokey character rraits: self-control and empathy. People with antisocialand criminal tendencies lack both of these traits; that is, they "tend tobe impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking,shon-sighted, and nonverbal, and they will tend therefore to engage incriminal and analogous acts. "S2

The lack of self-control in adulthood is closely associated with theabsence of powerful and necessary "inhibiting forces" in early childhood, forces which can now be identified with some clarity followingseveral decades of intense srudy by social scientists.s3 These inhibitingforces consist of parental childrearing practices which are able "to set

II,l1IJ

1

1,04'Il

,,

-

Whac Do Fathm Do? 155clear rules, to monitor behavior, and to make rewards contingent ongood behavior and punishment contingent on bad behavior"'1 The development of empathy in children, in turn, is strongly associated withchildrearing approaches that involve reasoning \vith children (ratherthan disciplining without reasoning), teaching about the consequencesof their actions on others, and eschewing authoritarian and/or harshdisciplinary methods.ssIt is entirely possible, of course, for a single mother to follow thesechildrearing practices and bring up children who possess a high degreeof social control and empathy, but it is cenainly more difficult for oneparent than for two. The well-known criminologists Michael Gottfredson and 1iavis Hirschi have aptly described the siruation:

The single parent (usually a woman) must devote a good deal to supponand maintenance activities that are at least to some extent shared in thetwo-parent family. Further, she must often do so in the absence of psychological or social suppon . As a result, she is less able to devote time to monitoring and punishment and is more likely to be involved in negative, abusive contacts with her children.56The single mother's predicament is borne out by extensive social sci

ence findings. Much antisocial behavior a mong teenagers is pee r-grouprelated, for example, and it has been found that children from singlepm.::nt families are especially sus ceptible to antisocial peer p r P . s s u r e s . ~The National Health Examination Survey of 1966-1970, a representative sample of 6, 710 noninstirutiona lized youth of ages twelve to seventeen which compared mother-only families with families containingboth biological parents, concluded that:

Mother-only households are . . . associated with panicular patterns of fam-ily decision making and adolescent deviance, even when family income andparental education are controlled. In contrast to adolescents in householdswith two narural parents. youth in mother-only households are perceivedas more likely to make decisions without direct parental input and morelikely 10 exhibit deviant behavior. The presence of an additional adult in amother-only household, especially [or males, is associated with increasedparental control and a reduction in various forms of adolescentdeviance . . . We believe that a major reason for the increased deviance ofyouths in mother-only households is the absence of the second adult."58

The Second AdultUnfortunately, not just any "second adult" will suffice. What about asecond mother? In addition to the obvious desirability of providing amale role model, something two women cannot do, a father brings to

)

000847

g


7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

32/35



7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

33/35

(158 Why Fathers MatterFATHERS AND UNWED TEEN CHILDBEARINGJust as fathers are imponam for preventing male delinquency and vio-lence, so are they imponant for preventing another of the major socialproblems of our time-unwed teen childbearing. And as in the case ofmale delinquency, we now have a good understanding of what fathersdo that is so consequential.

The classic work on the relationship between father involvementand the sexual and personality development of adolescent girls wasdone in the early 1970s by the prominent University of Virginia psychologist E. Mavis Hetherington.70 Although methodologically unsophisticated by today's standards, the smdy, which followed the lives ofadolescent girls into adulthoo d, sharply points up some central themesthat have been verified by later, more rigorous, analyses.

Hetherington classified her femak adolescent subjects into threegroups: those from intact, father-present families; those who had losttheir fathers through divorce; and those who had lost their fathersthrough death. Even before analyzing her first interview results, shecame up with a striking finding. The interviewing was done by a maleinterviewer seated in a room with a desk and three other chairs. Onechair was located very near the interviewer, a second was on the otherside of the desk, and the third was about three feet away. Remarkabledifferences between the girls in the three groups were r e v e ; : ~ l e d by whichchair they selected and by their behavior toward the male interviewer.

Girls from the father-present families rook the chair tha t wasmedium-distant from the interviewer, and they related to the interviewer naturally and with ease. Girls from the divorced families tendedto take the chair closest to the i n t e r v i r and assumed a rather seductive, sprawling, open posture. They leaned forward toward the interviewer and smiled more th an the girls from the other groups. The girlsfrom widowed families took the chair furthest from the interviewer andtended to sit upright, often looking away from the interviewer and norspeaking very much.

The interactions which these girls had with the interviewer provedto be highly indicative of the relationships they had with males in general. The girls from intact families related to boys easilyand on theirown terms. They showed a quiet confidence in heterosexual relationships. The girls whose fathers had died tended to avoid boys and to beshy and inhibited when boys were around. Similarly, it was learned thatduring recreation center dances at school, they stayed at t he girls' end,often in the back of a group of girls.

The girls from divorced homes, in contrast, sought out boys moreand were more seductive toward them. AI the recreation center dances,

l!il1,j'l

I

4.'t,.,

What Do Fathers Do? 159they spent much of their time at the boys' end of the stag line. Theytended to be relatively promiscuous, eng;:ging in more and earlier sexual relationships. Later investigation showed that they were more likelyto marry at an earlier age than fem ales in the other groups, often to inappropriate men; to become pregnant before marriage; and evenruallyto divorce.

As might be guessed, the interview responses found that the girls fromintact homes had generally positive perceptions of their fathers,while thegirls of divorce had very negative perceptions. The girls whose fathershad died tended to remember their fathers wi th idealized images.

Fathers are the first and most imponant men in the lives of girls.Theyprovide male role models, accustoming their daughters to male-femalerelationships. Engaged and responsive fathers play with their daughtersand guide them into challenging activities. They protect them, providingthem with a sense of physical and emotional security. Girls with adequate fathering are more able, as they grow to develop consuuctiveheterosexual relationships based on uusr and intimacy.71

A number of srudies have found that girls with involved fathers havea srronger "internal locus of conrrol." That is, they are more independent and self-possessed, more likely ro assume responsibility for theconsequences of their actions, and more likely to perceive themselvesas masters of their own fare J 2 Stronger internal control has been foundto be associated not only with lower levels of problem behaviors buralso with higher academic achievement and overall self-es teem..

For girls whose fathers are not involved, many positive character andpersonality traits fail to be developed. Girls deprived of strong relationships with their fathers rend to grow up with the perception tha t menare irresponsible and unrrusrworthy As adolescents they common ly become obsessed with heterosexual relationships. ln a desperate searchfor substirute forms of male affection, some have inappropriate sexualcontacts, become overly dependent on men, and allow men to take advantage of them. Studies in many different culrures have found thesame pattern : Father-deprived girls "show precocious sexual interest,derogation of masculinity and males, and poo r ability to maintain sexual and emotional adjusunenr with one male."73

Teen PromiscuityThere may be an evolutionary basis for the problematic sexual behaviorof adolescent girls from father-deprived households, just as for the hypermasculine behavior of father-deprived adolescent males discussedabove. ln line with the central assumption that people are predisposed

000849



7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

34/35



7/27/2019 2:13-cv-00217 #43

35/35

l_ (162 Why Fachm Macro-voluntary relinquishment of power by males as from a takeover of thatpower through economic means. The authority srructures of virtuallyevery society in the world have been, and mostly still are, dominatedby males, yet in some societies men have been willing to share some oftheir power with women. What causes men to do this? The answermay lie in the way in which they were socialized in childhood. Here iswhat Scott Colrrane found: "Societies with father-present patterns ofchild socialization produce men who are less inclined to excludewomen from public activities than their counterparts in father-absentsocieties. "79

The linkage between male attitudes toward women in adulthoodand the socialization of males in childhood was an early insight o f Margaret Mead. In Male and Female (1949) she wrote of male exclusionaryattitudes toward women in societies where men are relatively uninvolved in childrearing:

ln a great number of societies men's sureness of their sex role is tied up withtheir right, or ability, to practice o n n ~ activity that women are not allowed topractice. Their maleness, in fact, has to be underwriuen by preventingwomen from entering some field or performing some feat. Here may befound the relationship between maleness and pride; that is, a need for prestige that will outstrip the prestige which is accorded to any woman . oBoys who grow up in societies where they have involved fathers and

strong male role models, in contrast, do not have the same need to reject and dominate women and create exclusionary, all-male activities.BIMoreover, just as a strong sexual division of labor in childrearing generates a srrong sexual division of labor in society as a whole, as NancyChodorow has pointed out in her book The Reproduction of Mothering,so does male-female cooperation in childrearing lead to an expectationthat there will be male-female cooperation in other areas of life.82 Tasksharing in the home seems to uanslate into task sharing in public life.It may also be the case that involved fathers sex-type their children lessand thus promote in their daughters the kind of self-confidence andsense of autonomy that enables them to be stronger participants in thepublic sector. There is some evidence to that effecr.BJThe association between the contribution of fathers to childrearingand the public status of women needs more study and analysis, but theevidence available leads to the conclusion that as fatherlessness grows,women's status will drop. The underlying social process involved,again, is that the relationship boys (and girls) have with their fatherswhen they are growing up has a significant impact on their adult behavior and consequently on larger societal issues and problems.

) ) .

l

Whac Do Fathm Do? 163CONCLUDING REMARKSFathers are far more than just "second adults" in the home. Involvedfathers--especially biological fathers-bring positive benefits to theirchildren that no other person is as likely to bring. They provide protection and economic support and male role models. They have a parenting style that is significantly different from that of mothers, and the dif-ference is important in healthy child development. According to theevidence, fathers make important contributions to their children's intellectual competence, prosocial and compassionate behavim; and psychological well-being.

Father involvement in childrearing also brings an important benefitto women: It raises their public status. Children raised by involved fa-thers grow up to become adults who are more respectful of women andmore willing to share with women broad social power and authority.

Clearly, expectations for fathers have been changing. From their ancient roles of protector and provider, men are being a.Sked today toraise children pretty much as women have always done. Just how malleable are men in the fathering process? Are men really cut out to be"new fathers"? What did fathers actually do in the thousands of societies that existed prior to modem times? How are other societies orga-nized to maximize paternal investments? To answer such questions wemust go to the roots-to the biology of males and tht.. au:t!t-femalebond and to the evolution and anthropology of fatherhood. These arethe subjects of the following chaptet

000851


2:13-cv-00217 #43

Documents