Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes

Social Science Research

Volumn 53, Issue , 2015, Pages 300-310

  Adams, Jimi ^a   Light, Ryan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Citation networks; Same sex parents; Same sex unions; Scientific consensus; Sociology of law

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BIBLIOMETRICS; CHILD; CHILD PARENT RELATION; CHILD REARING; CHILD WELFARE; CONSENSUS; EXPERT WITNESS; FAMILY SIZE; HOMOPHOBIA; HOMOSEXUALITY; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MARRIAGE; PARENT; SCIENCE; SOCIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; BIBLIOMETRICS; CHILD; CHILD REARING; CHILD WELFARE; CONSENSUS; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; HOMOPHOBIA; HOMOSEXUALITY; HUMANS; MARRIAGE; PARENTING; PARENTS; SCIENCE; SOCIAL SCIENCES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84934923015     PISSN: 0049089X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. ABA, American Bar Association, 2006. Resolution 122b.
2. Acker James R. Social science in supreme court criminal cases and briefs: the actual and potential contribution of social scientists as Amici Curiae. Law Hum Behav. 1990, 14(1):25-42.
3. APA, American Psychological Association, 2013a. American Medical Assocation, American Academy of Pediatrics, California Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, National Association of Social Workers and its California Chapter and California Psychological Association. Brief of Amici Curiae on the Merits in Support of Affirmance; Hollingsworth V. Perry, Article 12-144.
4. APA, American Psychological Association, 2013b. The American Academy Of Pediatrics, The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The California Medical Association, The National Association Of Social Workers and its New York City and State Chapters and The New York State Psychological Association. Brief of Amici Curiae on the Merits in Support of Affirmance; Us V. Windsor, Article 12-307.
5. ASA, American Sociological Association, 2013. Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent Kristin M. Perry and Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor. Hollingsworth V. Perry & Us V. Windsor, Article 12-144, 12-307.
6. Batagelj Vladimir, Mrvar Andrej Pajek: analysis and visualization of large networks. Graph Drawing Software, Mathematics and Visualization 2003, Springer. M. Junger, P. Mutzel (Eds.).
7. Bersoff Donald N. Social science data and the supreme court: lockhart as a case in point. Am. Psychol. 1987, 42(1):52-58.
8. Bielby, Willam T., 2003. Expert Report of William T. Bielby, Ph.D., Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores. (retrieved 20.04.15). http://walmartclass.com/staticdata/reports/r3.html.
9. Blondel Vincent D., Guillaume Jean-Loup, Lambiotte Renaud, Lefebvre Etienne Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech. 2008, 10:10008-10020. 10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008.
10. Borgatti Stephen P., Everett Martin G. A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Soc. Networks 2006, 28:466-484.
11. Brandes Ulrik, Delling Daniel, Gaertler Marco, Gorke Robert, Hoefer Martin, Nikoloski Zoran, Wagner Dorothea On finding graph clusterings with maximum modularity. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2007, 4769:121-132.
12. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 2011. U.S. Supreme Court, 564 U.S.
13. Cheng, Simon, Powell, Brian, 2015. Measurement, methods, and divergent patterns: reassessing the effects of same-sex parents. Soc. Sci. Res. (0). doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.04.005.
14. Collins H.M., Evans Robert. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2002, 32(2):235-296. 10.1177/0306312702032002003.
15. Csárdi Gábor, Nepusz Tamás The Igraph software package for complex network research. Int. J. Complex Syst. 2006, 1695.
16. Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 1993. U.S. Supreme Court. 509 U.S. 579.
17. Evans John H. Consensus and knowledge production in an academic field. Poetics 2007, 35(1):1-21. 10.1016/j.poetic.2007.01.001.
18. Fortunato Santo Community detection in graphs. Phys. Rep. 2010, 486:75-174. 10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002.
19. Grunwald Ben K. Suboptimal social science and judicial precedent. Univ. Pennsyl. Law Rev. 2012, 161:1409-1443.
20. Hatzenbuehler Mark L., McLaughlin K.A., Keyes K.M., Hasin D.S. The impact of institutional discrimination on psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay and bisexual populations: a prospective study. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100:452-459.
21. Herek G.M. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science perspective. Am. Psychol. 2006, 61:607-621.
22. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013. U.S. Supreme Court 570 U.S.
23. Kimball David C. Judges are not social scientists (yet). Elect. Law J. 2013, 12:324-326. 10.1089/elj.2013.1238.
24. Lockhart v. McCree, 1986. U.S. Supreme Court, 476 U.S. 162.
25. Manning Wendy D., Smock Pamela J., Majumdar D. The relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for children. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 2004, 23:135-159.
26. Marks Loren Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: a closer examination of the American Psychological Association's Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting. Soc. Sci. Res. 2012, 41(4):735-751. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006.
27. Mitchell Gregory, Monahan John, Walker Laurens The Asa's missed opportunity to promote sound science in court. Sociol. Methods Res. 2011, 40(4):605-620. 10.1177/0049124111412714.
28. Monahan John, Walker Laurens Social authority: obtaining, evaluating, and establishing social science in law. Univ. Pennsyl. Law Rev. 1986, 134(3):477-517.
29. Monahan, John, Walker, Laurens, 2009. Social Science in Law: Cases and Materials, vol. 7th ed. Foundation Press.
30. Muller v. Oregon, 1908. U.S. Supreme Court 208 U.S. 412.
31. NAACP v. Husted, 2014. U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 14-3756.
32. Navon Daniel, Shwed Uri The chromosome 22q11.2 deletion: from the unification of biomedical fields to a new kind of genetic condition. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75(9):1633-1641. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.023.
33. Newman, Mark E., Girvan, M., 2004. Finding and Evaluating Community Structure in Networks. Physical Review E. 69: no.026113.
34. Newman Mark E.J. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2006, 103(23):8577-8582.
35. Nielsen Laura Beth, Myrick Amy, Weinberg Jill Siding with science: in Defense of ASA's Dukes Vs. Wal-Mart Amicus Brief. Sociol. Methods Res. 2011, 40(4):646-667. 10.1177/0049124111424128.
36. Oreskes Naomi The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 2004, 306(5702):1686. 10.1126/science.1103618.
37. Pafford, Abram J., et al., 2013. Amici Curiae Brief of Social Science Professors in Support of Hollingsworth and Blag. Hollingsworth V. Perry & Us V. Windsor, Article 12-144, 12-307.
38. Parents Involved in Community Schools V. Seattle School District No. 1 et al., 2007. U.S. Supreme Court. 551 U.S. 701.
39. Perrin Andrew J., Cohen Philip N., Caren Neal Are children of parents who had same-sex relationships disadvantaged? A scientific evaluation of the no-differences hypothesis. J. Gay Lesbian Mental Health 2013, 17(3):327-336. 10.1080/19359705.2013.772553.
40. Porter Mason A., Onnela Jukka-Pekka, Mucha Peter J. Communities in Networks. Notices of the AMS 2009, 56(9):1082-1097. 164-166.
41. Regnerus Mark How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the new family structures study. Soc. Sci. Res. 2012, 41(4):752-770. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.009.
42. Sci2 Team, 2009. Science of Science (Sci2) Tool. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University and SciTech Strategies.
43. Shelby County V. Holder, 2013. U.S. Supreme Court. 570 U.S.
44. Shwed Uri. Robust science: passive smoking and scientific collaboration with the tobacco industry in the 1970s. Sociol. Sci. 2015, 2:158-185.
45. Shwed Uri, Bearman Peter S. The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2010, 75(6):817-840.
46. Siegel Benjamin S., Perrin Ellen C., et al. Promoting the well-being of children whose parents are Gay or Lesbian. Pediatrics 2013, 131(4):827-830. Committee on psychosocial aspects of child and family health. 10.1542/peds.2013-0376.
47. Sørensen Jesper B., Sharkey Amanda J. The perils of false certainty: a comment on the Asa Amicus Brief in Dukes Vs. Wal-Mart. Sociol. Methods Res. 2011, 40(4):635-645. 10.1177/0049124111424126.
48. Tomaskovic-Devey Donald The politics and practice of sociology in the courts. Sociol. Methods Res. 2011, 40(4):621-634. 10.1177/0049124111422797.
49. Uggen Christopher, Inderbitzin Michelle Public criminologies. Criminol. Public Policy 2010, 9:725-750.
50. United States V. Windsor, 2013. U.S. Supreme Court 570 U.S.
51. US Congress, 1996. Defense of Marriage Act, Article HR 3396.
52. US Congress, 2010. Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act, Article HR 2965 & S.4023.
53. Wal-Mart V. Dukes, 2011. U.S. Supreme Court 564 U.S.
54. Wechsler, Hayley J., Kehn, Andre, Wise, Richard A., Cramer, Robert J., 2015. Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility. Int. J. Law Psychiatry, forthcoming. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.03.008.
55. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 1968. U.S. Supreme Court. 391 U.S. 510.
56. Yan Erija, Ding Ying Scholarly network similarities: how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks and coword networks relate to each other. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2012, 63(7):1313-1326.
57. Yurkewicz, Ilana, 2012. Why Mark Regnerus' Study Shouldn't Matter, Even If It Were the Most Scientifically Robust Study in the World. Scientific American, June 16.